diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/44214.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/44214.txt | 6506 |
1 files changed, 6506 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/44214.txt b/old/44214.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f754d89 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/44214.txt @@ -0,0 +1,6506 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Proceedings, Third National Conference +Workmen's Compensation for Industrial Accidents, by Various + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Proceedings, Third National Conference Workmen's Compensation for Industrial Accidents + +Author: Various + +Release Date: November 18, 2013 [EBook #44214] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 3RD NAT. CONF. WORKMEN'S COMP. *** + + + + +Produced by Audrey Longhurst, JoAnn Greenwood, and the +Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + + + + + Proceedings + + Third National Conference + + Workmen's Compensation For + Industrial Accidents + + + Chicago, June 10-11, 1910 + + + Including + A Brief Report of + The Second National Conference + Washington, January 20, 1910 + + + Copies may be had at fifty cents each from + JOHN B. ANDREWS, _Assistant Secretary_, + Metropolitan Tower, New York City. + + + + +GENERAL OFFICERS. + + + _Chairman_ CHARLES P. NEILL + Commissioner United States Bureau of Labor + + _Vice-Chairman_ CHARLES MCCARTHY + Chief Wisconsin Legislative Reference Library + + _Treasurer_ HENRY W. FARNAM + Yale University + + _Secretary_ H. V. MERCER + Chairman Minnesota Employees Compensation Commission + + _Assistant Secretary_ JOHN B. ANDREWS + Secretary American Association for Labor Legislation + + +EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. + +(In Addition to the General Officers). + + HENRY R. SEAGER, _Chairman_, + Vice-Chairman, New York Commission + + WILLIAM E. MCEWEN, + Member Minnesota Commission + + A. W. SANBORN, + Chairman Wisconsin Commission + + EDWIN R. WRIGHT, + Secretary Illinois Commission + + JAMES A. LOWELL, + Chairman Massachusetts Commission + + WILLIAM B. DICKSON, + Chairman New Jersey Commission + + WILLIAM J. ROHR, + Chairman Ohio Commission + + HENRY W. BULLOCK, + Delegate from Indiana + + JAMES V. BARRY, + Delegate from Michigan + + MILES M. DAWSON, + Member-at-large + + + + + Proceedings + + Third National Conference + + Workmen's Compensation For + Industrial Accidents + + Chicago, June 10-11, 1910 + + Including + A Brief Report of + The Second National Conference + Washington, January 20, 1910 + + + + +CONTENTS + + PAGE. + + I. INTRODUCTORY NOTE, INCLUDING BY-LAWS 3 + + II. PROGRAM 5-6 + + III. PROCEEDINGS 7 + + 1. Friday Forenoon Session, June 10 10 + + 2. Friday Afternoon Session, June 10 39 + + (1) "Worker's Compensation Code," An Outline for Discussion 40 + + 3. Saturday Forenoon Session, June 11 82 + + APPENDIX,--Brief Report of Washington Conference, January 20, 1910 124 + + INDEX 136 + + + Princeton University Press + Princeton, N. J. + + + + +INTRODUCTORY NOTE. + + +The National Conference on Workmen's Compensation for Industrial +Accidents was organized at Atlantic City, July 29-31, 1909. The +second meeting was held in Washington, January 20, 1910. The third +meeting, June 10-11, 1910, was in Chicago. The nature of the +Conference is clearly set forth as follows: + +BY-LAWS. + + 1. The name of this organization shall be the National + Conference on Workmen's Compensation for Industrial Accidents. + + 2. Its purpose shall be to bring together the members of + the commissions and committees of the various States and of + the National Government, representatives to be appointed by + the governors of the different States, and other interested + citizens, to discuss plans of workmen's compensation and + insurance for industrial accidents. + + 3. Its officers shall be a chairman, a vice-chairman, a + secretary, an assistant secretary and a treasurer, to be + elected annually and to hold office until their successors + shall have been elected. + + 4. The business of the organization shall be conducted by an + executive committee, consisting of the officers and of other + members, said committee to represent at least ten different + States. + + 5. The voting members of the Conference shall be the members, + secretaries and counsels of all State Commissions or committees + on the subject, one or more representatives to be appointed by + the governors of different States, and ten members at large to + be elected at any regular meeting of the Conference. + + 6. Individuals and associations of individuals may be + admitted as associate members, and as such, be entitled to + the privileges of the floor and to receive the publication of + the Conference upon the payment of $2.00 per annum for each + such individual member, and $25.00 per annum for each such + association. + + 7. No resolution committing the Conference to any fixed + program, policy or principle, shall be deemed in order at any + of its meetings, except upon unanimous vote. + + 8. The funds of the Conference shall be derived from + contributions from the commissions and committees on the + subject, and from voluntary subscriptions. + +The proceedings of the Atlantic City Conference are published in a +volume of 340 pages, and copies may be had, at fifty cents each, +from H. V. Mercer, of Minneapolis. The proceedings of the Chicago +Conference (including as an Appendix on pages 124-135 a brief report +of the Washington Conference, the proceedings of which have not been +printed _in extenso_), may be had at fifty cents a copy by addressing +John B. Andrews, Metropolitan Tower, New York City. + + + + +PROGRAM + + +Third National Conference on Industrial Accidents and Workmen's +Compensation + +Auditorium Hotel, Chicago + +June 10-11, 1910 + + _Chairman_ CHARLES P. NEILL + Commissioner United States Bureau of Labor + + _Secretary_ H. V. MERCER + Chairman Minnesota Employees' Compensation Commission + + _Assistant Secretary_ JOHN B. ANDREWS + Secretary American Association for Labor Legislation + + +FRIDAY FORENOON SESSION, 9:30 + +BRIEF REPORTS FROM STATE COMMISSIONS + + _Minnesota_: H. V. Mercer, William E. McEwen, George M. Gillette. + + _Wisconsin_: A. W. Sanborn, E. T. Fairchild, John J. Blaine, Wallace + Ingalls, C. B. Culbertson, Walter D. Egan, George G. Brew. + + _New York_: J. Mayhew Wainwright, Joseph P. Cotton, Jr., Henry + R. Seager, Crystal Eastman, Howard R. Bayne, Frank C. Platt, + George A. Voss, Cyrus W. Phillips, Edward D. Jackson, Alfred D. + Lowe, Frank B. Thorn, Otto M. Eidlitz, John Mitchell, George W. + Smith. + + _Illinois_: Ira G. Rawn, E. T. Bent, Robert E. Conway, P. A. + Peterson, Charles Piez, Mason B. Starring, M. J. Boyle, Patrick + Ladd Carr, John Flora, George Golden, Daniel J. Gorman, Edwin R. + Wright. + + _New Jersey_: William D. Dickson, J. William Clark, Samuel Botterill, + John T. Cosgrove, Harry D. Leavitt, Walter E. Edge. + + _Massachusetts_: James A. Lowell, Amos T. Saunders, Magnus W. + Alexander, Henry Howard, Joseph A. Parks. + + _Ohio_: (Members to be appointed by the Governor.) + +GENERAL DISCUSSION "Workers' Compensation Code" + +(Outline for Discussion) + + Representatives of the Federal Government, Members of State + Commissions, Delegates designated by Governors of States, + Representatives of Manufacturers' Associations and Trade + Unions, Insurance Companies, Russell Sage Foundation and + Association for Labor Legislation, and other interested + organizations and individuals. + + +FRIDAY AFTERNOON SESSION, 2:00 + +WORKERS' COMPENSATION CODE (Discussion continued). + + +SATURDAY FORENOON SESSION, 9:30 + +SPECIAL DISCUSSION: + + Classification of Hazardous Employments. + Repeal of Common Law and Statutory Remedies. + Contract vs. Absolute Liability. + Limited Compensation vs. Pension Plan. + Court Administration vs. Boards of Arbitration. + + + + +PROCEEDINGS + +Third National Conference + +Workmen's Compensation For Industrial Accidents + +Chicago, June 10-11, 1910 + + +The third meeting of the National Conference on Workmen's +Compensation for Industrial Accidents brought together from widely +separated parts of the United States a large number of those who +represent the serious thought of the country on this most urgent +question. Members of State Commissions in Minnesota, Wisconsin, +Illinois, New York and Massachusetts were present and submitted +reports. Thirty-eight official delegates were appointed by the +governors of States, and, in addition, representatives were present +from manufacturers' associations, trade unions, insurance companies, +the Russell Sage Foundation, the Association for Labor Legislation, +and other interested organizations. Many individuals from the shops, +the offices and the universities, attended the various sessions and +listened to the arguments of the speakers or participated in the +discussions. + +Among those present who took an active interest in the meetings were: + +Jane Addams, Hull House, Chicago; T. W. Allinson, Henry Booth House, +Chicago; W. A. Allport, Member Illinois Commission on Occupational +Diseases and State Delegate; L. A. Anderson, State Insurance Actuary, +Madison, Wis.; John B. Andrews, Secretary American Association for +Labor Legislation, New York City. + +James V. Barry, State Delegate from Michigan; William P. Belden, +Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company, Mich.; E. T. Bent, Member Illinois +Commission; John J. Blaine, Member of Wisconsin Commission and +State Delegate; M. J. Boyle, Member of Illinois Commission; Frank +Buchanan, Structural Iron Workers' Union, Chicago; Henry W. Bullock, +representing Indiana State Federation of Labor. + +Patrick Ladd Carr, Member Illinois Commission; Robert E. Conway, +Member Illinois Commission; Clarence B. Culbertson, Member Wisconsin +Commission and State Delegate. + +Edgar T. Davies, Chief Factory Inspector of Illinois and State +Delegate; Miles M. Dawson, Insurance Actuary, New York City; F. S. +Deibler, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill.; M. M. Duncan, State +Delegate from Michigan. + +Crystal Eastman, Secretary and Member New York Commission; Herman L. +Ekern, Deputy Commissioner of Insurance, Wisconsin. + +Henry W. Farnam, President American Association for Labor +Legislation, New Haven, Conn.; John Flora, Member Illinois +Commission; Lee K. Frankel, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, New +York City; Ernst Freund, University of Chicago and President Illinois +Branch A. A. L. L. + +John H. Gray, University of Minnesota and President of Minnesota +Branch, A. A. L. L.; John M. Glenn, Director Russell Sage Foundation, +New York City; George Golden, Member Illinois Commission; Daniel J. +Gorman, Member Illinois Commission. + +Walter D. Haines, Member Illinois Commission on Occupational Diseases +and State Delegate; Alice Hamilton, Expert Investigator Illinois +Commission on Occupational Diseases; Samuel A. Harper, Attorney +Illinois Commission; Leonard W. Hatch, Statistician, New York State +Department of Labor; Charles R. Henderson, Secretary Illinois +Commission on Occupational Diseases and State Delegate; J. C. A. +Hiller, Missouri Commissioner of Labor and State Delegate; Frederick +L. Hoffman, Statistician Prudential Insurance Company, Newark, New +Jersey. + +Wallace Ingalls, Member Wisconsin Commission and State Delegate. + +Sherman Kingsley, United Charities, Chicago. + +Thomas F. Lane, Missouri State Delegate; Julia Lathrop, Director +Chicago School of Civics; James A. Lowell, Chairman Massachusetts +Commission. + +Charles McCarthy, Chief Wisconsin Legislative Reference Library; +Edwin M. McKinney, Chicago; Ruben McKitrick, University of Wisconsin; +Floyd R. Mechem, University of Chicago; H. V. Mercer, Chairman +Minnesota Commission and State Delegate; H. E. Miles, National +Manufacturers' Association and Racine-Sattley Company, Racine, Wis.; +John Mitchell, Member New York Commission; William H. Moulton, +Sociological Department, Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company, Mich. + +Cecil Clare North, De Pauw University, Indiana. + +Irene Osgood, Assistant Secretary American Association for Labor +Legislation, New York City. + +Joseph A. Parks, Member Massachusetts Commission; P. A. Peterson, +Member Illinois Commission; Charles Piez, Member Illinois Commission; +Ralph F. Potter, Attorney Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation, +Chicago. + +Samuel Rabinovitch, Milwaukee Relief Society; G. A. Ranney, +International Harvester Company, Chicago; Benjamin Rastall, +University of Wisconsin; A. Duncan Reid, Ocean Accident and Guarantee +Corporation, New York; C. T. Graham Rogers, Medical Inspector New +York Department of Labor; David Ross, Secretary Illinois State Bureau +of Labor. + +Amos T. Saunders, Member Massachusetts Commission; A. W. Sanborn, +Chairman Wisconsin Commission and State Delegate; Ferd. C. +Schwedtman, National Association of Manufacturers, St. Louis; Henry +R. Seager, Member New York Commission and President of the New York +Branch, A. A. L. L.; A. M. Simons, Chicago; Geo. W. Smith, Member New +York Commission; John T. Smith, Secretary Missouri State Federation +of Labor; Mason B. Starring, Member Illinois Commission; H. Wirt +Steele, Charity Organization Society, Baltimore, Md.; Ethelbert +Stewart, United States Bureau of Labor; Charles A. Sumner, City Club, +Kansas City, Missouri. + +Edward G. Trimble, Employers' Indemnity Exchange, Houston, Texas; +James H. Tufts, University of Chicago. + +Paul J. Watrous, Secretary Wisconsin Commission and State Delegate; +Agnes Wilson, United Charities, Chicago; Edwin R. Wright, Member and +Secretary Illinois Commission. + + + + +FIRST SESSION, FRIDAY, JUNE 10, 1910, 9.30 A. M. + + +In the absence of Commissioner Charles P. Neill, of the United States +Bureau of Labor, who was detained in Washington by urgent official +matters, the first session of the Chicago Conference was opened by +the Secretary, H. V. Mercer, Chairman of the Minnesota Employes +Compensation Commission, and he was unanimously elected temporary +chairman for the Chicago meetings. + +In formally opening the Conference and assuming the chair, Mr. Mercer +said: + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: According to the program here, the first order +of business for this meeting is brief reports from the different +state commissions. I understand there are seven States that have +commissions working on the question of compensation for industrial +accidents, or perhaps, more properly speaking, for injuries occurring +in the course of and arising out of the industries in which they +are employed,--for "accidents," according to the courts in some +States, do not mean what we want to cover. Some courts use that term +in the popular sense; some use it as including, and some use it as +excluding, any idea of fault or negligence. + +In view of the fact that you have made me temporary chairman, it +would hardly be proper for me to open this meeting with a report from +Minnesota, and hence I will call upon the other States first. + +(Upon the Call of States by the Chairman, the following responses +were given.) + + +WISCONSIN. + +SENATOR JOHN J. BLAINE: Our Committee is a legislative committee made +up of three members of the Senate and four members of the Assembly. +The committee was appointed at the last session of the Legislature +in 1909. They have been diligently pursuing the course of their +investigations with the object of arriving at a bill which the +committee can recommend to the Legislature for its adoption. It was a +few months before we got to work after our appointment and it was not +until last April that we drafted the first tentative bills. + +I would state briefly that the first tentative bills were drafted +with the object of drawing out discussion on the part of the +employers and employes. We had held some meetings previously, and +those who appeared before us were somewhat in the dark as to just +what we intended to do and wanted to do, and therefore we drafted +tentative bills to which they should direct their fire of criticisms +and suggestions. + +The first bill presented was a bill destroying the common law +defenses, assumption of risk, the co-employe doctrine, and modifying +contributory negligence to that of comparative negligence. The second +of the first tentative bills was a compensation measure. The purpose +of the first bill was to use a "constitutional coercion," as we have +termed it, making the compensation bill practically compulsory, but +not in the language of the bill declaring it compulsory, hoping +in this way to bring it within the constitution. That destroyed +the common law defenses and then gave the employer the right to +come under the compensation act. Also in that bill the employe was +presumed to be acting under that bill unless he contracted to the +contrary at the time of entering his employment. + +The matter of compensation and the details of the bill are not of +particular interest to the Conference, because they are questions +concerning which there is very little contention, and they resolve +themselves practically to the point of working out the question +of arbitration and the measure of compensation and the manner of +arriving at compensation, and such court procedure as is necessary, +in detail. + +We found that our first tentative bills performed the exact object +which we intended they should. Neither the committee nor any of +its members, I believe, had any idea that the first tentative +bills represented their individual ideas or even the idea of the +committee as a whole; but they certainly resulted in bringing about +discussion, and after those bills were sent about the State to +employers and employes they all got busy and we had very valuable +and helpful discussions upon those bills. We held a conference in +Milwaukee lasting about a week. There appeared before the committee +representatives of the Merchants' and Manufacturers' Association of +Milwaukee, and from the northern part of the State representatives +of the lumber and various other industries. We also had the State +Federation of Labor. + +After that meeting we met again in May and drafted our second +set of tentative bills, the first bill destroying the defense and +assumption of risk, and also the co-employes doctrine as a defense, +but embodying the question of contributory negligence. That bill, +if enacted into law, independent of every other act, would make all +employers of every nature subject to the law, whether the employer +was a farmer, a manufacturer or whatsoever he might be. The second +bill provided practically the same as our other bill. + +We found at these public hearings that the question of who shall +pay for the insurance, as it is called, is not a matter of great +contention in Wisconsin. I think the larger manufacturers, and +the great majority of all of them, favor paying the compensation +themselves and either assuming the obligation, or organizing +mutual insurance companies or protecting themselves with liability +insurance policies. There are a few who believe that the employes +should contribute a small portion toward the compensation, but I do +not believe that is the general sentiment among the employers and +manufacturers in Wisconsin. + +I think the only serious problem we have to meet is whether we shall +take away the common law right from the employe. The Federation of +Labor of Wisconsin is very much opposed to that feature of our bill, +and personally I am opposed to it. I have expressed that opposition +at all the hearings and directed many questions along that line to +ascertain the sentiment of employers and employes. + +Our bill creates the presumption that an employe is acting under +the act unless he contracts to the contrary at the time of his +employment, and of course the idea of that is to get around the +constitutional provisions; therefore, there will be consent to act +under the law, and consent to arbitration, and hence it will no doubt +be constitutional. But the employes, through their representatives, +believe that they should have the right of selection after the injury +has occurred. The Federation bill that they have prepared, follows +practically the same lines as the English act, giving the double +remedy of a common law right of action, and then also compensation +in case of their failure to recover under the common law; but they +have gone so far, through their representatives, as to state that +they would not ask for that provision in its entirety. While I am +not going to speak authoritatively as to just what they will or will +not do, I think it is their idea that if they are given the right +to elect at the time or within a reasonable time of the injury, +whether they shall proceed under the common law remedy or accept the +provisions of the compensation act, that they will be willing to +waive the double remedy, and whichever act the employe chooses to +proceed under, will be a waiver of all other remedies. + +That question is going to be debated by both sides and I think if +we are going to meet with any danger of defeat in promoting this +legislation it will be upon that one subject, and personally I hope +that the employers will find that under a reasonable bill, with +reasonable compensation and protection drawn about them, so there +will be no danger to mulct them in any great damages, that they will +be willing to accept some provision giving the employes the right of +election at the time of the injuries. + +Under the second tentative bill we have had public hearings +throughout the State, particularly in the industrial centers, +and concluded those hearings last Friday. We expect to meet as a +committee, redraft our bills and get them into substantial form, and +then I suppose, after we have determined what the committee intends +to do as a committee in submitting its report to the Legislature +on the essential points, we will then have public hearings and the +questions that are debatable will be debated before that committee at +these hearings, and then we will make our report accordingly. + + +NEW YORK. + +MISS CRYSTAL EASTMAN: The New York Commission is in a peculiarly +fortunate position. Our bills have both passed and one of them has +already been signed by the Governor, so that to-day our labors would +be all over and we could return to rest, except for the fact that we +still have to inquire into the causes and prevention of industrial +accidents, the causes and effects and remedies of non-employment, and +the causes and remedies for the lack of farm labor in New York State. +You will see from this that we received a life sentence on the New +York Commission. The Legislature evidently thought it would give to +us the solution of all the problems of modern industry and keep the +reformers quiet for fifty years. However, we have finished up the +Employers' Liability part of our job and we feel that we have done +our part of the work in that regard and now have put it up to the +Legislature. + +When I was planning what I should say here, I rather thought I would +discuss the two bills which we have introduced, and passed, and leave +out the discussion of how we did the work, but since I have come here +I believe it is more important to tell you how we did it, and take it +for granted that you know about the bills and are familiar with them. + +Our work, to my mind, is divided into five different sections. In the +first place we had reports specially prepared for the Commission, +one on the Employers' Liability Law in New York State and the other +States. That was prepared by our counsel and sent to every member of +the Commission early last summer. Then we had a report prepared on +the Foreign Systems of Compensation and Insurance: That was mailed +to the members of the Commission for their information. Then we had +a report on Relief Associations in New York State, which was very +voluminous and was not generally mailed, but was kept in the office +for reference. + +The next section of our work was printed inquiries sent to all the +employers whom we could get the names of from the State Department of +Labor, and to all labor unions on record. These inquiries were just +about the same as those sent to the employers, and in a general way +we asked both the labor unions and the employers what they thought of +the present law on employers' liability, how they thought it met the +situation; and we asked them how they would like a law on workmen's +compensation, describing it very briefly. We received replies from +only a small proportion of the inquiries we sent out, but a large +enough number to give us some general idea of the feeling of both the +employers and the laboring people in the State on this subject. I can +say positively, however, that we found no satisfaction; practically +nobody liked the law. The employers disliked it for one reason and +the workmen disliked it for another, and so nobody was satisfied with +it. + +Another printed inquiry we sent to the insurance companies. This was +more in the line of investigation, however, as we got from them not +opinions so much as figures showing how much they had received in +premiums from employers for liability insurance, and what proportion +of this had been spent in paying actual claims, thus showing us what +proportion was, so to speak, wasted in the business of defending +claims. + +We then wrote letters, not printed inquiries, but letters containing +a list of questions to a great many lawyers, and to all the judges in +the State, asking their opinion about the constitutional questions +involved. That, I think, ended the inquiry section of our work. + +Then we held public hearings, five or six up the State and as many +in New York City, and tried to make the invitations as general as +we could. Many of us felt that those hearings were not going to be +important and perhaps were a waste of money, but after we had them +I believe we all felt that they were worth while. They perhaps did +not furnish us with any definite statistical information, but they +did put us in touch with the feelings of the people of the State +on this subject, and gave us a more concrete view of the subject +than we could have gotten by correspondence or by any statistical +inquiry, and brought us in touch with the people on both sides of +the question, who were interested in the problem. But quite apart +from the value to us, of these written inquiries and of the public +hearings, in informing us on the situation, they were valuable in +arousing interest all over the State, and in educating the public in +regard to the problem. + +We were particularly gratified to see the way in which labor unions +seized the opportunity to become interested and to educate themselves +in regard to employers' liability and workmen's compensation. When +we started out last fall most of the labor unions that answered our +inquiries did not know what we were talking about, and now I hardly +think there is a union of any size in the State that is not in a +position to know what it wants in the matter of employers' liability +and workmen's' compensation. + +The next section of our work was statistical inquiry--a regular +statistical investigation. The bulk of this was done for us under Mr. +Hatch's direction at the New York State Labor Department. A study +was made of some fourteen hundred actual industrial accident cases, +both injury and death, to show what was the loss of income to the man +injured, how much he received from the employer, how much he paid to +a lawyer and what was the effect of the accident upon his family; in +other words, a study of the economic cost of work accidents. + +In addition to that Mr. Hatch conducted an inquiry into the cost +of industrial accidents to some three hundred employers, showing +how much they paid in a year on account of industrial accidents and +into what different channels that money went; how much of it went to +employers' liability and insurance premiums; how much went to the +workmen and how much to the hospitals and so forth. All of this was +exceedingly valuable in giving us information as to the conditions in +our own State. + +In addition to this the Commission conducted a similar investigation +of three hundred fatal industrial accident cases to determine their +economic effect upon the family and the income loss, of compensation +received and all that. These fatal accident cases we secured in a +perfectly impartial way by taking a year's fatal industrial accidents +reported to the coroners of Manhattan Borough and Erie County, +where Buffalo is situated. As a result of these two inquiries we +have a mass of statistics on this subject. We were able to put +into our report a statement, from the statistics, of just about +what proportion of workmen who were injured received anything to +compensate them for the income loss, and with regard to the workmen +killed, what proportion of the dependents received anything. Those +four divisions, I think, cover our preliminary work. + +Then came the business of preparing and writing the report. The rough +draft was prepared by two or three members of the Commission, and +the counsel, in different sections. When it was in printed proof for +the first time, Senator Wainwright, the chairman, called the whole +Commission together and informed us that he intended to make us read +the whole report aloud, all sitting together, so that every member of +the Commission might feel that he had written the report and that it +was his report. That idea astounded me, I will admit, when I first +heard it, because I thought it was going to take us the rest of the +year to do it; but it turned out to be a very excellent plan, and +we actually did that. We sat down for three days without stopping, +except for meals, and read the report aloud, and there is no member +of the Commission who did not make suggestions, and valuable +suggestions, and I think I may say that we all feel that it is our +report. + +When it came to the bills which we introduced we followed somewhat +the same plan. We went over every line and word of the bills, of +course in much greater detail than we did the report, and the bills +are the result of a giving in here and a giving in there, as you can +readily imagine. They did not represent just exactly what every one +of us wanted to do, but they represent what we could agree to do, and +the Legislature has done us the honor to take our advice. + +And now just a word in regard to these bills. The first one is +called the Optional Bill. It does two things: It remedies the glaring +injustice of the present law on the basis of negligence by modifying +the fellow-servant rule, by making all fellow-servants in positions +of authority vice-principals instead of fellow-servants; by doing +away with the extreme application of the assumption of risk rule +which allows an employe to assume the risk of an employe's negligence +by remaining in employment, and changes the burden of proof of +contributory negligence over to the defendant. Those three things +we felt it to be necessary to change in the employer's liability +law on the basis of negligence, even if we never changed it in any +other particular. In addition to this feature of the bill, there +is afforded to the employes and employers, if they wish to escape +this situation, by an amendment to the employer's liability law, the +opportunity of making a contract. That is the option feature of the +bill; there is nothing particularly interesting or original about +that. Some members of the Commission were for it because it would +force the employers into compensation, and some members were for it +because they thought it remedied an injustice in the present law +which they could not stand for, but, at any rate, all but two of us +were able to agree on that. + +Then the second bill, which we call the Compulsory Compensation Act +for dangerous trades, is our solution of two difficulties which we +met and which, no doubt, all of the other commissions are having to +meet. These two difficulties are the constitutional difficulty, the +fact that we have written constitutions limiting our powers along all +these lines; and, secondly, the interstate competitive difficulty, +the fact that in this country our laws are made by States and we have +state legislative lines, but no state competitive lines--the old cry +of the manufacturer, that if you put a burden upon him in New York +State he cannot compete with a manufacturer in Pennsylvania and New +Jersey, and will, therefore, either have to go out of business or out +of the State. That difficulty of interstate competition we felt to be +a real one. Whether it would actually drive the manufacturer out of +business or not, it would inevitably hinder the passing of our bill, +because the manufacturers of the State in a body would oppose it. + +The constitutional difficulty, to be a little more definite, in +our case seemed to be pretty serious; we had only two lawyers in +the State who wrote us that they thought a general compulsory +compensation act similar to the English law would be constitutional, +but we had a great deal of advice to the effect that if we could draw +our bill so it would apply to the risk of the trade, and make the +compensation depend upon the inherent risk of the trade, that that +would be constitutional. + +With these two difficulties in mind we drew the bill applying to +dangerous trades. As you know, it provides compensation for all +workmen injured in eight specially dangerous trades, if they were +injured either through the fault of the employer or any of his +agents, which is plainly perfectly constitutional; or if they were +injured in any sense through any risk inherent or necessary as a risk +of the trade. The bill does not take away any statutory or common law +rights that the workman now has, but he must choose between one or +the other. If he begins proceedings under the compensation act, he +loses his right to sue and _vice versa_. + +The importance of this bill, in my mind, is very great. I think +that is the way to go at it in this country. If the employer and +the workman both profit by the enterprise they should both assume +the risk of the trade, and that principle, I think, is what is +established by our compulsory compensation bill. + +I want to make clear that the list of dangerous trades in this law +is not an inclusive list of dangerous trades by any means. There +is no reason why we should draw the line where we did draw it. Our +reason in selecting these dangerous trades instead of all dangerous +trades, as we originally had our list drawn, was a purely utilitarian +opportunist reason. It was our solution of the second legislative +difficulty in this country; that is, the interstate competition. We +thought that it would be a good plan to get our entering wedge in on +the industries which did not directly compete with other industries +outside of the State. For instance, the builder in New York State +competes with the builder in New York State, generally speaking; and +the railroad in New York State competes with the railroad in New York +State, generally speaking, and not with the outside railroads. We are +quite frank in saying that we thought we could get this bill passed +if we did not make it hit the manufacturer to begin with. We intend +that it shall cover him in time, and just as soon as we can, make it +cover him; but it seemed a fair as well as a wise thing to introduce +the principle and get the employers used to the burden, and get +the insurance rate adjusted for injuries, so that it would not be a +serious competitive difficulty. + +Those two reasons, then, explain this bill; we limited it to the +risks of trade instead of having it cover all accidents in the course +of employment, as the representative list did, because we believed +that that was the constitutional line for us to act on, and we +limited it to those dangerous trades which, generally speaking, are +not involved in interstate competition, because we thought we could +pass it easier and it would be fair to try it out on those employers +first. + +PROF. HENRY R. SEAGER (New York): I should like to add just a +word along the line of the practical difficulties that all of our +commissions face when it comes to getting legislation. Some members +of the New York Commission felt that it would be a mistake to try to +make any report at all this last winter when the proposal was first +advanced. We felt that we had a very big problem. That, in addition +to studying the experience in this country and getting reports on +European laws, we ought to send some one over or go over ourselves +to the other side and see just how the European laws operate. The +consideration that finally led us to make a report, and try to get +legislation, was the political situation in New York. + +As the winter advanced it became very clear that it was a highly +opportune time to get through legislation that had popular sentiment +behind it. The legislative members of our Commission were so +impressed by that aspect of the matter that they were impatient, some +of them, to bring in bills without any report at all to back them +up, and that consideration finally led all of us to feel that we +should hurry as much as we could and get in the best report we could +in the short time that was allowed, with the hope that the bills +we recommend, if reasonable and fair, would be passed. It was that +situation that led us to make a report which at some points was not +altogether satisfactory to the members of the Commission; and that +consideration, I think, justified our action because, as it turned +out, the Legislature was in a mood to act on our recommendations. The +voluntary law was a bill, aside from the compensation feature of it, +that had slumbered in Albany for five or six years in spite of the +efforts of the labor representatives to have something done. That +it was a favorable situation was shown by the comparative ease with +which that bill was passed, in somewhat modified form, when we put +ourselves behind it. + +It is those practical considerations, gentlemen, it seems to me, that +we must consider quite as much as the ideal solution of this question +for many years in this country. I say that because as a professor of +political economy, as a theorist, I perhaps would not be expected to +take that view of the matter. + +GEORGE W. SMITH (New York): I was sort of a moderate edition of the +employers' representative on the New York State Commission. I was one +against about thirteen. Of course, you can imagine that my advice +could not have been considered very seriously, but I am willing to +say that they certainly did give me considerable consideration, for +the reason that I was not really a radical against any legislation +that would be fair; and I feel that the employers of New York State +felt largely as I did. + +I cannot help but remark, however, about the point that Professor +Seager raised, of the opportunity that seemed to present itself +at this session of our Legislature. I do not suppose I ought to +criticise, but I hope that similar conditions will not exist in other +States at the time this legislation is up, because I think it is of +a very important character, and should not be put through for any +personal reasons or in order to bring political capital to any of the +legislative members. I suppose it is pretty well known that there +were a great many shattered reputations in the Legislature of New +York State this year, and it is always a pretty handy thing to have +around an opportunity to do something for the boys that work hard for +a living. I do not blame those that were in favor of this legislation +for taking advantage of that very favorable opportunity, but it +certainly was a good opportunity and was well taken advantage of. + +I had to smile, however, on a number of occasions at the attitude +of some of the labor representatives. They did not seem to realize, +a good many of them, how important this legislation was and how +beneficial it was to them; but if they could have gone behind the +scenes, and had a heart-to-heart talk with some of the employers, +they would have realized that the employers did not like it very well. + +As for one of the bills being designated as a voluntary or optional +bill by the removal and absolute wiping out almost of all of the +employers' defenses, it practically makes that almost a compulsory +bill. However, I believe that all the employers in the country +realize that the time has arrived when some fair legislation must be +enacted, and the only thing that I think should be well considered +is not to go so far that you are going to put the country in a bad +financial state. + +PROF. SEAGER: If Mr. Mitchell would say something about the labor +situation when we started out I think it would be very interesting. + +JOHN MITCHELL (New York): The measures have been discussed so +thoroughly by the other members of the Commission that I shall +not attempt to discuss them now. When this Commission was first +appointed in New York State, as Miss Eastman stated, the workmen +knew very little about the systems of compensation in Europe, and +they knew little about the principles of workmen's compensation. +The Commission was appointed not because of a demand for workmen's +compensation, but because of a demand for a comprehensive system of +employers' liability. But after the Commission was appointed, and +it was suggested that they go into an investigation of workmen's +compensation, the unions took the matter up and made investigations +on their own account, and drafted bills which they thought would +cover the matter to their satisfaction. Of course, as was to be +expected, they asked for a rate of compensation that was very much +higher than anything that prevailed in Europe. + +While I, personally, was in sympathy with the workmen in their desire +to have the very best system of compensation that it was possible +to obtain, and one better than any they have in Europe, yet I think +that the more conservative of the trade-union workmen recognized that +we could not go very far beyond the system prevailing in England or +in Great Britain until other States, and particularly the adjoining +States, should also take up the matter. The consequence is, however, +that as the matter was developed, and as the workmen were brought +into the discussion of the matter with the Commission, that very many +of them modified their original demands and were willing to accept +the principles laid down both in the optional and in the compulsory +bills which have passed the Legislature. + +It is, of course, not to be expected, either in New York or anywhere +else, I assume, that the bill passed by the New York Legislature +meets at all the desires of the workingmen. That is to say, they +will continue to ask what they will eventually succeed in having, a +compulsory law that will include all the trades. I think there is +no special demand for a bill to include agricultural and domestic +service. + +The great difficulty right now in New York is concern as to the scale +of compensation. The New York workmen are not satisfied with one-half +wages. They have asked recently that the bill be made full wages. I +think, however, that somewhere between one-half wages and what they +are asking will be accepted as a final solution of the difficulty. + +I want to make this one personal observation about these measures, +and in this respect I think my views are not quite in accord with +the views of all of my fellow-workers. I think the purpose of all +this legislation should be first to do substantial justice to the +workingmen, and I think the second consideration should be to take +out of the courts all this long and expensive litigation, in order +that the money that is not paid by employers, or whatever is paid +by them, may be used for the relief of those who are suffering from +industrial accidents. I do not believe, however, that the workmen +should have the right to sue his employer, and, failing to win his +suit, to go back and receive his compensation. I differ with most +workmen in that respect, because I think if he has the right first +to sue, and, failing to win his suit, to then accept the scale +of compensation, that it is a temptation, an almost irresistible +temptation, for him to sue, because it costs very little to enter the +suit, and inasmuch as he knows in advance that if he fails to win the +suit he will have his compensation any way, too many workmen would +elect to sue perhaps on a contingent fee, and then go back if they +failed to win and take the compensation. I do believe, however, that +he should have the choice of suing under the employer's liability law +or accepting the compensation, but, as I say, I do not think he ought +to have both rights. I believe that perhaps the labor men who have +made the most thorough investigation into the subject will agree with +me that it is a fair proposition to give him his choice, but not both +choices. + + +ILLINOIS. + +MASON B. STARRING (Illinois): The Chairman of the Illinois +Commission, Mr. Rawn, is unavoidably absent to-day and probably will +not be able to attend the conference to-morrow. This second Illinois +Commission is young. The act creating it was passed at a special +meeting of the Legislature, and the appointments to membership on +the Commission are of very recent date. In convening the Commission, +the Governor of the State of Illinois expressed the hope that the +members of the Commission would not indulge in deliberation or +consideration of the features of a bill until first they had fully +advised themselves as to the facts which would necessarily and +properly govern the conclusions which they hoped to attain. Illinois, +therefore, is in the position of being a student of this matter, and +the progress and work of its Commission so far, I believe, to be +largely that of investigation. We come here to learn. And were it not +for the fact that the question of age destroys the illusion, when we +heard the lady from New York (Miss Eastman) speak, we certainly would +have felt that we were "sitting at the feet of Liberty Enlightening +the World." + +I want to suggest to this meeting, Mr. Chairman, that there is no +one connected with our Commission so familiar with all its workings, +looking at it both from the side of the employer and the employe, as +is our secretary. The Commission is composed of six men chosen from +among the most respected and eminent leaders of the workingmen in +the State of Illinois, supplemented by a selection by the Governor +of six men from the ranks of the employers. The Chairman is Ira G. +Rawn, president of the Monon Railroad, and the Secretary is Edwin +R. Wright, president of the Illinois State Federation of Labor. I +would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it might please the members of this +meeting, and certainly it would please the members of the Illinois +Commission, if you would ask Mr. Wright to speak to you. + +EDWIN R. WRIGHT (Illinois): We have not in Illinois progressed far +enough to make any report showing any particular progress. So far we +have been trying to find ourselves, and to find a starting point from +which we can work. It took us a meeting or two to become acquainted +with each other, and another meeting or so to try and understand the +different points of view. + +For years and years we have been going to the Legislature in Illinois +pleading for protection; a measure that would protect our lives, +a measure that would protect those who are dear to us, and year +after year we have failed, until at the present time patience has +almost ceased to be a virtue. We expect this Commission will make an +investigation into how the men in the State of Illinois work and the +compensation that is paid the injured workmen when any compensation +is paid at all, and the relief that is given a man's family after the +breadwinner is sacrificed on the altar of industry. The conditions +are bad in Illinois; I do not believe they are any worse anywhere. +I do not believe a man's' life is worth very much in Illinois. I am +quite sure of it, and before we get through with the investigation I +believe we can show that an employer owning a cart or a wagon, two +good draft horses attached to this wagon and a good driver on the +wagon, if an accident should occur blotting out the team, wagon and +driver, that the employer, through our court system, values each of +the horses attached to the wagon and the driver at about the same +value; one is worth about as much as the other under our present +court system. That is entirely wrong. At least, we believe so. + +To the men who are injured at the present time there is very little +being paid. I believe, and I am speaking my own belief, I am sorry +to say, instead of speaking the opinion of the Commission, that we +should have an automatic compensation law in the State of Illinois, +where the man will know absolutely what he is going to receive if +he is injured; what his family is going to receive if he is killed. +It does not make much difference whether we have a double or single +liability. I prefer, of course, a double liability, but I find that +under our court system a man does not get nearly as much under +the double liability as he could expect to receive under a single +liability law, and that if we would insist upon a double liability in +this State we would have to cut down the other provisions of the bill +to secure it. + +We have progressed far enough to put just exactly this provision in +a circular form in the hands of every trades unionist in the State +of Illinois at the present time, and we are going to find out what +the rank and file of the workers want. Just as soon as the six labor +members on the Commission find out what the workers of the State want +we will then try to incorporate it into the bill. A circular has +also gone forth from the Commission to the employers of the State, +trying to crystallize their ideas into a concrete proposition, and +then the six members of the Commission representing the employers +and the six members representing the workingmen will sit down at +a table and thresh this out just as a committee would do that was +trying to settle a wage scale, and I believe we will arrive at some +understanding; and when we arrive at an understanding with our +employers who represent organized capital in the State of Illinois, +and six trade unionists representing the organized workers in the +State of Illinois, I believe that that position will be accepted by +both sides, and that when we go to the next Legislature they will +incorporate that into law, and it will be signed by the governor and +put into full force and effect. + +I want to say just a word as to why we were anxious to have the +Commission organized as it is. The original plan of the provision +provided that the public should be represented, but the public is not +particularly interested in this matter, not nearly so much as the +other parties. The life of the employer is at stake in this matter. +If we build up conditions so high that he will have to leave the +State or abandon his property, he cannot afford to pay wages to the +workingmen. We, on the other hand, have all we have to lose; we have +not only our trade, but we have our lives at stake, and the public +has no voice in it. Organized capital, through the Manufacturers' +Association, the Mine Operators' Association, and so forth, has a +voice. Organized labor has a voice, but if the public has any voice +at all it does not amount to a great deal in the State of Illinois. +We who have put everything that we possess into the balance in this +matter expect to get something out of it which is definite, just and +fair; and we have good reason to expect that after we have taken +this matter up and threshed it out from one end of the State to the +other that it will be to the advantage of the Legislature to meet us +half-way. I have been in the Legislature as a labor lobbyist for some +years and I have had a little experience in such matters. + +I do not know, Mr. Chairman, as I can enlighten you very much on what +we are going to do. We have taken up the State Bureau of Labor report +which we received from the secretary of the Bureau of Labor, who is +here present, and we tried to get at the real meaning of that report. +We intend to take up the state factory inspector's reports also, and +try to get at and understand the real meaning of all these figures +in these reports. It is one thing to publish column after column of +figures which nobody reads and nobody pays any attention to, but it +is an entirely different proposition to get back of those columns of +figures and see what they stand for. These columns of figures stand +for men's lives and they stand for the happiness of the family; yes, +and they stand for the prosperity of the employer as well. + +In looking up a state report the other day I found an analysis that +interested me. It showed apparently that every householder in the +State of Massachusetts was paying $30 a year indirectly on account of +the industrial accidents and occupational diseases that occurred in +that State. That is where the public comes in; it costs the public +too much. Should not that be shifted back upon the employer, and if +it is shifted back upon the employer, the employer will, if possible, +prevent the accidents, because it costs a great deal less to furnish +suitable protection for the machinery than it does to pay damages to +the injured employe or to the families of those who are killed. + +I want to say this for the trades unions; we do not wish to rob the +employer; we do not wish any bill that will materially injure the +employer. We want to stop the accidents. We do not want damages from +the employers; we want our brothers to remain alive and able to do +their work. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: Is there any member of the first Illinois Commission +present? + +PROF. ERNST FREUND (Illinois): Professor Henderson asked me a few +years ago to give a little assistance in the drafting of the measure +that the Commission had decided upon, and that is the only share I +had in the work of that first Illinois Commission. That Commission +was appointed for the sole purpose of reporting upon schemes of +insurance. The whole matter of compensation was, therefore, only +indirectly involved; at the same time the report as to insurance +was unlimited, as far as I know, and not limited to accidents, but +the Commission thought wise to confine their recommendations to an +insurance scheme covering simply the matter of accidents. + +They found that it would have been extremely difficult to recommend +or try to secure some plan of compulsory insurance, and for that +reason it was finally suggested that there should be an opportunity +offered for the employers to make a contract with the employes by +which the employers and the employes together might substitute for +the liability under the common law or statute a plan of insurance +which was worked out with some care, to some extent upon the basis of +the English act, one of the main features being that the employers +and employes should contribute each one-half of the insurance +premium. But the whole scheme was a tentative one, especially this +feature, which was so much opposed, of the sharing of the cost of +insurance between the employers and employes, and it was by no means +suggested as a final solution. The whole matter was a tentative +method of dealing with this problem, it being believed that in this +way the plan of insurance might get a foothold in the State and might +approve itself by experience. + +At the same time there was a very strong opposition and perhaps Mr. +Wright could speak to that point, because Mr. Wright was one of those +who opposed that scheme very strongly, and nothing came of it. I +may say that in the same year Massachusetts passed a very similar +measure, and that measure has been in effect now for several years, I +believe, with very little practical result. + +I think the failure or lack of suggestion of the plan of +Massachusetts was due to the fact perhaps that the public was not +sufficiently familiarized with the scheme, and no determined effort +was made to introduce it. + +As I say, the matter was suggested in Illinois as a tentative +solution, not by any means as anything final; and I think it was felt +that a compensation scheme of some kind would probably be called for +sooner or later, and that was the reason the Legislature was urged to +make provision for a compensation commission, which commission is now +studying the problem. + + +MASSACHUSETTS. + +JAMES A. LOWELL (Massachusetts): I am the last thing in commissions, +together with these other gentlemen with me. We are just about a day +old, and not quite that old. We were appointed in a great hurry when +the bill went through, in order to get here to listen and find out +what was being done by the other States, and in order to make up our +mind what should be done in Massachusetts. + +The only thing I desire to say now is to explain the kind of a +commission this is. Massachusetts has got so far under the resolution +appointing us that they say, "We want other laws." We are not to +investigate the question of whether other laws would be good or not; +the Legislature has said, "We want other laws. The present laws are +not satisfactory, and we will appoint five residents of Massachusetts +to look into the matter and to see what kind of other laws are +proper," and it is their command to us that we report at the next +Legislature before the middle of next January some kind of a bill to +change the law relating to injuries of workmen in Massachusetts. + +As perhaps most of you know, there have been two commissions +in Massachusetts, or, rather, one Commission and a Legislative +Committee. The first Commission sat in 1904, and Carroll D. Wright +was the chairman. A great many things were referred to that +Commission, not only this subject, but the subject of injunctions +and the subject of blacklisting, and so on. That Commission reported +a workmen's compensation act framed after the English act. That has +come up before each succeeding Legislature since then. Then in 1907, +I think it was, a Legislative Committee was appointed and a great +many things referred to them, not only this present subject, but also +boycotting and things of that kind. That committee did not report or, +rather, the minority of it reported in favor of the same act which +the former Commission reported in favor of, but it has never been +passed, although it has come up at every session, and we have annual +sessions in Massachusetts. So this Commission has now been appointed +with the mandate to bring in some kind of a bill to change the law. + +I might be pardoned for saying a word about what seems to me to be +the Massachusetts situation as it differs from others. Our industry +there is largely factory industry. Of course, we have cotton mills +and woolen mills, and boot and shoe factories, and all that sort of +thing. It is a kind of an industry where, take it by large numbers, +the injuries are probably a good many, but not very serious, so that +a bill which might work well with a State where there were a good +many hazardous trades, such as mining and not much manufacturing, +might not work well in Massachusetts. Therefore what this Commission +has to consider is some kind of a bill which we must report relating +to the industries of Massachusetts which will be financially possible. + +Of course, we also have the same difficulty which everybody else has +as to getting a constitutional bill. I suppose a voluntary bill would +be constitutional, but, as Professor Freund has just said, we have +had a voluntary bill in Massachusetts for two years which allowed, in +the first place, the employers to propose a scheme for compensation +and thereby get out from under our employer's liability law, and +which the next year was amended so the employes could propose the +scheme. That has been on the statute books for two years, and no +one has ever made the slightest attempt to come in under it, so that +as far as our present situation goes the voluntary system is of no +use in Massachusetts. After a great deal of advertisement, nobody at +the present time cares about it. It seems to me that some kind of a +compulsory law would be necessary to effect anything, and the great +legal difficulty is in getting one which will stand the test of the +courts. + +JOSEPH A. PARKS (Massachusetts): I listened very attentively to the +delegates from New York, and while they have done some work there, +I was a little disappointed, on the whole. I do not think they have +gone far enough to please your humble servant. I notice that they +have not included any manufacturing establishments whatever. Of +course, that touches me, because I happen to be a mill operative for +about thirty years, and we have mostly mills in my State. + +I have introduced the bill for workmen's compensation in the +Massachusetts Legislature for the last four years, the bill Mr. +Lowell referred to, and, as has been stated, they have reported two +different measures in two different years, and no one took any notice +of them. In the mills in the city where I live, and in all the mill +cities in Massachusetts, they have a great many more small accidents +than they do of the serious ones. That is especially true in the +weaver room, and I happen to be a weaver. We have a lot of things +that are liable to take a finger off or injure an eye, or the shuttle +is liable to come out of the loom suddenly, or you are liable to +slip and get caught in the machinery. The machines are all crowded +together, and a girl is liable to get her skirts or her hand caught +in the machinery, and when little things like that occur, injuries +that will possibly lay the employe up for a week or two, or three +or four weeks, the employe should be protected. The operatives do +not care much about the loss of a finger or the loss of beauty, or +any such thing as that. The particular thing that the operative is +interested in is, if he is a man of family, how his family is going +to make out while he is on a sickbed and unable to work. He does +not make large enough earnings so that he can lay aside his little +savings for a rainy day. Unfortunately, the mill operative is the +worst paid employe in the United States, without any doubt. They +contribute a good deal to the prosperity of the commonwealth which I +have the pleasure in part to represent, but they get very little of +the cream of the industry. + +The industry in Massachusetts, as you all know, is a big success, +and we are proud of it and want it to stay there, and do not want +to do anything that will drive it out of the State; but we do want +to do something for the mill operatives, at least I do, and I think +that the Commission which has been appointed will bring about some +system that will give them protection. They make all the way from $6 +to $10.50 in the cotton mills. The average, I believe, is about $7 in +Fall River to-day, so that you can see that a mill operative getting +injured has not anything to fall back on. He wants to be assured that +his family is going to be taken care of. The operative has recourse +to the employer's liability act, but it takes too long. It is about +two years before a case comes to court in our State, and while he is +waiting his family is waiting for that income that has been cut off. + +I hope the New York delegation will pardon my referring to their +having left out the manufacturers. There is some reason, no doubt, +and I suppose in part it is due to interstate competition, and that +is something we will have to look out for. If we have the time, Mr. +Chairman, before this convention is over, I would like to hear from +the New York delegation in regard to that feature. + +JOHN MITCHELL: I think perhaps Mr. Parks did not understand. As I +remember it, both Miss Eastman and Professor Seager called attention +to what was done for those employed in manufacturing in New York. +While our bill did not include those engaged in manufacturing in +express terms, it has provided for them. That is to say, we have +taken from the manufacturer a great many of his defenses from suits +for damages, so that those who are engaged in hazardous occupations +may sue under the employers' liability law, and the employer sued +cannot set up as a defense the assumption of risk; while mill +employes, not only in Massachusetts, but in all the New England +States, are denied redress simply because they assume the risk of the +industry. Those who are employed in industries where they get their +fingers nipped off and other accidents which are not necessarily +fatal, but nevertheless cause a loss of two or three or four months' +time, under the New York law can bring suit under the employers' +liability law, and, no doubt, in most cases would be able to make +settlements without going through the slow process of the courts, +because there would be a liability on the part of the employer +in New York, whereas in the case of Massachusetts I understand at +present there is no liability at all. So that we have, while perhaps +not ample provision for them, yet so much better provisions than they +ever had before that I dare say that nine cases will be compensated +for in a suit for damages or settled because of the right to sue, +where only one would have been compensated for under the old law. + +MR. PARKS: I was not aware of that. I thought the bill covered merely +those "dangerous occupations" Miss Eastman referred to. + +MR. MITCHELL: No, we have two bills in New York. + + +NEW JERSEY. + +MILES M. DAWSON (New York): I am sorry to say that I do not know very +much about what Governor Fort did in New Jersey, or what the New +Jersey Commission has done, because I am a resident of New York. I do +know, however, that a Commission has been appointed, and that several +gentlemen prominent in labor circles are on the Commission, and an +officer of the United States Steel Corporation, and an officer of +the Public Service Company, which operates nearly all of the trolley +lines and, I think, all the electric lighting systems in northern +New Jersey, are members of the Commission. From the make-up of the +Commission I should expect that they would do good work, but I do not +understand that they have as yet completely organized. I have not +heard of their appointing counsel even, although they may have done +so, and I do not think they have yet got down to work. The fact that +they are not represented at this Conference is an indication that +such is the case. + +I do not think there is anything peculiar about their appointment +or any unusual situation in New Jersey, except, as I understand it, +that the Governor particularly and the Legislature to a large degree, +are interested as nearly everybody is becoming interested nowadays +in this general question, and so the Governor considered that there +ought to be something done in New Jersey. + +FREDERICK L. HOFFMAN (New Jersey): I am not a member of the New +Jersey Commission and so am not in a position to say very much +about it. Mr. Clark, of the Clark Thread Company, is a member of +the Commission, in addition to the gentlemen whom Mr. Dawson has +mentioned. They have not as yet organized, so far as I know. They +have not elected counsel, and they have not declared their plans, +but I dare say when they get down to work they will follow very +largely the methods of the New York Commission. + + +OHIO. + +Ohio was called, but the members of the Ohio Commission had not yet +been appointed by the Governor. + + +MICHIGAN. + +M. M. DUNCAN (Michigan): There is no Commission in Michigan. The +Governor of Michigan, however, appointed a committee of seven +delegates to attend this convention in order that we might learn of +the progress that is being made and report back. + +JAMES V. BARRY (Michigan): As Mr. Duncan stated, the Governor +appointed seven delegates to this convention. We are here simply +to observe what is taking place and to learn from the States that +have made progress what report to make to our own State. We are not +commissioned to prepare any legislation of any kind as are the States +which have already spoken. + + +MARYLAND. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: Maryland had a bill at one time. Is there any one +here representing Maryland? They had an act passed in 1902, and that +act was declared unconstitutional by one of their lower courts in +the spring of 1904, as I recall now, upon the ground that there were +judicial powers delegated to the insurance commissioner. + +H. WIRT STEELE (Maryland): That is true; that act was declared +unconstitutional and is inoperative. We have no legislation in +Maryland covering the matter of workmen's compensation, and we have +simply been relegated to the old doctrine of master and servant. I +believe, however, that out of this Conference will perhaps come a +movement for a Commission similar to the ones represented here. + + +CONNECTICUT. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: Connecticut had a Commission that reported, I +believe, last year. Is there anyone present from Connecticut? + +PROF. HENRY W. FARNAM (Connecticut): I am from Connecticut, but I do +not think there is very much to be said. I was not a member of that +Commission, although I have read their report. It is rather negative, +very cautious. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: Is there any other State Commission represented? We +cannot tell nowadays whether we will have a Commission the next day +or not, and there may have been two or three appointed since this +convention was called. If not, I will tell you briefly how we have +studied the question in Minnesota. + + +MINNESOTA. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: We have not pursued the same theory exactly in +Minnesota that has been pursued in any other State. We did not +commence as most of the States have commenced. The commencement +of the study of this question in Minnesota was originated in the +Minnesota State Bar Association. At their annual meeting in Duluth, +in the summer of 1908, a paper was read having reference to the then +unfortunate conditions at common law, and asking that something be +done in the way, or along the line, of or on, some compensatory plan. +Somebody made a motion that a committee be appointed to draft a bill +and to report it back to the next Legislature. Some of them were +afraid to have that done for fear the committee might draft a bill +that would not be rational, that would not be fair, and that it might +go through the Legislature as a bar association measure. + +I was sitting in the front row, and I moved that the matter be +referred to the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform, knowing +that I was not on that committee and could not be on it under the +then circumstances. The motion passed and then the convention +became frightened for fear that it had placed too much power in the +committee and resolved to have that committee report to a special +meeting of the bar association which would be called in St. Paul, +in January, so that they might go over the recommendations that +were to be made before they would be presented to the Legislature. +Up to the 20th of October absolutely nothing had been done on the +matter. Then it so happened that I was asked to resign from another +committee and take the chairmanship of that committee, its chairman +having resigned. The committee was composed of gentlemen whom it was +supposed would well balance the sentiment on the question. There was +one lawyer that had made a specialty of liability insurance defenses, +there was one country senator, the dean of the College of Law of the +Minnesota University, an attorney that earned most of his living from +the railroads and then I, neither a laborer nor a capitalist. + +We took up the question, and found immediately after going over +it with different theorists and by correspondence that there was +no data in Minnesota or elsewhere that we could get upon which +to draw a proper bill. We looked at the experience of Maryland, +we looked at the reports, and the experience of New York down to +that time, and found that they had not passed a bill which had +been recommended for a permissive plan of contract; we looked at +conditions in Massachusetts and found they had not accomplished +very much there except a lot of work; we looked over the work of +the Illinois Commission and corresponded with them, and found that +their bill which had recommended a permissive plan of contract had +been defeated. We found in New York the constitutionality had been +questioned, and in Massachusetts it had been questioned by the +Commission. + +In Illinois the reports showed that the plan they wanted to adopt +could not be adopted constitutionally, and they recommended the +permissive plan in lieu thereof. Connecticut, I think, at that time +had appointed a Commission, but it had not yet reported. The United +States had passed a law known as the Act of June 11, 1906, which +affected the comparative negligence rule and also provided certain +obligations with respect to offsetting settlements, and the Supreme +Court had declared that unconstitutional in January, 1908. Two +important measures had been presented to Congress with able arguments +to support them, and up to that time they had been practically +limited in their discussion to leave to print in the _Congressional +Record_. + +Our philanthropic and other state institutions in Minnesota had no +data from which we could get any intelligent idea, according to the +correspondence that we had. The Associated Charities, both state and +national, had no sufficient data. The labor unions throughout the +United States had no sufficient data. The National Manufacturers' +Association had no sufficient data. I say this because I wrote to the +President, and the correspondence was referred to Judge Emory, and +we never got any information, because, as I understood, they had not +then studied the matter sufficiently. I wrote to Mr. Mitchell, and +he answered that he had no sufficient data, and referred me to Mr. +Gompers. + +I wrote to Mr. Gompers concerning it and he answered practically +to the same effect, sending back a bill to establish comparative +negligence and some other provisions somewhat along the federal lines +that had been declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme +Court, because covering business within the State as distinguished +from interstate business; that is, it related to both, as the court +construed it. + +From Eugene V. Debs, representing, as I thought, another group of +men, I received an excellent letter explaining what had been done in +other countries, and referring me to the data, he having evidently +studied it considerably. + +From James J. Hill, through his counsel, I received the answer that +they favored such legislation if it could be properly made. + +Andrew Carnegie had his secretary write that he favored an act along +the lines of "Britain." + +Now, I may confess to you that up to this time, neither the Minnesota +employers nor the labor unions were in this, and not because I was +a politician, but because I had had some experience, I concluded if +I could get some expressions from these various interests that it +might be valuable when we came to the Legislature with this bill, +if some bill along this line was drafted. I ransacked the libraries +at home, and communicated with the largest libraries in Boston and +New York and all over the country to secure the books and magazine +articles touching on the matter, but nowhere could we find any +sufficient argument as to the constitutionality of such a law, nor +any sufficient data to make an economic law. A paragraph by Professor +Freund, in his work on _Police Power_, and an article by P. Tecumseh +Sherman, a former commissioner of the State of New York, were about +all I found on the question of constitutionality. + +Later we found that the Russell Sage Foundation had been looking into +the matter abroad, through two able men, Dr. Frankel and Mr. Dawson. +They were abroad that summer to study the matter and we afterward +got in touch with them. The result was that our committee, or rather +myself and one other gentleman, because we were not able to get +any of the others to meet with us, reported to the bar association +that we thought we ought to have three kinds of laws passed; one to +appoint a Commission to educate itself, another which would require +those persons who had accidents, both employers and employes, to +report data, and the third, one that would require the insurance +companies insuring such risks in Minnesota to make reports in detail +to the Commission, in order that they might study out precisely all +the results. + +We found that New York and Wisconsin had valuable articles, and so +had Massachusetts and one or two other States, in their Labor Bureau +reports. Our correspondence with every labor department in the United +States did not develop very much more, except some valuable work by +the Illinois Commission, and some valuable work by some professors +in various institutions in the form of articles and a pamphlet, I +believe by the Chicago _Record-Herald_, that was put out while the +Illinois Commission had this work under consideration. + +The bar association approved that report and asked us to send it on +to the Legislature with recommendations for those three bills. Just +prior to that we had arranged for meetings with the labor unions in +our State for political reasons, to find out what their views were. +Then with the president of the employers' association, again for +political reasons, to find out what their views were. Finally we got +the two together, and they had not been working together so well +up there as they might have been in some other places. But by the +time of the second meeting they passed a resolution which was to the +effect that they would join hands in trying to get a compensation +movement started in Minnesota, but that neither should undertake to +take any advantage of the other in the Legislature, while they were +both faithfully performing their part of that agreement, and they +stuck loyally by it. + +Then we took up the question of how we should present the matter +to the Legislature, and the Governor said he would send a special +message to the Legislature recommending our plan. That was done, and +bills immediately began to appear in the Legislature from various +motives, but we all three stood on the position that we were going +to have an absolute plan on an intelligent basis if we could get it. +Along toward the end of the session the Legislature passed the three +bills which we had recommended. + +Our Commission at the present time has thousands of reports of +accidents in its possession, with the dates of the accidents and all +the data concerning them, which we are not at liberty to make public +because the bill does not permit us to do so. We wanted a bill that +would prevent our doing so until we had our reports made, so that no +one could get in and get hold of this information and take advantage +of it. + +In addition to that, we have the reports coming into the labor +department as to the actual injuries that occur. Those we have not +yet tabulated. + +The Governor appointed George M. Gillette, who was a large +manufacturer; William E. McEwen, the State Labor Commissioner, and +myself on that committee. One of the first things we did when we +met was to take up the question of the foreign laws. We found that +they were not translated into English. One of the first things we +undertook then was to get the labor department at Washington to +translate all that were not translated. It agreed to do so. When +we held the Atlantic City convention a resolution was passed at +that meeting requesting the same thing. We wanted not only some +education, but some uniform action. So we started to correspond with +the members of the other commissions, like the New York Commission +and some others that had been appointed in the meantime, and asked +them to meet us and discuss matters. It was finally suggested that +invitations be sent out for a joint meeting. That was done under +my own name, representing the Minnesota Commission. We met down at +Atlantic City, and after that meeting was held, we held our second +meeting down in Washington, and this meeting is the third. + +Mr. McEwen and Mr. Gillette have been abroad to study the question +and have just returned. I hoped they would be here, but they have not +arrived. + +We have taken up the matter through correspondence, we have asked +special questions through the press, and we expect to get our bills +in shape so that they will be intelligible for discussion through +this convention and others, and then put them up to the public and +ask the manufacturers and the railroads and the labor unions and all +of the other representative bodies that will be affected by them, to +appoint men who may study the questions sufficiently to come before +us and discuss them intelligently, so that we may be educated to the +best possible theoretical standpoint. + +In the meantime I shall probably go to Europe in July. Our report +will not be made until next January. The bill which passed the +Legislature requires us to study the conditions in this country and +abroad, and to report a bill or bills which we think are consistent +with the necessities of the case, and, so far as possible, to make +the bill or bills constitutional. The report of the Atlantic City +Conference, when it was printed, was sent to the Governor of each +State, to the attorney-general of each State, and to the labor +department of each State, and that report was quite a large volume. +Bar associations throughout the United States have quite generally +taken this matter up, and I should think in not less than eight or +ten States they have it under consideration now. The labor unions +in quite a number of States also have it under consideration. +We sent out invitations to the governors, and nineteen of them +appointed delegates to the Conference held in Washington, in January. +Fifteen States were represented. I do not know how many States are +represented here to-day, but all these delegates were accredited to +come to this convention. + +We have done a lot of miscellaneous work up there, but we are trying +to get all our work in shape, so that when we do draft our bill we +shall know as nearly as we possibly can, at least theoretically, what +we are doing, and we are glad to see that New York and Wisconsin and +all these other States are moving ahead. You have good commissions +and we glory in the work you are doing. We only hope that we may be +able to profit a little by your experience and by your legislation. +We hope that the movement can be made as nearly uniform as possible. +Up to the present time we have been discussing very largely in +Minnesota the sort of a bill which has been sent out for discussion +this afternoon, and I shall not go into that matter at all, but as +temporary chairman. I wish to thank both you ladies and you gentlemen +for being present at this meeting and for taking part in this +discussion. + + +PROF. SEAGER: At the last meeting of the Conference a committee of +three was appointed to choose an Executive Committee of fifteen +members. It appears that I am the only member of that committee of +three present at this meeting, so I can offer a unanimous report. + +[The recommendations of Professor Seager were accepted by the +Conference, which accordingly elected ten members of the Executive +Committee to serve as executive officials with the five general +officers. The complete list as finally elected is printed on the +second page of the cover of this volume.] + + + + +SECOND SESSION, FRIDAY, JUNE 10, 1910, 2.00 P. M. + + +Chairman Mercer called the second session of the Conference to order +at 2 P. M., and announced that the Reports of Committees was the +first order of business. + +As chairman of the Executive Committee, Professor Seager submitted a +draft of by-laws, which was, with slight amendment, adopted by the +Conference. The final draft is printed in the Introductory Note to +this volume. + +The report of the Committee on Nominations was then presented by +Miles M. Dawson, and upon motion adopted by the secretary casting the +unanimous ballot of the Conference for the election of the general +officers as printed on the second page of the cover of this volume. + +This completed the order of business to come before the Conference, +and the discussion of the "Workers' Compensation Code" was taken up +as follows: + + +WORKERS' COMPENSATION CODE. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: There is one further committee, I think, that was +appointed to draft a bill for discussion, and we were so far apart +that we never got together. One was sent out, however, in printed +form, and I think all of you have had copies of it. A thousand copies +were distributed. + +I will say before we begin the discussion of that bill that it was +meant to be drawn as an outline, and to be sufficiently broad in the +different sections to raise all the points for discussion and not +intended to be either technically correct, or what might be called +an artistic measure. It was intended to be broad enough to provoke +discussion as to all of the necessary elements of a bill. The formal +program, as outlined, involves this one that was distributed, and if +that brings out all the points which you want to discuss it might +be best to take that up section by section and hear your views on +that, or other schemes if you desire. It would seem hardly right, +however, since there are a number of other bills here, and they might +not all agree, to limit you to this specific bill, but you ought to +be permitted to discuss, I suppose, the principle involved in each +section as you take it up. + +[The bill which was designed and used as an outline for the +discussion which follows is here reprinted.] + + + WORKERS' COMPENSATION CODE. + + (OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION). + + BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: + + Section 1. _Dangerous employment defined._ That every employer + in the State of Minnesota conducting an employment in which + there hereafter occurs bodily injuries to any of the employes + arising out of, and in the course of, such employment, is for + the purposes of this act hereby defined to be conducting a + dangerous employment [at the time of such occurrence], and + consequently subject to the provisions of this act and entitled + to the benefits thereof. + + Sec. 2. _Liability of employers._ That every such employer + shall be liable to pay to every such employe so injured, + or in case of his death, to the legal representatives, as + hereinafter defined and apportioned for all bodily injuries + received by such employe arising out of, and in the course + of, such employment in this State disabling such employe from + regular services in such employment for more than ten days + and according to the schedule of rates contained in Section 3 + of this act, on the condition precedent only, that, in case + of dispute as to the amount to be paid for such injuries, or + the failure or refusal to agree upon or to pay the same, such + employe or the legal representatives thereof shall comply with + the provisions of this act. + + Sec. 3. _Compensation allowed._ The compensation herein and + hereby allowed, if established as herein provided, having + arisen out of and in the course of such dangerous employment + within this State, shall be on the following basis: + + (a) For immediate death or for death accruing within five years + as a result of such injuries, or for injuries causing total + incapacity for that service for five years or more, 60 per + cent. of the amount of wages the injured was receiving at the + time of the accident for a period of five years, provided, such + payment shall not continue longer than to aggregate $3000. + + (b) For total or partial disability for less than five years, + 60 per cent. of the wages the injured was receiving at the time + of the injury so long as there is complete disability for that + service and that proportion of the said percentage which the + depleted earning capacity for that service bears to the total + disability when the injury is only partial or after it becomes + only partial. + + (c) In addition to the foregoing payments, if the injured loses + both feet or both hands, or one foot and one hand, or both + eyes, or one eye and one foot or one hand, he shall receive, + during the full period of five years, 40 per cent. of the + wages which he was receiving at the time of such accident; or + if he loses one foot, one hand, or one eye, the additional + compensation therefor shall be 15 per cent. of his said wages; + or if he be otherwise maimed or disfigured, then, for such + maiming or disfigurement, during the time it shall continue, + he shall receive therefor such proportion of 40 per cent. as + such maiming or disfigurement bears in depleted ability in + the employment to the relative loss of the members specified + herein; _Provided_, That in no case shall all of the payments + received herein exceed in any month the whole wages earned when + the injury occurs, nor shall the said 40 per cent. when all + received, or any portion thereof, and the said 60 per cent. + when all received, or any portion thereof, continue longer than + to make all sums aggregate $5000. + + Sec. 4. _Repeal of other liabilities._ The right to + compensation and the remedy therefor, as herein specified, + shall be in lieu of all other causes of action for such + injuries and awards upon which they are based as to all persons + covered by this act, whether formerly authorized or allowed by, + or as the result of, either state, statute or common law, and + no other compensation, right of action, damages or liability, + either for such injuries or for any result thereof, either in + favor of those covered by this act or against such employer + based on state law, shall hereafter be allowed for such + injuries to any persons or for any of the injuries covered by + this act so long as this law shall remain in force, unless, and + then only to the extent, that this law shall be specifically + amended. + + Sec. 5. _Conditions precedent to right of recovery._ That as a + condition precedent to such right to compensation, such employe + or the legal representatives thereof, as the case may be, shall + within ten days after knowledge of such injury, unless there be + valid excuse for delay and then immediately after such excuse + is removed, cause a written notice thereof in substantially + the form designated in paragraph ---- (form to be provided) + of this act, to be served upon the said employer by leaving + a copy thereof addressed to the employer with the person in + charge of such employe while he was so working, if that person + is still in said employ, or with some superior agent, officer + or person in charge of said business at any office thereof + within this State in the same way that a summons can now be + served; and in case of a dispute between the employe and the + said employer, or in case of the failure of such employer and + employe to agree upon such claim or in case of failure or + refusal of such employer to pay, such employe shall submit his + claim for compensation hereunder, both as to the nature of the + injuries and the amount to compensate therefor under this act, + to a board of three arbitrators, as hereinafter specified, in + substantial compliance with the form contained in section ---- + hereof. + + Sec. 6. _Board of arbitration and awards._ There is hereby + created a Board of Arbitration and Awards, known as "Board of + Awards" with jurisdiction throughout the State of Minnesota + to arbitrate the questions arising hereunder and make awards + consistent herewith, which is now and shall remain subdivided + into districts with the same numbers and co-ordinate with + the judicial districts of this State as they now are and may + hereafter be changed, which board shall consist of three + members from each judicial district, which members shall be + non-partisan in politics, appointed by ....................., + and hold their offices during a period of ............. years; + except for fraud, or want of jurisdiction the findings and + awards made herein shall be final and conclusive as to the + nature of the injuries and the amount of compensation. + + Sec. 7. (The law shall provide for compensation, expenses and + secretary, and probably that the Clerk of Courts act as Clerk + and make annual report to Commissioner of Labor.) + + Sec. 8. _Remedy._ + + (a) Every person claiming the benefits of compensation under + this act, may issue to the employer from whom he claims the + same a notice of claim in substantially the following form: + + First: You are hereby notified that ...................... has + this day filed the original of this notice of claim against you + with the Clerk of the Board of Awards in District No. ........ + and that you are required to answer the same with a copy served + upon the undersigned within ten days. + + Second: Said ............................... was in your + employ as a ......................... at .................. + on or about the ....... day of ........ 19.... and received + an injury of the supposed general nature following: + .......................................................... by + reason of the following incident (describe it) and that such + injury arose in and out of the course of said employment and + has lasted more than ten days and it is claimed that you are + liable to pay compensation for .......... per cent. of the + wages which were $....... per ........ at the time of such + injury, and for ....... per cent. for maiming and crippling. + + (b) Answer. The answer shall + + 1. Admit or deny the employment. + + 2. Admit or deny that an injury was received at the time and + place. + + 3. Admit or deny that the injury, if any, was in the course of + employment and that it arose out of the course of employment. + + 4. Set up the injury claimed if different from the injured's + claim. + + 5. Admit or deny or correct the amount of wages. + + 6. Give notice of any special claim to be urged to defeat + compensation. + + (c) Reply. The reply shall so far as possible admit or deny the + specific statements of the answer which contradict or bar the + complaint. + + (d) Hearing. As soon as the reply is filed with proof of + service the clerk shall set such claim for hearing in its order + at the earliest date possible and notify both parties by mail, + thereof. + + Sec. 9. _Award._ The Board of Awards shall make its award upon + a full hearing, to both parties held after notice and shall + consider the whole record and may visit the premises if within + its district and make such award as it shall decide to be + consistent with the spirit and powers of this act, and in the + following form: + + 1. Title. + + 2. We find in the above case that the injured received injuries + arising in and growing out of the course of such employment + when he was receiving as wages the sum of $......... per + ............ payable ................. + + 3. That the injuries appear now to be and are as follows: + ........................................................... + ........................................................... + + 4. That for ................. disability the compensation + to be paid is hereby found and awarded against the employer + ................... of ................. at ............ per + cent. of such wages payable to the following persons in the + respective proportions for ......... ........... and as said + wages were paid and (of injuries uncertain) ................ + this proceeding is hereby adjourned to the ........ ........ + day of ............... for further consideration. + + Sec. 10. _How risk may be insured._ That any such employer, + or any association of employers, may keep the risks created + by this law fully covered by insurance, in associations, or + insurance companies approved by the insurance department of + this State, for policies covering the full liability under + this law, and thereby relieve themselves from any further + responsibility with respect to paying such compensation, and + if any such employer or employers shall so insure such risks + they shall be entitled to take and keep from the wages of their + laborers, on a pro rata basis, of the wages, .......... per + cent. of the amount necessary to pay the regular premiums for + carrying such insurance. + + Sec. 11. All insurance and all benefits of compensation due or + to become due to any employe under this act shall be and remain + exempt from garnishment and all other forms of attachment. + + Sec. 12. Provision defining the words and phrases, and covering + all tenses, pronouns and both sexes. + + Sec. 13. Of course the jurisdictional features and all matters + of practice, rehearings, etc., must be worked out after we see + what substantive provisions are to be made. + + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: The reason for heading that, "Workers' Compensation +Code," was to cover the constitutional provisions in some of the +States, which prohibit a bill from covering more than one subject, +which shall be expressed in its title, and the fact that the term +"code" means a system of law. By the adoption of that scheme it was +our intention to raise the point, so that if you agreed to that +general idea you could adopt a law with a heading sufficiently broad +to codify the law of your State on that question, to allow you to +repeal such portions of the common law as you wanted to repeal as +a part of that chapter, and not be subject to the limitations of +the constitutions of a number of States which would prohibit your +covering more than one law. Do you care to waste any time on the +heading? + +MR. DAWSON: I would like to ask one question about the heading and +that is why the word "workers" was used instead of "workmen?" + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: Like everything else, that was used to provoke +discussion. Workmen's Compensation, or Workingmen's Compensation, +seems to have a technical meaning in this field of legislation. It +seems to be understood generally as covering this whole subject, +and yet when you come to define your bill and outline it and cover +it section by section, you must either leave something to the +construction of the courts, or else you must make provision to the +effect that workmen shall cover workwomen and children and boys and +girls and everybody connected with it. It seems to me it would cover +that point (although it seems to be revolutionary in form) if we used +the term "workers," because that would include everybody. + +MR. DAWSON: Your idea then was, Mr. Chairman, that the word "worker" +is believed to have more comprehensive significance than the word +"workmen," and that it would be certain to be so held by the courts? + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: That was my own idea. I think I am sound on it, but +I have tried enough lawsuits to know that a fellow is never sound +until he is done. Shall we pass to the first section and leave it +without any expression as to the heading? + +MASON B. STARRING (Illinois): I would like to inquire in regard to +Section 1, as to what extent that applies to farm workers. Supposing +a man was driving a dredging machine in the field and his horses +became frightened and ran away and killed him. Is the farmer liable +under this act? + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: He was intended to be, if you adopt that act. + +JAMES A. LOWELL (Massachusetts): I should like to inquire why you say +"every employer conducting an employment in which there hereafter +occurs bodily injuries to any of the employes" shall be deemed to be +conducting a dangerous employment? Is that from some idea that if +you call an employment dangerous you thereby are allowed to change +the terms of it by your constitution, and if you do not call it +dangerous, you are not? + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: The idea was that if you worded the first section +the way we have, it would provoke discussion on all those elements. +That was the first plan. The fundamental reason was that if the +employer was conducting an employment which was capable of being +dangerous, and he guarded his employes through the safety devices he +employed and the grade of men he employed, so that the whole scheme +of his business was conducted in such a way that he did not have any +accidents at all, that until he had some accidents he would not be +classified as being in a dangerous employment. In other words, two +men might run exactly the same institution with the same machinery +manufacturing the same article; one set of men will run it so there +will not be any accidents maybe in ten years; the other set may have +ten accidents in the first year by reason of the way they rush, and +their carelessness, and the grade of men they hire and their failure +to protect their machinery and all that sort of thing. It was the +intention to make that as broad as you possibly could make it, so as +to provoke discussion as to whether you wanted to say every industry +that had an accident should be liable, or whether you wanted to limit +it to some of the industries as they have done in New York and in +some of the foreign countries. + +MR. LOWELL: Then it was not the idea that by calling a cotton factory +dangerous you thereby are allowed to put on certain provisions +of the law which, if you do not call it dangerous, might not be +constitutional? + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: Not exactly, except this: The idea was involved +that it is within the province of the Legislature to declare an +employment dangerous if there is a reasonable basis for argument as +to whether it is a dangerous employment. That is our view of it. Now, +if a court gets hold of that and should say that there was no basis +for declaring that a dangerous employment, it would say that the +Legislature acted arbitrarily. + +MR. LOWELL: I should judge your idea was that you could not impose +the law on a cotton factory simply as a cotton factory, but you could +impose it on a dangerous factory. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: My idea was that it was a safer way to impose it +on one that had accidents than to single out any certain line of +industry that might not be as dangerous as some others. + +MR. LOWELL: I do not know that you quite get my point. My point is +that it may be impossible for the Massachusetts Legislature, we will +say, to put a certain kind of liability onto a cotton factory, which +it might put onto a powder factory. Would they, if that were the +case, make the situation any different by calling the cotton factory +a dangerous factory? + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: Not unless there was some basis for it. + +MR. LOWELL: They certainly do have dangers; we will assume that +people are injured there. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: It is my view of the decisions of the court that +that would be so. The reason that I put that that way is this: If you +have an industry that has one accident, as expressed by Mr. Roosevelt +in one of his messages, that is a dangerous industry to that man and +his family. If it kills one man, in his way of putting it, it is not +much consolation to his family or to him before he dies, to say that +you are crippled, or you are hurt, but not in a dangerous employment. +It was dangerous in his case. By defining it so that every employment +that has an accident is dangerous, and then making the liability +as one of the subsequent sections, exactly in proportion to the +accidents they have instead of defining certain lines as dangerous, +and others as non-dangerous, I think you have a better classification. + +PROF. SEAGER: To put a strong case, do you think that the courts +would back you up in saying that the mere fact, we will say, that +an employe in a cotton factory slipped on a banana peel in going +to his machine in the morning and was injured, constituted that a +dangerous trade in a sense that would justify making an employer +liable for the injury as the latter sections of the act hold? Under +the latter sections of the act that would seem to be in the course of +his employment; going to his machine would be a necessary part of his +employment. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: If it grows out of the industry itself. In England +in determining what is within the course of the employment, they +have held that while two men might be working side by side in an +employment, and one of them might be hurt while he was there, yet if +he was hurt by reason of some horse play that he did on the side with +some other fellow, that that was not really a risk of that industry, +and that it does not grow out of the course of the employment. I +should think your banana peeling case would be very close to the +line, and it would depend upon whether it grew out of the employment. + +JOSEPH A. PARKS (Massachusetts): Suppose that we use a bobbin instead +of a banana peel. + +PROF. SEAGER: There was a case where a man's eye was put out by the +cork of a pop bottle when he was eating his lunch, and they held +that was in the course of his employment. Would our courts, in your +opinion, back us up in describing liability for accidents in that +sweeping way? I do not question at all the desirability of doing it; +it is only a question of the constitutionality of doing it. + +MR. LOWELL: Do you think it is necessary in Minnesota to distinguish +between hazardous and non-hazardous employments? Apparently our +friends in New York think that it is constitutionally necessary; +that with certain risks, such as tunneling and railroad building and +bridge building, which every one knows are hazardous, that a law +applied to them would be constitutional, whereas if it applied to +things that were not so hazardous it would not be constitutional. Is +that your opinion of the law of Minnesota? + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: In a measure, yes; that is, so far as classification +is concerned; you must have a reasonable basis for the classification. +If you do not cover all the accidents then you cannot cover part. It +would be my judgment, unless you have a reasonable basis for the +classification, that that would be true. + +MR. LOWELL: The basis of classification would not be the fact then, +that accidents happen, but that a good many happen. That is, it is +not a hazardous business, but is a light business, as the insurance +people call it. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: I think that the courts in some of the cases would +maintain the idea that if you picked out the industries that had a +large number of accidents and were sure they would have accidents, +they would maintain that classification. But if you picked out +an industry that had a great many accidents and classified it as +dangerous, and let one alongside of it go that had fully as many +accidents, I think possibly the courts might hold that you had acted +arbitrarily, and therefore knock out your legislation, to use a +street phrase. + +SENATOR A. W. SANBORN (Wisconsin): If I understand that first +section, it would include every employer, whether he is a farmer or a +man who keeps a house servant. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: It was meant to be broad enough, Mr. Sanborn, to +raise that question. + +MR. SANBORN: That is what I understand this section, as now worded, +would embrace. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: Yes. + +SENATOR JOHN J. BLAINE (Wisconsin): The point that worries me as +much as anything, is the question as to whether it is a dangerous +occupation. This first section provides that every employer +conducting an employment in which there hereafter occurs bodily +injuries is defined to be conducting a dangerous employment. Is +there any substantial difference between saying it in those words +and saying that every occupation is dangerous, because I do not +believe that we can conceive of any occupation that is not dangerous +or in which no accidents occur. Even a school boy stubs his toe +on the street. It is not in and of itself a dangerous occupation, +but he accidentally gets hurt. Now, where an employment in and of +itself would not be dangerous, but where through some unforeseen +circumstance an accident should occur, would that fact of itself make +an industry a hazardous industry? + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: When they covered that matter in England, I +understand the definition was that the accident might occur in the +course of the industry and not occur outside of it; it might occur +outside of it and not occur within it. For instance, you might start +to go to work, if you are a laborer, and after you got on the ground +you might be traveling along the same as any other member of the +public. You would be going to your employment but you would not be +within the course of it. That is the way they defined it over there, +and in that case the accident would be treated simply in the same way +as an accident to any other member of the public. They might suffer +an accident and yet there would not be a liability to the employer. + +SENATOR BLAINE: The point I can't distinguish is this: That the mere +fact that an injury happens to an employment, that in and of itself +makes that employment dangerous, any more than every industry is +dangerous. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: It has got to occur within the employment; that is, +it has got to be a result of the employment to make it dangerous. + +SENATOR BLAINE: In the first place, is it possible to conceive of any +employment where there is not a hazard growing out of the employment? +If that is true, why not say that every employer shall compensate +under the terms of the act, regardless of whether he is engaged in +a hazardous occupation or not. In other words, can you define a +hazardous occupation by a legislative act? Will not that in the end +be the point around which the whole question will revolve; _i. e._, +is it not as a matter of fact from the evidence produced, a dangerous +occupation, no matter whether accidents have or have not resulted? + +For that reason is it not quite impossible to define a hazardous +occupation? + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: That question in fact is first determined by the +Legislature, as I understand it, as to whether it is a dangerous +employment. + +SENATOR BLAINE: Can the Legislature intrude upon the judicial +functions of our government? Can they say that is a fact or must not +the courts do that themselves? + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: No, the courts, as I understand it, take judicial +knowledge of the history and conditions out of which the legislative +act may grow, and I believe would follow the rule the power of the +State it is valid, although the judgment of the as laid down in +Lockner _vs._ New York, 198 U. S., where the Court said: "This is +not a question of substituting the judgment of the Court for that of +the Legislature. If the act be within Court might be opposed to the +enactment of such law." + +The reason why we did not cover every employment was that it did +not seem to us every employment was dangerous, and if it was not +dangerous and we were relegated to the police power of the State +to define it, the law would be held invalid. But it seemed to me +individually, and I do not want anybody to think that this is the +judgment of the committee, because they could not all get together, +that if we based it on the fact that injuries did occur, nobody could +ever stand up in a courtroom or sit in comfortable court chambers +and write an opinion on the theory that this employment, when an +accident has occurred in the case, is not a dangerous employment if +the Legislature find it so. The idea was to cover all the States so +as to leave it as safe as we could get it. + +SENATOR BLAINE: Certainly the section will do what you contemplated, +bring about discussion. + +MR. DAWSON: On the point that has just been raised I would like to +say that this matter of the power of the Legislature to define a +thing was before the United States Supreme Court in an oleomargarine +case, originating, I think, in Pennsylvania. There had previously +been an act passed, I think, by the New York Legislature, which, +though not declaring oleomargarine deleterious to health, imposed +certain regulations amounting almost to prohibition. + +That was tested through the various courts to the Supreme Court of +the United States, I think, and it was definitely held by that court +that the case had not been made out that it was deleterious. In +other words, it was virtually held that it was not, and so that the +law was not a proper exercise of the police power. Following this +the Legislature of Pennsylvania adopted a similar bill, containing +a declaratory provision that it is deleterious to health. That was +carried to the same court and the Court held that the Legislature was +entirely within its rights and had power to so declare. I think that +might have some bearing upon this question. + +I would like to ask the Chairman if the effect of this is not +virtually to declare all occupations hazardous occupations in view +of the following facts: That the law would in any event be a nullity +if no accidents happened in any given employment, and the moment +an accident does happen in that employment, it is declared to be a +dangerous employment; and would not the law cover that very accident. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: The proposed law as I have since changed it has this +provision: "That every employer in the State of ---- conducting an +employment in which there hereafter occurs bodily injury to any of +the employes, arising out of, and in the course of, such employment, +is for the purposes of this act hereby defined to be conducting a +dangerous employment _at the time of such occurrence_." That was not +in the original draft and I do not know whether it is in the one you +have or not. I put it in recently. When I came to read that section +critically I concluded that the criticism you make is a good one. + +I do not want to take your time, but there are two or three short +sentences here by the United States Supreme Court on that question +which I think are authoritative, and I would like to read them. In +the case of Holden _vs._ Hardy, 169 U. S., page 365, the Court says: +"The protection of the health and morals as well as the lives of +citizens is within the police power of the State Legislature." + +Then again, on page 789, the Court said: "Of course it is impossible +to forecast the character or extent of these changes, but in view +of the fact that from the day the Magna Charta was signed to the +present moment, amendments to the structure of the law have been made +with increasing frequency, it is impossible to suppose they will not +continue and the law be forced to adapt itself to new conditions of +society, and particularly to the new relations between employers and +employes as they arise." + +That was a case of regulating the hours of work in mining. After +reviewing a number of the decisions upon the police power and +establishing that it was within the power of the Legislature to +judge of those matters, the Court said: "These employments when too +long pursued, the Legislature has judged to be detrimental to the +health of the employes, and so long as there are reasonable grounds +for thinking that that is so, this decision upon this subject cannot +be reviewed by the Federal Courts." + +I take that as pretty conclusive, and they have followed that rule +since. + +SENATOR SANBORN: In discussing a bill like this, section by section, +it strikes me that we are going to reach practical results. There are +three fundamental principles that underlie this whole subject that +we ought to determine, or else we should proceed to draw either two +or three bills based upon the different views upon those underlying +principles: + +First: Shall we prepare a bill that is compulsory upon the part of +the employer and optional as to the employe? + +Second: Shall we prepare a bill that is compulsory upon the part of +the employer and compulsory upon the part of the employe? + +Third: Shall we prepare a bill that is optional both with the +employer and with the employe? + +To my mind those are fundamentals, and if we are going to get at what +is known as a uniform bill that will meet with the approbation of the +different States and meet the constitutional difficulties that we +find in the way, we must prepare a bill along lines that will meet +the different situations in the different States, at least in those +States that compete from a manufacturing point of view. + +I am here for information and I feel that we want light along those +lines. While I am willing to concede for the sake of argument that +under the police regulation you can make this law compulsory on the +part of the employer, as New York has done, I am not yet willing to +concede that you can make that law compulsory on the part of the +employe. I think there is something yet there that must be overcome +before you can reach that result. + +To illustrate what I mean for a moment, if you can imagine for +a minute that I own this building, I should contend that the +Legislature of the State of Illinois could not authorize you by your +negligence to destroy this building and give me in compensation ten +dollars; to make that the law. Of course my right arm may not be as +important to me as the building, but I do not yet believe that the +Legislature of Illinois can even authorize you by your negligence +to destroy that and thus destroy my means of livelihood and say that +I shall receive no compensation, or say that it shall be ten dollars +or say that it shall be one hundred dollars, or that it shall be +one thousand dollars which I shall receive for that arm; to destroy +my usefulness to myself and my family and fix the compensation at +one hundred dollars or a thousand dollars, without my consent. I +have cited that as a mere matter of illustration, that there are +difficulties to overcome if you are going to say that that is a +compulsory law upon the part of the employe without any election. + +If we are drafting a bill that is compulsory upon the part of the +employer the first question we have to consider is in Section 1 +of this bill; we have got to define the dangerous employment. You +can see then it is very material in that form of bill to define +a dangerous employment. If, on the other hand, we are drawing an +optional bill we have no interest in any such definition at all. + +I just offer these as suggestions, if we are going at this subject +from a practical standpoint, and if we can I am perfectly willing to +go to the extent of saying that we will work along all three lines +and then determine which is the more likely to stand up and effect +the purpose that we are trying to accomplish. + +SAMUEL R. HARPER (Illinois): On the question presented by the first +section of the tentative bill presented this afternoon, the rule, as +I understand it, is that the declaration by the Legislature that a +certain trade is hazardous is merely an indication of the legislative +judgment on that proposition and nothing more; and that that +judgment is revocable by the courts and is not conclusive unless the +declaration is based in some way on some reasonable classification of +hazardous trades and industries. If the classification is based on +some reasonable ground arising from the hazards of the business then +the courts will say that is a reasonable classification, that the +legislative classification is conclusive. + +On the points suggested by Senator Sanborn, I agree with him that +the fundamental to adopt at the outset is whether or not we shall +adopt a compulsory system or whether it shall be elective. If it +is compulsory it must rest entirely within the police power of the +State. If it is an elective system then it is a matter of contract +and option with both parties. We ought to determine first what we are +going to do about that because if we have an elective system we need +not worry at all about the constitutional problem or the question of +police power. + +I agree with the Senator on the proposition that a State under its +police power may establish a compulsory system of compensation so +far as the employer is concerned. It seems to me, however, when we +attempt to shift the basis of our present system from that of tort +to compensation we are simply reading into the oral contract of +employment between the employer and employe a guarantee on the part +of the employer that up to a certain limit he will protect and insure +the employe against the hazards of that trade. We all of us, of +course, are familiar with the doctrine of _respondeat superior_, and +that doctrine arose in exactly the same way over two hundred years +ago and it has never been questioned as yet. That arose not out of +any theory of natural justice, but upon the theory exclusively that +it was a proposition of safety, and that if the employer wished to +delegate his business or that part of it conducted by servants, to +those servants, he certainly should be responsible for their acts as +long as they were in the discharge of their duties. + +Now, why isn't it, Mr. Chairman, just as reasonable to assume and +why is it in conflict with any theory of natural justice to say that +if an employer seeks to employ a man in a hazardous trade or in any +trade, he shall compensate him to a reasonable extent; he shall +guarantee to him a limited compensation and that he shall guarantee +him against the consequences of an injury while he is engaged in that +employment? Will not the courts read into that bill practically that +contract of guaranty? + +We are talking about judge-made law on this proposition. The +Legislature has never attacked this proposition at all. The courts +have established this doctrine of respondeat superior and as to the +safety appliances, etc., is the form of a Workmen's Compensation Law. + +PROF. SEAGER: The suggestion contained in this first clause seems to +me a very valuable and helpful one; that is, that judicial opinion in +this country may be ripe for taking this view other doctrines of that +kind, and we do not know what the courts would do if the proposition +were presented to them. I believe we lack courage a little bit on +that subject. I should think that the courts would welcome the +co-operation of the Legislature in changing this system. I believe +they are in hearty sympathy with the movement, as indicated by recent +decisions of the courts throughout the country. I believe that they +are themselves out of sympathy entirely with the worn out doctrines +which they are obliged to follow because of the precedents before +them; and if the Legislature would step in and give them a chance I +believe that they would be with them. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: In making this draft of a bill we fully appreciated +that the outlines which Senator Sanborn has given substantially +represents the different theories; but this bill was drafted on +the theory of bringing up for discussion the whole subject as to +whether or not you wanted to define your dangerous employments and +make them compulsory against the employer; to say that the employe +should not have any common law liability; that he should comply with +this law before he had any remedy; that he should be compelled to go +before a committee of awards and that the award when given should be +conclusive as to questions of fact, leaving the legal liability and +the jurisdictional questions open to the courts on appeal. That was +the scheme on which this was drawn. + +PROF. SEAGER: The suggestion contained in this first clause seems to +me a very valuable and helpful one; that is, that judicial opinion in +this country may be ripe for taking this view that a few years ago +would have seemed rather revolutionary; the view that any industry +in which an accident occurs is to that extent a hazardous industry, +and therefore subject to special regulation under the police powers +of the States, and that the form of regulation that should be adopted +along with the regulations as to the safety appliances, etc., is the +form of a Workmen's Compensation Law. + +The New York Commission, while some of us perhaps were inclined to +agree with the optimistic views that Mr. Harper has just expressed, +was not able, as a body, to believe that the courts would go quite +so far as this first clause contemplates. It was for that reason +mainly that we contented ourselves with enumerating extra-hazardous +occupations which came clearly under the police power of the State, +and limited the compensation in those employments to risks of those +employments as distinguished from accidents that merely happen in +connection with the employment or that might have happened in any +employment. I hope very much myself that the other States which are +working on this problem will be more courageous than we were, and +that they will place the matter before the courts in this extreme +form and determine what the courts will do with it. I think perhaps +there is more reason to expect a favorable decision from some of the +courts in the Western States than from the New York Court of Appeals. +Looking at the matter as a national problem, I think it would perhaps +be better to have the question come up first in some of the middle +Western States before the courts there rather than to come up in some +of our Eastern States. + +At the same time I agree with the suggestion that Senator Sanborn +raised as to the necessity of protecting the rights of the +employes. I do not see how, on the basis of the whole scheme of +property rights, we can take away from the employe his right to +sue for damages when the injury is due directly and clearly to the +negligence of the employer, without a constitutional amendment. But +that difficulty can be met by a saving clause that in practice need +not interfere very much with the efficiency of the system. That +is the plan we adopted in our New York bill, merely putting in a +clause to the effect that except where the accident was due to the +personal negligence of the employer the compensation bill should +apply, leaving it to the courts to decide just how far that would +go. A safety clause of that kind in practice, in my opinion, would +be largely disregarded. After this system came into operation, the +advantage of getting a certain compensation would appeal to a great +majority of injured workmen as preferable to the gamble of a law +suit. So that from the point of view of the expense to the employer +such a provision need not impose a serious additional burden along +with the burden of the compensation law. + +MR. PARKS (Massachusetts): In our State there is a bill before the +Committee on Labor in the Legislature, of which I am a member, +prohibiting the employment of minors under eighteen in trades which +are dangerous to health. The committee decided to refer the bill +to the State Board of Health, and an investigation by the State +Board showed that continuous employment in such industries as the +manufacture of cuff buttons and collar buttons, and so forth, was +deleterious to the health on account of the small pieces of bone and +other substances which had an injurious effect upon the health of the +operatives. One factory in particular was alluded to at a hearing +which we had on the matter, and after we passed the bill, and it +became a law, I understand that that factory changed over their whole +system, so that that particular industry instead of being as before +this act was passed a dangerous industry to health, it became a safe +industry to the health of minors. That was one effect of the naming +of a particular industry as a dangerous trade, so far as health is +concerned. + +PROF. ERNST FREUND (Illinois): It seems to me there are two things +to be sought for in this matter, and that is, first, to find some +principle of classification and then to see what portion of that +principle we can reasonably hope to cover by legislation. When I +look at this section it does not seem to me that the principle is +what I could call a sound one, and I mean by that, one that appeals +to our sense of justice. It is true that the English act is very +comprehensive, but it has never appeared to me that the rule of +the English law by which the head of a household is liable to a +domestic servant for that domestic servant's carelessness is really +a reasonable and just principle of law. Therefore we ought to have +some particular reason for putting the liability upon the employer, +and that reason might well be some particular element of danger. By +calling an employment dangerous, I think, we do not make it dangerous +even if now and then accidents occur in it. I think there are certain +elements of danger which we could all point out, and that there are +some elements of danger which we could all agree upon as making an +occupation extremely hazardous. + +We should also consider whether it would not be wise for the present +to confine the liability to concerns of some magnitude. I know that +it is very much questioned whether you can confine this extraordinary +liability to large concerns, because it is open to the criticism that +you simply make those pay who can afford to guard themselves through +liability insurance. However, I think there is a real difference of +principle based upon difference of size, because the relation of +the small concern to the employe is totally different from that of +the large concern, and it is only in the large concerns that these +conditions prevail which, under modern conditions, seem to demand a +shifting of the responsibility from the employe to the employer. + +If you wish to be conservative, and not cover all the industries that +have some element of hazard, you have to decide the very difficult +question where to draw the line. When I read over the list of +employments singled out in the compulsory bill recommended by the +New York Commission, I was very much puzzled by the obvious fact +that certain obviously hazardous employments were excluded, until +I was informed that the principle was that of the non-competitive +industry. Now, if you say that these industries are selected +because they cannot get away from the law by moving across the state +line, the discrimination looks objectionable; if, however, you say +they are selected because they are not exposed to competition from +industries operating under laws more favorable to the employer, the +discrimination looks much more plausible. Even so, it is doubtful +whether the principle of selection would approve itself to the +Supreme Court of this State. + +DR. W. H. ALLPORT (Illinois): It is evident we have in contemplation +here two methods of arriving at a tentative solution of this +question. (1) One method suggested by Professor Freund, which +looked to me like a modification of the German method; that is, the +method by which certain occupations have been gradually selected +as being more and more hazardous, and gradually including the less +hazardous occupations, until, I believe, in Germany the law covers +all occupations and almost all employments. That is, it now covers +farm employes, agricultural employes and the employes of our small +establishments. (2) The other method suggested by Senator Sanborn, as +a tentative law, follows more or less the English method, where the +law was made right away to cover practically all employments; that +is, the farming industry, domestic industry and other industries. + +In considering this first clause of the tentative code, it would +seem to me as though it would be possible to arrive at some definite +definition. The English law has a section devoted entirely to the +matter of definition, and defines employer, employe, dependent, and +so forth, and some interesting questions have come up recently as to +what are dependents under the English law. But the English law omits +altogether to express what are hazardous employments. I will read the +first section of Chapter LVIII of the Workmen's Compensation Act of +1906, which is now the law of England: + +"If in any employment personal injury by accident arising out of +and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman, his +employer shall, subject as hereinafter mentioned, be liable to pay +compensation in accordance with the first schedule to this act." + +That covers all forms of employment, but it does not define any +employment as being hazardous or non-hazardous. + +I suppose the basis of our effort in this tentative "workers' code" +is to arrive at something which will go behind our present courts +and bring us in line with the state and federal constitutions, which +will give the power to a State to enact a law which under ordinary +circumstances it would not have, and so, therefore, the effort is +made here to define dangerous employments. It is interesting to +note the ingenuity with which that point is reached; _i. e._, that +any employment becomes dangerous after an accident happens. In the +Wisconsin law the effort is made directly; there is no definition, so +far as I can see, in the Wisconsin law nor in the New York law. There +are certain employments which are defined as extra-hazardous and, +therefore, subject to state regulation. + +There is another point in Section 1 and that is this: "An employment +in which there hereafter occurs bodily injuries to any of the +employes arising out of." To again recur to the English law, and also +the German law, the English law covers other points besides bodily +injuries; it covers in certain schedules dangerous diseases and +trades accompanied by dangerous diseases. The question, therefore, +which would arise in my mind is whether or not we should not in this +tentative law embody a consideration of certain dangerous diseases. +I happen to be a member of the Illinois Commission on Occupational +Diseases, and, therefore, perhaps would be expected to see that in +the bill, but aside from that fact it does seem to me that that is a +matter for careful consideration. That the bill should cover diseases +arising from mining work, diseases from deposits in the lungs where +men are engaged in the woolen industry and the lead industry and in +the match industry, and certain other dangerous occupations which are +dangerous not on account of the personal injuries sustained by the +employes, but on account of the danger to the health. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: Section 12 says. "Provision defining the words and +phrases, and covering all tenses, pronouns and both sexes," should be +put into the bill when it is finally drawn. + +FRANK BUCHANAN (Illinois): I am a structural iron worker by trade and +have worked at it for many years, and I guess there would not be much +trouble in defining it as an extra-hazardous trade. We have a large +number of men injured and killed at that trade, and because of that +fact I have given this question of employers' liability much thought +and study. For that reason I am here as an interested party to-day. + +I am not in harmony with that part of the law as drawn up here which +takes away the rights of a workman to bring an action in the courts. +I take that view, first, because I believe it is the constitutional +right of every worker to have action in the courts if he sees fit to +do so. Secondly, I believe that when we do have that right of action, +due to the negligence of an employer, that it is going to cause the +employer to be more careful of how he conducts that particular kind +of work, and the most important thing about this whole matter is to +secure something that will act as a preventive of accidents. + +PROF. JOHN H. GRAY (Minnesota): Would you be in favor, Mr. Buchanan, +of a bill which gave the choice to the workmen? + +MR. BUCHANAN: No; I favor the English law that gives him the right to +bring suit if he sees fit and then take the compensation if he fails +in his suit. + +I had hoped, in view of the fact that they have brought this law +about in European countries, that some of our States might take +it up in the same manner. We have a problem here to confront and +overcome that they do not have in European countries, in that we +are largely governed by the laws of the various States, which, of +course, differ widely. In the manufacturing industry, that gives +ground for an argument against one State creating a law that does not +apply to another State, the claim being made that the competition is +not equal, and, of course, there is some ground for that argument. +I believe, however, it is going to take a long time and be a very +difficult thing to bring about the necessary uniform legislation +throughout the States. For that reason I had hoped that we might be +able to find some way to create a law affecting only those industries +that may not be in competition with the industries of other States, +such industries as have been referred to, as the building industry +and construction work, and so forth. There are more men killed and +injured in that industry than any other two, but due to the fact that +there is no competition in that industry it is possible to make a law +affecting that and let it be tried out. It might be a starting place +to find a way to cover the other industries without affecting those +industries in each State which are competitive or obstructing them in +any way. + +I find, however, in reading the history of the British labor +legislation that the secretary of the Building Employers' Association +in one of the large cities there has stated that that law has not +obstructed the business, decreased the wages or decreased the +profits, and that the building employers are not justified in any way +in finding any fault with that law. It seems to me, therefore, there +ought to be some way in which to pass a measure that would apply +to that industry. Of course, it may be said that I am a structural +iron worker, and interested in that craft which is a building trade, +and am, therefore, more selfish about this matter. I feel, however, +a great interest in securing better protection for workers in all +industries. I know the dissatisfaction that is caused under present +conditions; I know the women that are condemned to the washtub +and the orphans to poverty, and, therefore, I am always willing +to exercise my best efforts to secure better protection for those +workers. In my opinion the present condition is the biggest blot that +we have on our civilization. + +Take my own trade, for instance, I have some figures here which I +secured from our local secretary which may be of use to you. In 1906, +out of a membership of about 1200, we had 29 deaths from accidents +and 114 injuries. In 1907, when the work was very much reduced and +our membership was greatly reduced, due to the panic brought on at +that time, we had 132 injured and 12 deaths. In 1908, while still +suffering from the effects of the panic, and not so many men working, +probably seven hundred or eight hundred, we had 113 accidents and +7 deaths. In 1909, after we had recovered from the panic in our +industry, we had 175 injured and 8 deaths out of a membership of +about 1200. + +In 1906, from the best information I could get, we paid out $12,060 +in benefits to those who were injured or killed, and the average +length of time of disability of those who were disabled was six weeks. + +In conclusion, I believe I am expressing the sentiments of the +trade-union people in the city of Chicago when I say that we are +opposed to any law that will waive the right of action now in the +hands of a workman. We think it should be as it is in Great Britain +at the present time. Personally, I am in favor of going even +further than that. I believe when a workman suffers an injury due +to the carelessness of an employer or a superintendent, that that +employer or superintendent should be sentenced to prison for that +negligence. I mean by that those who are in charge of that work and +who are responsible for that work. I claim that there should be a +penal offense attached to that negligent act, and I believe that +the majority of employers would have no objection to it; that is, +those who are willing to use the necessary care for preventing these +accidents. I hope that in the very near future the people in this +country will become awakened to the need of these measures, and I +believe the present facts obtainable will show that there can be +fair protective measures created without any hardship whatever on +the employer, although it may be necessary for them to add a small +price on the product or on the contract price when he is bidding on +construction work. + +C. B. CULBERTSON (Wisconsin): I will assume a case in order that +I may ask the last speaker a question. Say that in Wisconsin last +year there was a loss, including the expense of court proceedings +and obtaining judgments and everything that you could put under that +head, of $460,000; that during that time the laboring men to whom +this money should have gone got only from 18 to 25 per cent. of it; +would he not prefer a law, if he could not get a better one, that +would give 90 per cent. of that $460,000 to the sufferers, even if +occasional large judgments should have to be waived? + +MR. BUCHANAN: I always prefer getting the best we possibly can. We +must consider the conditions under which we are laboring. I do not +believe that the laboring people are willing to waive their right +of action in the courts for something that they do not consider +especially good. Of course, I am not here representing any laboring +body, but from my association with them I am led to believe that +I can speak as to their sentiments in the city of Chicago. I am a +delegate to the Chicago Federation of Labor, one of the largest +bodies of its kind in the country, if not the largest, and have heard +those matters discussed there, and I would say that we are willing +to accept nothing less than the best we can get, and we are willing +always to accept that. + +JOHN MITCHELL (New York): I do not know whether there will be any +advantage in the discussion of the character of a bill that we should +want to adopt or as to the measure that any group would desire. I +hold no commission that gives me a right to represent the workingmen +of the United States, notwithstanding that I am an officer of the +American Federation of Labor. As a matter of fact, the American +Federation of Labor, which is representative of practically all +the organized workmen in the United States, has not itself decided +formally upon the character of a compensation bill that they would +favor. But I do have some knowledge of the general sentiment that +prevails in the country, and I think that in part I can say for the +workingmen of the United States, and they, after all, the ones most +affected by this legislation, they are the ones that are demanding +it, and it is for their relief that it is going to be enacted. I +believe I can say for them, as Mr. Buchanan has said, that the +workingmen will not be willing to waive their right to enter the +courts and sue for damages. To that extent, I think, he is correct, +and that the workmen would not be willing to waive their right to sue. + +On the other hand, I believe that if they understood the +circumstances prevailing in Great Britain that they would not insist +upon their right to sue, and then failing to win their suit to +have their compensation. I do not have with me a table I have of +statistics giving the amount secured in suits for damages and the +average amount paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act of Great +Britain, but my recollection is that the workmen of Great Britain, in +cases where they have instituted suit under the employers' liability +law or the common law, have received approximately $852, and that the +average compensation paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act has +been $848. My recollection is that the workingmen of Great Britain +have received on the average more under the compensation act than +they have under the liability act, and I think can we take it for +granted that where men have sued under the liability laws of Great +Britain it has been in cases where there has been a likelihood of +responsibility on the part of the employer. Unless the workingman was +convinced that he had a reasonably good case, he would not proceed +under the liability laws, but would, on the other hand, proceed under +the compensation act. + +Now, if the workingmen of Great Britain recover a larger amount under +the Workingmen's Compensation Act than they do under the liability +laws, is it not likely that they would do the same thing in the +United States? In other words, has not the right of the workingman +of Great Britain to proceed under the liability laws simply been +a temptation to him to sue in the hope, and the false hope, as it +turns out, that he might recover a larger amount than he would +under the compensation act; and if the figures I have given you are +approximately correct, has the result not been that the workingman, +lured by the false hope that he would secure a large verdict, has +given a large part of the money he would have received under the +compensation act to attorneys, because he has had to pay the costs +of the courts, he has had to pay his lawyers their fees, although +possibly not in as large an amount as would be the case here, because +in England the court fixes the amount of the attorney's fees; and has +he not taken from the employer money that ought to have been used +to compensate the men for accidents. Whenever a burden is put upon +the employer that means nothing to the workman, it simply deprives +the employer of the opportunity of paying a larger amount under the +compensation act. + +Now, it is not because of any particular sympathy I have for the +employer in the matter, although I want to be absolutely just to him, +but it is because I want to protect the workingman and see that he +receives the largest possible amount as a reward or as a compensation +for his injury, that I am not in favor of giving the workman the +right to sue under the liability laws, and, failing to win his suit, +to then proceed under the compensation act. I think it is holding out +to the workman a false hope, and I know the practice in England has +been simply a lure, and has caused him to waste his own money and +waste the money of the employer without any benefit to himself. + +On the other hand, when I say that I believe the workman should have +the right to sue, I believe that because I believe there should be +something done to cause the employer to prevent accidents, and I +think the fact that a workman once in a while may secure a verdict of +$5000, $10,000 or $15,000 is an incentive to the employer to prevent +accidents. And when all is said and done, gentlemen, one of the +principal purposes of this Conference should be to prevent accidents. +Your compensation, quite apart from preventing accidents, is +necessary, yet it is of a hundred times more importance that a life +be saved than it is that some man or his dependents should receive +$3000 or $4000 for his life. It is all very well to receive $1000 for +the loss of an eye or the loss of an arm, but it is much better, not +only for that man, but also for society, that the eye or the arm be +not lost. + +Gentlemen, this gathering, if I may just make this general +observation, is perhaps one of the most important gatherings that has +met in the United States, because it is going to give impetus to a +great movement to change our entire system of employers' liability. +I doubt not but that within a very few years our courts will so +broaden their vision, and so broaden their decisions, that they +will find means, even under our present constitution, to recognize +the growing demand on the part of the people for relief from our +iniquitous system of employers' liability law. I do not know how fast +we can go; no doubt those of us whose lives have been spent among +workingmen, and who have daily been brought in contact with those +who are suffering either from accidents directly or the dependents +of those who have been killed, may grow impatient in our desire to +secure a remedy, but we cannot go faster than the courts will let +us go, and we cannot go faster than the Constitution of the United +States will let us go, but we ought to go at least as fast as they +will permit us to go. If some State will take the lead and adopt a +comprehensive system of compensation, and put it up to the courts +and have decisions rendered, we would then know just what we could +do. In any event, gentlemen, I believe that the workingmen will not +be at all satisfied either with the suggestion sometimes made of a +contribution on their part or with any law that removes from the +employer the incentive to prevent accidents. + +SHERMAN KINGSLEY (Chicago): Gentlemen, in my duties as superintendent +of the United Charities of Chicago, I come in touch with a great many +families where the breadwinner has been removed, and where the burden +of supporting the family devolves upon the wife and the children. In +this State, within the year, as you know, we have met with a very +great disaster down at Cherry, where a large number of men were +killed in a very spectacular manner. The press of this city and +country was alive with the stories of that disaster for weeks. It was +debated in our Legislature, it was talked about in university halls +and preached about from the pulpits. I doubt if ever in the history +of industrial accidents 267 men ever had as much written, said and +thought and felt about themselves and their families as was the case +down at Cherry. + +I was asked to read a paper at the National Conference of Charities +and Corrections at St. Louis, my subject being: "Compensation from +the Point of View of What a Relief Society Would Consider Adequate." +I tried to get a number of accidents equal to that of the victims +of Cherry; that is, accidents that happened one at a time in the +commonplace fashion, where, instead of having the press interested +in it for weeks, the man will get three lines in a paper in an +obscure corner, saying that So-and-so had his head cut off or had +suffered an accident which cost his life. I got from ten societies +similar to the United Charities of Chicago, in ten of the largest +cities of the country, something over one hundred accident cases, +and I have a couple of charts which show the kind of compensation +that was obtained by those one-at-a-time, obscure accidents, and +then what happened in the case of the men down at Cherry, where they +met their death so dramatically. One chart shows the compensation +they received, either through court action or from the employer, and +it shows what 50 families received where the man was killed in a +one-at-a-time accident in ten of the large cities of this country. +The second is a chart of 50 families in Cherry, and shows that they +received $1800 apiece; while the 50 one-at-a-time families only +received $8749, in amounts all the way from $3000 down to $7. + +I suppose that a damage suit of $10,000 or $15,000 does have some +compelling effect upon an employer with reference to protective +machinery, but I think that the greatest thing in the world that will +happen in the way of preventing accidents is to make it dead sure +that every accident will receive some just measure of compensation. +Instead of having 50 accidents get $8749, if they come to $3000 +apiece, making a total of $150,000, that fact will have a great deal +more effect in preventing accidents than has the present plan. + +Now, I have another chart which shows the whole relief story +of Cherry, and indicates the effect of public opinion upon the +compensation received by the sufferers. The Red Cross Society, the +Legislature and the whole community became interested in Cherry. +The money contributed by the public, by the Legislature and by +the community generally amounted to $87,240 odd dollars. In our +one-at-a-time accidents something was done for the victims, of +course; they were cared for in day nurseries, in orphan asylums, +in hospitals and the county agents gave help and the charities +gave some help, but not in any such amount as the Cherry sufferers +received. Twenty-four of these one-at-a-time cases were cases where +the children were taken out of school and put to work or to begging, +or the family took in boarders, and in some instances the criminal +courts had played their part. Whatever it was, it was a certain +fixed amount. (Down in Cherry the amount contributed is to go to +the families in monthly payments, spreading over some five years, +and in amounts suited to the number of the children and the ages of +the children in the family.) The deterioration in the income of +the families, resulting from the one-at-a-time accidents, was 64 +per cent. Notwithstanding the wife and the children did everything +they could, the income in these families has deteriorated almost +two-thirds. In one case, where there was permanent disability, a man +was awarded in one court $22,500. The case was appealed from court +to court during a number of years, and finally the man received +absolutely nothing. + +Those are some of the general consequences, and I believe that in +this matter of prevention nothing is going to have so wholesome +and so certain an effect in the prevention of accidents as to have +accidents cost money, and cost about what they ought to cost, and +cost it with a certainty. You can see what happened in the case of +these 50 families, where the accidents happened one at a time; those +families only cost something like $8000, and some of that even, in +fact, quite a large part of it, was a gift from the employer and not +compensation. + +(A motion was adopted thanking Mr. Kingsley for his graphic +presentation of the facts.) + +JOHN FLORA (Illinois): I see in this tentative "code" no provision +for doing away with the defenses of the employers before the courts. +The Chicago Federation of Labor, which I directly represent on the +Illinois Commission, holds that any compensation bill in the State +of Illinois is not worth the paper it is written on, unless we have +a provision also doing away with the right of the employer to bring +into the defense what is known in court decisions as assumption of +risk, contributory negligence and the fellow-servant doctrine. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: Let me suggest that further down in this bill the +common law remedies for all industrial accidents covered by this bill +are intended to be repealed. If they are repealed, that would dispose +of your question. + +MR. FLORA: Very well. I want to say then in reference to this first +section, that it appeals to me a great deal stronger than anything +else. I happen to be a building trades man myself, and I want to +say individually, as a member of the Illinois Commission, that I am +in favor of a compensation law that will cover everybody. I do not +favor taking out any class of industry and making that one class +amenable to a certain law, and allowing another class to go without +any protection whatever. I hold that the widow of a man who is +killed in a non-hazardous occupation suffers just as much as the +widow of a man who is killed in a hazardous occupation. I do not +know how the constitution would affect this matter in this State. +That, I presume, is something that the Illinois Commission would +have to look up, but nevertheless I think it is a great deal better +than the New York proposition. I never have been very much taken up +with the idea of having two different bills in New York. I feel that +they might have gone further and have made one bill that would cover +every occupation. I hold with the rest of the representatives of the +working people that the working people will never agree to surrender +their right to go into court under the common law. + +MR. DAWSON (New York): I have not made up my mind at all as to +this question, whether the right of the workingman who is injured, +or of his family in the event of his death, to proceed under the +existing law, should be taken away; whether he should be compelled +to exercise an option and abide by it, or whether he should be +permitted to proceed under the law through the courts, and in case +he fails to establish that he has been injured by the employer's +wrongful or negligent act, still be entitled to compensation under +the compensation act. + +There are, however, some considerations that arise in my mind. In +the first place, the tendency of the proposed legislation in this +country has been to do away with certain of the defenses, even +though a compensation act be adopted. An argument in favor of that +has been that by doing away with these defenses the employers will +be made very glad indeed to accept a compensation act. I think the +impression is that the bill which was passed by the Ohio Legislature, +and since vetoed by the Governor, was intended chiefly to influence +public opinion there in favor of abandoning entirely the old method +of dealing with industrial accidents. Certainly in New York there +is no question but that the weakening of the defenses was directly +for the purpose of getting the manufacturers to take advantage of +the permissive act. As I understand it, a similar proposition is +now being brought forward in Wisconsin. If, in spite of this, by +any chance the fixed policy in this country should ultimately be +the same as in Great Britain; namely, to preserve to workmen their +rights under the common law and under statute law relating to +employers' liability, either in an optional form or in a form which +would still give the benefit under the workmen's compensation act, +though defeated in the courts, it occurs to me that this weakening +of defenses would be a peculiarly dangerous thing for us to do. +The present situation in the United States is that the employers' +liability theory, the negligence theory has, notwithstanding these +defenses, in the main, been pushed just as far as the courts and the +juries could push it, to cover many accidents. Notwithstanding that +we chafe at these defenses, the courts and juries have gone just as +far as they could go, on the theory that an employer was to be held +liable _only_ for his own fault. This is due to a strong sense of +natural justice and a desire to compensate as many as possible. + +It is safe to say that nine out of ten verdicts rendered in this +country, and sustained by the higher courts when brought before them, +are not cases where the actual negligence of the employer is clear +at all, but instead it is reasoned out by precedents established by +these same courts, under which employers have been held responsible; +precedents which, of course, have been carried still further in the +case of public liability; that is, to others than employes. If we +pass a compensation law so that every injury is surely compensated, +what resulted in Great Britain is what I should expect to find in +this country if we do not weaken these defenses; that is, that after +a compensation act is passed, the disposition of courts and juries +will shift to the other side; namely, that instead of aiming to +stretch the theory of employers' liability and negligence to the +utmost limit in order to give verdict, they will tighten them by +establishing new precedents until it will be nearly impossible to +get a verdict for the negligence of the employer. This is true now +in Great Britain unless an exceedingly clear case of actual personal +negligence has been established, or such negligence on the part of +those who have been appointed to perform the employers' duties in his +business, that his agents' negligence is fairly attributable to him. +It is by reason of that fact that the courts have gradually veered +to the position, that the reservation of that right in Great Britain +has done no harm. I say no harm advisedly, because I am told that the +British insurance companies regard it as a quantity negligible in the +computation of their rates. + +Under those circumstances should we not be particularly careful how +we proceed about weakening defenses? And should not the manner in +which we proceed be definitely based upon what we suppose will be the +ultimate form of these laws; that is, whether the right to proceed +under the employers' liability act will be wiped out entirely, +whether it will be reserved as an option to be exercised only by +abandoning the other right entirely, or whether, as in Great Britain, +there would still remain the right when defeated, to claim under the +compensation act. + +There are reasons which appeal to me very strongly why the British +principle should be accepted, but I am not clear that I shall be of +that opinion in the end. One of these reasons is: This compensation, +if it is given under a compensation act, will be for the purpose +of trying to see that all persons who are injured in the course of +carrying on an industry are taken care of. It has a public purpose; +namely, to prevent the piling up of the burden upon public and +private charity, the very things we saw set forth in the chart +that Mr. Kingsley exhibited a few minutes ago. Is there any reason +why, when we have tried to make that provision for the inevitable +result of industry, we should refuse to punish those rare cases of +misconduct which mean that men have grossly trifled with the safety +of their employes? I am not quite clear that there is any good +reason. I am confident that an examination of the British decisions, +since they put the first compensation act upon the statute books in +1907, would show that there have been very few cases, indeed, in +which the employers have been held liable, where they ought not to +have been actually punished for misconduct. + +There is one consideration, however, that does not appeal to me which +has been brought forward in the argument here, and I wish to speak +about it. It is that by reason of such punishment employers will +be more careful. I am sorry to say that such does not appear to be +true. All the evidence to the present time is that employers are most +careless where there is nothing for which they are held responsible +but negligence. They are enormously more careful when they are held +for every accident that happens. Experience all over the world has +shown this to be true, and I want to add one thing that is almost +more important still; they are still more careful in countries where +they are not even held individually responsible, but are only held +responsible for the payment of insurance premiums. The greatest +amount of prevention and the largest amount of care exercised by +employers anywhere in the world is in those countries which have +compulsory or obligatory insurance laws. The reason is very simple: +nearly every employer does not think that a catastrophe, due to +his negligence, will ever happen. But when you hold him under a +compensation act for every accident, big or little, negligent or +not, and accidents are happening every day, and there is a good deal +of money being paid more or less continually, he will be much more +careful. Again, when you introduce a compulsory insurance system, if +his institution is not up to standard, he finds he is paying three +times as big a rate of premium, perhaps, as another employer in the +same business, and he does not wait for accidents to happen, but +takes measures at once to prevent them, and so get a present and +permanent benefit in a reduction of his rate. There has nothing been +found yet which will cause so effective prevention of accidents as +compulsory insurance; for it is, after all, the certainty that the +want of it costs money that causes an employer to be more careful, +and not the possibility that it may cost him a great deal more money +or perhaps even ruin him. + +MR. HARPER: Further, as to the right of the Legislature to take away +from the employe his right of action at common law, in most of the +bills which have been suggested, it is provided that some method of +arbitration shall be substituted for the ordinary action at law, and, +in my judgment, where the nature of the injury and the amount of the +compensation only, and not the question of the liability, is left to +the arbitrators and taken away from the courts, the courts ought to +sustain it. It might be wise, however, in all cases to provide for an +appeal to a court of record. + +I want to ask the Chairman and the other attorneys here, especially +to discuss a suggestion I desire to make in regard to limiting the +right of the employe to bring such common law action and substituting +in part the compensation system. The suggestion is this: Under the +doctrine of respondeat superior, which has been in vogue for two or +three hundred years, the employe was originally given the right of +action against the employer, not only for the negligent acts of the +employer himself, but also for the negligent acts of his servants +and employes while exercising the duties of their employment. That +was a judge-made privilege extended to the employe. It is not a +constitutional right, and might we not take that power from him and +substitute therefore a compensation system? That is, might we not +provide in a compulsory compensation act that the employe, where the +negligence is attributable not to the master himself, primarily, but +to his servant or his employe, that his compensation in that case +should be compulsory and the employe would not have a right to his +action at common law. + +HENRY W. BULLOCK (Indiana): We do not have a Commission in Indiana. +At the last meeting of the General Assembly I prepared on behalf +of the State Federation of Labor a bill for the creation of a +Commission, which, unfortunately, was smothered. We are fortunate, +however, in Indiana, in having a Governor who personally is in favor +of compensation, so we have that much of a start on the future. + +The question of employers' liability and workmen's compensation, I +believe, has been more deeply studied by organized labor than any +other class of people, and I frequently have been associated with +them in the preparation of their legislative measures in Indiana, and +I believe that I can express their sentiments as being in favor of +compensation. + +I also believe that at this time they would be opposed to any system +that would take from them their common law right to sue for damages, +and they would probably favor a double law, such as they have in +England. However, they might be induced to grant some concessions +if the employers were to be reasonable, which I hope they will be. +Thus far, however, there has been much opposition on the part of the +employers, not only to measures for compensation, but to all safety +measures. + +I think the question of safety is the larger proposition. One thing +the trade unions have done, they have trained up competent workmen, +and if the employers would be careful in the selection of their +employes, that would do much to protect life and limb. + +In regard to this "workers' code," I know I speak the unanimous +sentiment of the legislative forces of Indiana when I say that they +do not intend the operation of an employers' liability law to include +agricultural and domestic services, but that the question is whether +the law can be constitutional without that. All classifications must +be based upon some reason. It might be that this could be evaded, +and the law could be drawn generally with a proviso excluding +certain persons from its operation. Then no one could raise the +constitutional question perhaps. The person within the operation of +the law could not raise it because he would be affected, and the +person excluded could not raise it because he would not be affected +by it. + +It occurs to me that perhaps the rates of compensation named here +are not quite adequate. Injured workmen, for instance, receive 60 +per cent. during only five years. Thus the workingman not only gives +40 per cent. of his wages, but he gives it all after five years. I +believe that the industry should bear the expense. As it stands, +it makes the workingmen, who are usually young or middle-aged men, +from 20 to 45 years of age on an average, and who have a long +expectancy, contribute the largest share. As to whether or not we +could constitutionally deny the workingman his right of action +against a negligent employer I seriously doubt if that could be done, +for why should the rule be different if the injury is caused by the +employer and it falls upon the workingman, than when it falls upon +a stranger? All persons should be liable for their carelessness and +their negligence, and it occurs to me that there is not a reasonable +basis for that classification. Negligence is a personal proposition +with the employer, and for that reason, I think, there should be a +right of action against the employer. Compensation is a matter of +industry and occupation, and has no reference at all to carelessness +or negligence, and for that reason the industry should bear the +ordinary hazard, but the employer should bear that which is caused by +his own negligence. + +This bill, as I have read it hurriedly, makes no provisions for the +important feature of the certainty of securing compensation. It +provides that these payments shall be strung out for a period of five +years. How are we to know that the employers will remain solvent for +five years? There should be some security for those payments if they +are not made in a lump sum. + +It occurs to me also that this notice is a little bit strict. +Ordinarily an employer knows when an injury occurs. The law in most +of our States compels the employers to report, and yet if the injured +person fails to report within a very limited time, his right of +recovery is barred. That notice should be sent, provided the employer +himself does not know of it, but if he himself has actual notice, +then the employe's right to recovery should not be barred. In some +one of the measures, I do not know which one now, it provides that +there must be specific detail. That gives the employer the advantage +of having the names of the witnesses and of all the details made by +the employe, and it does not give the reciprocal advantage to the +employe of getting a statement from the employer, when we all know +that very often employers conceal witnesses and keep the correct +statement of facts from the injured workman. + +Concerning Section 6, regarding boards of arbitration and awards, +some constitutional question might arise. I am not sure that +such boards might be called administrative, but, at any rate, we +have a constitutional provision in our State that says boards of +conciliation may be created, but not with power to act unless the +parties submit themselves voluntarily. I seriously doubt, therefore, +if you can have compulsory arbitration under our constitution. + +I would favor abolishing all of the common law defenses as to +contributory negligence, assumed risk and so forth, with the hope +of bringing the employers into a frame of mind to adopt this law, +and to that end if you cannot get a constitutional law without it, +the Legislature would have the right to prescribe a standard form of +policy for liability insurance, and in that they might prescribe a +form to insure the workmen. + +I believe if we do not have compensation, that the liability +insurance company should be made a party to actions for damages; +that the amounts should go to the injured parties rather than to the +employers, as is the case over in England. They have a provision +there that the employers may adopt some system of their own with the +approval of the public authorities. + +The main argument of the employers at Minneapolis last year was that +any increased liability would add a burden to the employers, and +would cause the employes to become careless, and on investigation +I find that perhaps there has been an increase in the number of +accidents reported, which is due to the fact that the workmen report +better when they are compensated, and that a larger number of +industries have come in under the law. From the American Federation +of Labor officers I find that their estimate is that the dangerous +machinery that now runs at high speed is also the cause of the +increased reports of non-serious accidents, and from an insurance +company of Germany I find that accidents of a trivial nature have +increased, while those of a fatal nature have decreased, and that the +employers are penalized for their negligence. It seems to me that +where there is a liability to penalize the employer for negligence it +causes him to be more careful in protecting the lives of his workmen. +And, it seems to me, in conclusion, that the right of the workingmen +to receive damages should be maintained, but personally I think it +should be used as little as possible. + +WALLACE INGALLS (Wisconsin): The Chairman and I have discussed +the various fundamental features or principles which underlie the +question of compulsory compensation under our law, and you will +pardon me for any criticism, if I make any, of the right to enact an +out-and-out compulsory system in any of the States of the Union, but +this bill involves exactly that principle. While it is not so worded +plainly in the first section, yet it means the same thing, because +in the first section you characterize occupations without limit as +dangerous occupations. When you do that, you put those occupations +within what is called the police power of the country, and when you +do that, then, of course, you can enact laws bearing directly on +the subject. I think we ought not to forget in the discussion of +this question that the underlying principles of our Government are +different from those of any of the other countries which have these +systems that we have been talking about. When our Government was +founded it was founded on individual rights. At that time individual +rights were unknown in the other countries, and technically speaking +in the other countries they have not now got individual rights, while +we have them here. In fact, our Government is based on them. + +One gentleman suggested that the employes did not wish to surrender +their individual rights to go into the courts, which is the only +place they have to go. I believe that is fundamental, and I think +they would accord the same rights to the employer. But we must not +lose sight of the fact that individual rights exist in this country, +and that in the older countries, such as Germany and England, they do +not have individual rights that you can insist upon and go into court +upon. + +We are discussing a very important question, we are discussing a +question whereby we can arbitrarily decide what course shall be +granted to an individual without his day in court, whether it is an +employer or an employe; that they shall take a certain amount of +money fixed by arbitration for an injury, or for death, or whatever +it may be. That is a serious question. Now, you can, of course, take +away these defenses of the employer; there is no question about +that. I am in sympathy with it, but under our laws and our system +of government, I do not believe that any of us want to embark upon +any dangerous system of jurisprudence, and I do not believe we want +to invade individual rights anywhere. In Wisconsin, after a careful +discussion of what we could and what we could not do, we presented a +plan whereby these defenses are practically destroyed and the other +features of the bill are optional. + +One phase of this subject has been the source of much discussion pro +and con, and that is in regard to the matter of contribution. In +Germany their system covers sickness, accidents, invalidity and old +age, three different classes. There is no contribution for accidents +proper. There is for old age and for sickness, and sickness includes +the first thirteen weeks of the result of an accident. In England +there is no contribution. Whoever will examine those two systems, +and compare them, I think, will draw the conclusion that when you +consider the subject of sickness and of invalidity, the question of +mutuality must necessarily and naturally enter into it. But with +purely accidental misfortunes, that is a different question, and to +my mind the contribution has no place in it for this reason, if it +is true that that should fall upon the industry, then it necessarily +follows that the employe should not contribute. + +The success of the German system, as I view it, is based upon the +mutuality of sickness, invalidity and old age, all three being +interdependent and interwoven under one scheme, and the mutuality +being in that system. That is what makes it so perfect. It is really +a self-operating principle, and it is based upon the only true and +correct principle that ever will be arrived at in considering a +scheme of that kind. We cannot do that at present. When our system +broadens, and we get to the point where we handle sickness and +invalidity, then the mutual feature of it will come in and will be +very wholesome, but as far as we have gone now, it is not possible to +handle it. + +On the subject of litigation in continental countries under the +liability laws, the statistics in England show that litigation has +practically disappeared. They prefer to take the compensation. It is +immediate and they get it at once, and they prefer that rather than +going into long-drawn-out and expensive litigation. Of course, there +is some litigation, but it is growing less and less continuously, +and, as a matter of fact, most of the litigation there has been in +connection with the construction of the law. + +AMOS T. SAUNDERS (Massachusetts): It seems to me as though the +reading of this first section might defeat its true purpose. I +understand it is based upon the theory that constitutionally we can +impose certain remedies upon certain industries, because they are +immediately dangerous. It is very obvious from the reading of this +first section, following out that theory of law, that the man who +drafted it had endeavored to say that every industry is a partly +dangerous industry. Under this bill the servant girl in my kitchen +who cuts her finger when she is cutting bread for breakfast, is +entitled to recovery. It strikes me when you say everything is partly +dangerous that you have landed about where you would have landed +if you had not said that anything was particularly dangerous. That +is, if I should attempt to say that every man in this room was a +"Tom fool," as a comparison between the men in this room, I have +not said anything, but when you say every industry in which there +is an accident (and there is an accident in every industry) is a +partly dangerous industry, and by saying that attempt to legislate +concerning it because it is dangerous, we have simply piled up a +number of words which, when the courts get to the construction of the +bill they must disregard entirely. + +On the proposition that in England a man may sue, and, failing to +recover, may get his compensation under the compensation act, it has +been suggested that that will work no harm, and I judge it was sought +to convey the idea that the result would be the same in this country. +I believe, however, that when you say that you lose sight of one +thing, and that is that in England it is practically impossible for +an employe to get what a lawyer in this country who is trying cases +for the plaintiff would call a decent verdict. The verdicts from the +English juries are very materially smaller than the verdicts from +American juries. Therefore, when the English employe comes to compare +what he can get under the compensation act with what he can get under +a verdict from a jury, he is satisfied with a very much smaller +amount than the American would be. One of the chief reasons for +the compensation act is to prevent the waste of money in expensive +litigation. The employe only receives perhaps 17 to 25 per cent. of +the money which the employer pays out, and the rest of it, so far +as the employer and employe is concerned, is wasted. Therefore, if +we should provide a system which would allow the employes all the +remedies they now have, and then, if they should fail in their suits, +allow them to secure their compensation under the compensation act, +will we not be increasing litigation and, therefore, be providing a +means to hinder the effect of this very act? In other words, would +you not be doing away with the prevention of this tremendous waste in +litigation? + +There has been considerable discussion as to a choice of remedies. +I know in the Massachusetts Legislature, before the Judiciary +Committee, the first question that was raised at the hearing this +year and the year before was whether the employe should not be +obliged to choose before his injury, so that he could make a wholly +disinterested choice between the laws, and not be affected by his +particular injury; that his choice should be between the system of +compensation or the system of liability. No one has suggested a +really workable method, but in Massachusetts, and, I think, in New +England in its entirety, most of the actions which are brought by +employes against employers are to-day brought to a very large extent +under statutory remedies and not under the common law. I will assume +that we will all agree that anything which the State has given +to an employe by statute can be taken away by statute under the +constitution, and it has seemed to me as though we could at least do +this: That in providing a compensation act we could provide it as a +substitute for our statutory act, and that would leave the employe +his common law remedy and his compensation remedy. The fact that the +common law remedy is not used now, from a lawyer's standpoint, at +least, would force the employer and the employe, if he was going to +bring an action, into a more or less unfamiliar proceeding under the +old common law, and as between an unfamiliar common law procedure and +a perfectly plain compensation act, it would seem that the natural +course for both the employe and the employer would be to take the +certain compensation act. + +I think the question which troubles Massachusetts more than anything +else has been touched upon very little here to-day, and that is +the effect upon interstate competitive industries. We can pass a +law in each State which will apply to specially hazardous risks +which are not competitive between the States, and while it might +be inconvenient, and it may cause a great deal of trouble to start +in with, the effect eventually is not an injury to any particular +industry or any particular set of people, because if it is not a +competitive industry the employer very quickly contributes the +extra burden upon the public. But when you strike the competitive +industries between States, when Massachusetts or any other State does +pass a compensation act, we do not know what it will do until it is +tried, and it may be a serious burden upon the manufacturers. We are +in danger of placing that particular industry in such a position +that it cannot compete with industries in surrounding States. It +seems to me, therefore, that the vital question for this National +Conference to discuss, and the one which would be the most effective +and beneficial to all the different States, is what shall we do with +our competitive industries. If we can all secure, approximately at +the same time, at the end of a few years, and place upon the statute +books of the various States practically the same scheme, then, even +though it is not a perfect scheme, even though it should prove to be +a burden upon the industry, that industry is not going to suffer, +but the people who sell the various manufactured products will +distribute that burden among themselves. That, it seems to me, is the +practical question which should be discussed. I should like to have +this National Conference discuss what we can do with those industries +which are spread out over the country and which are competitive. I +believe we must find some general solution of that problem before +there can be successful compensation acts in any of the States. + +EDWIN R. WRIGHT (Illinois): There is one question I should like +to have some light on from the members of the various Commissions +here. There has been a good deal of discussion upon the elective or +compulsory systems of arbitration, and also upon the question of the +double or single liability, and I do not know of any better place to +ask the question than right here. + +The American Federation of Labor sent out a letter bearing on the +subject, and I was rather astonished to find the number of different +lines of industry which the president of the American Federation of +Labor and the officers wished to include in a compulsory law. I asked +President Gompers the reason, and the matter over, and after hearing +the discussion here to-day, he told me that he favored a compulsory +measure. In thinking the injured person fails to report within a +very limited time, his it presented a question to my mind as to why +President Gompers was influenced in asking for a compulsory measure. +After Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Mitchell and others spoke on the question, +it seemed to me that this would be a point which we could discuss +here with a great deal of advantage to ourselves. In England they +have a double system. A man can go back after failing in the courts +and receive his compensation, and the question that arose in my mind +immediately was, what would he receive, and the answer to that is +something like this: He would receive $3000, of which the attorney +would immediately take $1000. Then if there was $1000 left after the +court costs were paid, he would get that $1000, but the court costs +might be $2000 or $3000. Then where would the double compensation be? + +In referring to the matter this morning, I suggested that it might +be a matter of compromise as to whether there would be a single +compensation or a double compensation, and I would like to ask some +of the attorneys here what it costs to go through the Supreme Court, +and if it is not the custom if a damage suit results in $4000 or +$5000 damages to usually go through the Supreme Court and possibly +come back to some of the lower courts and then go back to the Supreme +Court again, and what that costs, and if it costs anything like +$2000, what is going to be left of the double liability? What does +the workman get? + +I went over the English tables and I found that a man really received +more if he took his compensation than if he went through the courts, +and that when he got greater compensation after going through the +courts, he had to pay the court costs and his attorney. There was not +very much left for him. + +MR. MITCHELL: The court in England fixes the attorney's compensation +at a very low amount. + +MR. WRIGHT: But it does not here, and the court costs here amount to +a great deal more than they do in England, so that you must make a +comparison between the court costs in England and the court costs in +America, aside from the delay in the courts, before you will fully +understand the question. If a double liability is of any advantage to +the employe, I want that double liability. If it is not going to be +of any material advantage to the employe, and will merely pile up the +expense account would not it be better to pile up the expense account +in the first place, and have that go to the employe as an automatic +proposition? I am not arguing on one side or the other, but I would +like to know what the workingman is going to get when the thing is +settled. + +I might go a little bit farther. We were shown some charts here this +afternoon as to what the workmen receive in an ordinary accident. +Those charts bore out exactly the statement I made this morning. The +charts this afternoon show that the workman receives on an average +something like $400, when he received anything. Now, is that right? +Is the life of a workman only worth $400 on an average? Is that all +the compensation he gets? It costs about $150 to bury a man and that +leaves $250, and besides that you have the other expenses coming in. +I am beginning to doubt whether the life of an able-bodied workman is +worth anything at all. + +G. A. RANNEY (Illinois): I do not think the workman gets anything +under the double compensation, but he takes the risk of a suit, and, +I think, if he elects to take that risk, he should bear the loss if +he loses. + +MR. INGALLS: I quite agree with Mr. Wright upon the practicability +of the double liability. My observation is that the double liability +is quite unimportant as a practical matter, because when you get +into court it is the delay that is the most troublesome thing. The +real expense in court is not so exorbitant. The charges of a lawyer +to handle the case exceed the actual court charges many times. +Even taking away the double liability will practically affect the +workingman very little. Of course, there may be isolated cases where +he ought to have that right, and where it ought to be preserved to +him, but in drafting a general scheme, it has seemed to us necessary +to preserve the double liability unless the employe agreed to waive +it, if he could waive it. + +MR. BUCHANAN: In my opinion there would be very few cases of +expensive litigation in the courts if we had a proper compensation +law in this country. It has worked out that way in Great Britain, +and from information I have I know that the trade unions there are +discouraging action in the courts unless it is a clear case of wilful +negligence on the part of the employer. + +I want to call the attention of the Conference to an abuse which +we have here in Illinois, and which our Illinois Commission have +probably looked up and understand. If they have not, they should. +The Appellate Court here has the power to pass on findings of facts. +There have been a great many personal injury cases reversed under +this system of passing on findings of facts. This court was created +in 1878, and given this power. Very few courts in the United States +have it. I believe the United States Court does not claim to have +that power. We desire that that power be taken away from them and +that they have the right to pass on the law alone. + +Another thing that should be given thorough consideration is the +financial liability of the employer. I believe that where an employer +insures through a liability insurance company, that that insurance, +whatever it is, should be attached when damages are secured by an +injured employe. We have cases here where employers have no financial +standing, and the result is that they have defaulted in the payment +of damages, although they have been protected themselves by means of +liability insurance. The injured workman cannot secure that insurance +through the courts. That is something that should be remedied. + +(An informal discussion was then had as to a more specific program +for the Saturday morning session. Chairman Mercer announced the +following committee, of which the Chair, in accordance with Dr. +Allport's motion, was _ex-officio_ member.) + +_Program Committee_--Dr. W. H. Allport, Chicago; Prof. John H. Gray, +Minneapolis, Minn.; A. T. Saunders, Clinton, Mass. + +(Upon motion of Professor Gray an adjournment was then taken until +9.30 A. M., Saturday, June 11, 1910.) + + + + +THIRD SESSION, SATURDAY, JUNE 11, 1910, 9.30 A. M. + + +Chairman Mercer called the Conference to order at 9.30 o'clock, and +announced that the Program Committee had submitted eight specific +questions for discussion, the consideration of each question to be +limited to twenty minutes, and the length of time of each speaker to +five minutes. + +The further discussion of the Workers' Compensation Code was then +taken up as follows: + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: The first question will be whether we want to cover +all employments in this act, or simply the hazardous employments. + +MR. DAWSON (New York): In opening this discussion I am going to pass +the legal question, because if it is necessary to limit the bill to +hazardous employments, there are not two sides to the question. + +It would appear that it ought not to be necessary for us to repeat +all of the baby experiments that have been made in other countries. +In other words, having delayed nearly thirty years longer than +Europe, why should we not begin where the European countries left +off, instead of where they began. It may, however, be necessary for +us to confine ourselves to certain classes of employment, but I +do not think, personally, that those classes ought to be selected +with strict reference to the question of their being hazardous. For +instance, if it should transpire that the employers of domestic +servants and the farmers are bitterly opposed to any system which +will apply to them, it may be necessary to leave them out, but we +ought, if possible, to cover all manufacturing establishments, all +mercantile establishments and all transportation industries, and +generally to proceed on broad lines. + +There is a practical objection to confining this sort of thing +to the really more hazardous employments. It is this: The rates +for employers' liability insurance are already very high in those +industries, and they will probably be doubled or possibly tripled +or even quadrupled. It would be difficult to imagine anything which +would render workmen's compensation more densely unpopular than to +apply the principle exclusively to the more dangerous manufacturing +industries of a particular State. On the other hand, an increase in +the rate payable by a dry goods merchant, for instance, might not +amount to an advance on the payroll of more than one-half of 1 per +cent. or 1 per cent., and, therefore, might not seriously place the +employer at a disadvantage in competition with employers of other +States. That is not true where the hazards of the occupation are very +serious. You then have the situation that every manufacturer affected +may be able to establish that he cannot carry on his business at all +in competition with these other manufacturers if he is thus burdened. + +JAMES A. LOWELL (Massachusetts): This matter of how many trades shall +be covered is a pretty serious one for Massachusetts, because I do +not think a scheme in Massachusetts would work unless we covered +practically all the trades. We have an employers' liability law in +Massachusetts now which excepts agricultural employment, which is a +small matter in Massachusetts, and domestic servants, and I should +assume that those two exceptions would be made in any law which was +passed, and incidentally that has been held to be a proper law. So +I do not apprehend any difficulty on the constitutional part of it +through leaving out those two classes of workers. + +But in Massachusetts by far the greater part of the industry there +is in manufacturing, the lighter trades, and, I think, in order to +get a law which would be of much service in Massachusetts, we would +have to cover practically all industries, so we are up against the +proposition there that we cannot do much along the line that has been +followed in New York. + +The experience in England under the employers' liability law has +been that the premium on insurance in mines is twice what it cost +under their former laws. In hazardous risks, as Mr. Dawson has said, +the rates are from three to four times higher, and in those lighter +trades it is very much greater than that; it is six or eight times +more than it was under the old laws, and the chances are that if we +adopted a law in Massachusetts with anything like the scale there +is in England, it would be six or seven or eight times as much for +insurance as it is at the present time. So that is a very practical +difficulty which we have to face in Massachusetts. + +As I said before, in order to have a law there that is to be of any +value, you must practically cover all of the trades, and the only +way you can do that, as far as I can see, is that you would have +to have your scale of compensation under the law very low. I do not +think that that would work out badly in Massachusetts, because most +of the injuries which will be found in the factories will be minor +injuries. There are not a great many very serious injuries in the +cotton factories as compared with the mining and bridge-building +industries, but there are a great many small injuries. If you put +on some kind of a scale which would be relatively quite small, the +result, it seems to me, would be that the workmen, as a whole, would +be very much better off than they are now. As it is now, one man out +of every twenty, we will say, or possibly one out of fifteen, will +get a fairly good-sized amount, and all the other fourteen will not +get anything. Putting it on a moderate scale in the cotton factories +would give everybody something; probably not as much as we would like +to give them, or as we perhaps should give them, but, I believe, the +result would be much better than the present situation. For that +reason on the point we are now discussing, I believe the thing for +Massachusetts to do is to try and get some kind of a law which will +cover practically all industries. + +CHARLES A. SUMNER (Missouri): I naturally would like to see the bill +cover all industries, but the legal question arises, and unless +we can get around it, as this tentative bill seems to succeed in +doing, I do not know what we would do down in Missouri. Missouri is +largely an agricultural State, and the Legislature is in the control +very largely of the farmers and the representatives of the smaller +cities in the agricultural districts. We have the initiative and +referendum, however, and it occurred to me, in listening to the +discussion here, that if it were the opinion of this Conference that +it would be better to attempt to get a bill adopted which would +include all trades, that it would be worth trying in Missouri, where +the initiative and referendum are in existence. I believe that if a +proper bill were put to the people direct, it would very likely get +the support of the people in Missouri, particularly if it was a bill +that the best judgment of this Conference had evolved. I believe, +however, that we would prefer to have the bill include all trades. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: Mr. Sumner, the farmers may have a considerable +influence in the Legislature, but so have the other interests, and +legislation is very largely a matter of trade anyway, when you get +into the majorities. Don't you think that would work itself out all +right and take care of the farmers? + +MR. SUMNER: As I understand politics in Missouri, the farmers there +are strong partisans, and unless you can get your bill adopted by +one party or the other, as a party measure, which I think would be +very improbable down there, because our parties are very largely +in the control of the corporate interests of the large cities, +they would have something to say about the bills and the farmers' +representatives would simply go with the party. Still, with the +initiative and referendum the people and the labor unions down there +are not relying very much on the Legislature any more. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: If either party, or if both labor and capital wanted +this proposition, then they would vote for it? + +MR. SUMNER: Yes. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: So if the employers and employes should agree on +what was a proper bill in your State, you would not have any special +difficulty, after all, would you? + +MR. SUMNER: No, probably not. I should add that we have discussed +this matter at the City Club in Kansas City, and the employers are +just as much opposed to the present system as the employes. I was +told by a State Senator last week that he has a bill now drawn up to +be introduced at the next session of the Legislature, but I apprehend +that the bill will not be acceptable to us. + +PROF. SEAGER (New York): It seems to me in this matter that we are +between the devil and the deep sea. If we begin this legislation +by taking in all trades, we have got to scale down our schedule of +compensation. We have got to recognize the validity of the argument, +that you cannot put too heavy a burden upon competitive industries +in one State when they have not the same burden in other States. +That means a low scale of compensation. That means it would be very +hard to get wage-earners behind our proposal, and for those reasons +I anticipate that the political obstacle to getting a bill passed +that contains an adequate scale of compensation and applies to all +industries is going to be serious in most of the States. + +I know it was our opinion in New York that such a bill could not +be passed through the Legislature. The only certainty of getting +a bill through the Legislature was limiting it to extra-hazardous +trades and to trades that were non-competitive. That policy of +course has this disadvantage: There is some doubt as to whether a +classification along those lines will be upheld as reasonable by +the courts, and I confess that we have some anxiety as to whether +the bill we have induced the Legislature to pass will be held to be +constitutional on that account. On the other hand, along that line +it is possible politically to make a beginning, and I am inclined to +think that it would be easier, if we can, to get the thing started +for extra-hazardous industries and then to extend our definition of +hazardous industries and gradually take them all in as the public is +convinced that it is a good policy and a great improvement over the +Employers' Liability Law. That would be easier, I believe, than to +work along the other line of trying to take in all the trades at the +outset. Starting on that line would involve a very low schedule of +compensation and then trying to advance our schedule of compensation +to what we would feel was adequate. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: But how about the desirability of it in case you +feel it could be done? + +PROF. SEAGER: Oh, I assume that we all agree that that is what we +want if we can get it. + +CHARLES MCCARTHY (Wisconsin): In looking over the New York Bill, and +after hearing the argument of Professor Seager, I cannot help saying +something about this bugaboo of interstate competition. I have just +returned from Germany and England, where I have been some months +examining the workmen's compensation insurance scheme. You are now +discussing the scope of the bill and I want to tell the delegates +here that the idea here in America that we in Wisconsin cannot start +this scheme because of competition from other States, has a parallel +in the commissions in Europe. + +Europe is about as big as the United States and you have all these +countries competing, one with another. You have severe competition +between Germany and England, and you find Germany not only bearing +the burden of accident insurance, of sickness insurance and +invalidity insurance, but the German manufacturer actually adds +out of his own pocket to what he has been required by law to pay, +sometimes to the extent of fifty or sixty per cent. more, in bringing +about many improvements in the conditions of the workingmen, and +I state here that that is one of the basic conditions of German +prosperity. I want to put that on the record here because I want the +manufacturers of America to send representatives to Europe, and they +will find that what I am saying is true; that the reason why Germany +is driving English-made goods out of the market is because this very +burden that they talk about is an asset and not a liability. + +Books have been written about this subject and I have had the honor +of reading the advance sheets of the book by Dr. Frankel and Mr. +Dawson, which has not yet been printed, but these books do not really +show why Germany is beating England, notwithstanding this so-called +"burden" upon the shoulders of the German manufacturer. Germany is +passing from an agricultural country into a great manufacturing +country. In doing so it is necessary for Germany to extend her +manufactories out into the small towns. You all know what that means. +Some of you from Massachusetts have seen the shoe factory leave +Brockton to go out and get some cheaper help somewhere, and then it +comes back to Boston, because in Boston they can get the skilled and +intelligent help which must go into the product in order to make the +community prosperous and to make the goods of that community sell. + +When a German manufacturer goes to a small town he says to the +workman: "You come out to my town and live there. You will have +your accident insurance, your old age pension and your sickness +insurance, and besides that I am going to get a house for you out +there, and a little plot of land, and I am going down in my pocket +and add something to that invalidity insurance, and I am going to +do something for tuberculosis prevention, and I am going to have a +sanitary factory, and when you come out there you can settle down and +marry and raise your children, and when they grow up I am going to +put them into an industrial school after they have left the public +school at the age of fourteen, and they can go to that industrial +school until they are eighteen." + +Now all of these things go to make up an intelligent population +in Germany, where the children grow up under the conditions of +sanitation and education, and with the contentment that comes from +the fact that a man knows he can settle down and marry and have +children. The manufacturers in Germany realize that this is not a +burden, but that it is the biggest asset they have in Germany. I +wanted to point that out to you and have the delegates go back from +here with the idea in their minds that there is more to be said upon +this question of interstate competition than has been brought out as +yet. + +England is in a desperate condition because Germany is cutting into +the markets of England throughout the world. England had to adopt +her Workmen's Compensation Act, and she adopted a compensation +plan that Mr. Dawson knows is excellent, and it costs about four +times what it does in Germany. I want to get it on the record that +there are no adequate figures or facts presented as yet as to the +difference between the mutual organizations of Germany and the +private insurance organizations of England. I do not know why that +is, but Mr. Mitchell said yesterday that the private insurance +companies similar to those of England might prevent accidents. I +want to warn you before you go back, that there is the greatest +difference in the world between the mutual organizations in Germany +in the safety and conditions of the workingman's life, as compared +with the third party insurance in England. I have never found in +England a private company having any inspection whatsoever of +dangerous industries. I visited many factories and went into every +insurance company in London and asked them what they did to prevent +accidents, and they were doing practically nothing. I went into the +sawmills in Germany and in England and compared the safety devices +side by side, and I want to tell you that where the manufacturers in +Germany combine under the law as they are compelled to do, they deal +with their men with a hundred times greater humanity than under the +conditions in England. + +I am sure of what I am saying and I am going on record. I want every +manufacturer and employer to investigate what I am saying here. I say +that you can get insurance by mutually organizing and having some +provision in your bills for mutual organization of employers a great +deal cheaper and with a great deal more regard for humane conditions +than you can by the private proposition, unless you compel all +insurance companies by some other statute to make inspections before +they place their risk. + +I also want this suggestion to appear on the record. Some sort of +provision should be made so that the private insurance companies +will not knock out the old men on poorer risks. When they started in +England they did knock out some of the old men in the employments, +but now that thing has been settled. It ought to be put here in +statutory form, because when you get the third party in here between +the manufacturers and the employes, you are getting people who do not +put their hearts into the thing. + +I know this will be a matter of controversy, but I want to +offer it here. I want to tell you not to fear this bugaboo of +interstate competition. Nobody wants to see the State of Wisconsin +more prosperous than I do, and I am sure that if our Wisconsin +manufacturers go forward and make that investment, they will put +intelligence into the product and add a happiness to the people that +will build up the State. If it were not so then the principle of +tariff would be no good; if it were not so then China and Japan with +cheap labor would have been beating us to-day; if it were not so +slavery would have been the best thing for this country instead of +the worst. + +MR. DAWSON: An investigation as to the cost of insurance in the +various countries of Europe will be undertaken by the United States +Bureau of Labor, as requested by this Conference at its session at +Washington. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: Gentlemen, is it not true that we have the best +judgment of the great financial interests in this country to the +effect that this interstate competition amounts to very little, +and that that judgment is best evidenced by reason of the fact +that nearly all of the big industries that are doing business both +locally and throughout the United States are adopting a scheme that +voluntarily places a greater burden upon their shoulders than the law +has been providing? + +MR. INGALLS (Wisconsin): We have in Racine a perfect illustration of +that. A very large concern there not only adopted the accident but +the pension system as well, so that we do not fear anything of that +kind. + +DOCTOR ALLPORT: It would seem to me that the question of whether +we should attempt to adopt or recommend a tentative form of law or +code of law in this matter is really a question of whether we have +profited by the historical aspects of this subject. I think in a +measure we are a little too much wedded to what people are wont to +call the philosophy of individualism. Every State is passing laws of +all kinds, and no State has any particular intention of following +another State. + +The historical aspect of this matter with reference to interstate +competition and with reference to the selection of certain trades +has already been threshed out abroad, to the satisfaction of the +European governments, trades people and manufacturers, and it would +not be a bad idea perhaps if for two or three minutes we consider +the historical aspects of this subject, as applied to England and to +Germany. + +We all know the inception of this thing began in Germany, but they +never formulated it until about 1883. Before that time, however, +Gladstone in 1880 had been forced to make up some kind of a law +for England which was passed in 1880 as the Employers' Liability +Act. That was based on what is now known to be the crudest and most +unsatisfactory of all principles--principles which are bound to be +local and unsatisfactory and which do not cover the situation, and +which give the workmen practically no remedy except before the court. +That is the stage which this country has reached if it has reached +any stage at all. Few of our States have reached a point where they +have anything like a satisfactory Employers' Liability Act. That is +the initial stage when the child first commences to walk. Germany +went far beyond that. She saw the failure of the Gladstone Act, and +went to the bottom of the matter by deciding to abolish entirely all +matters of liability and put it altogether on another basis. Upon +that basis European-Continental law has been modeled from that time +to this; Germany always in advance but the other countries following +as close as existing laws will permit. + +In 1890 Germany adopted practically an absolute act, and every State +on the European continent has now followed the lead of Germany. The +question that has come to us historically and in an evolutionary +manner, is whether we should follow the lead of European governments +in this matter and do as they have done, adopt the lead of Germany, +who ignored entirely the matter of interstate competition and passed +a law placing every trade under the Workmen's Compensation Act, or +whether we should undertake to work out this matter for ourselves in +the crude indefinite way in which England has worked it out. + +In England this matter of interstate competition came up. England +worked for seventeen years under the Gladstone Employers' Liability +Act, but finally Asquith and Chamberlain and a combination of the +Liberal and Conservative parties, got together and formulated another +act in 1897 which they called the first Workmen's Compensations. That +act applied, as we attempt now to apply it in certain of our States, +to certain limited trades and occupations. + +Prior to that time the various counties and organizations of Great +Britain appointed committees which investigated these matters to +decide whether they should pass a law to collect statistics and +decide whether they should adopt a law including all of these trades +or only a portion of them. They decided, in view of the uncertain +character of the legislative elements in England, that they would +apply it to a limited portion only of the trades, and so they passed +the Chamberlain Act of 1896. But they soon saw not only the benefits +that came to all of England from the application of the principle, +but they saw that in order to satisfy the other workmen who demanded +the same thing, that they must apply it to all of the trades, and +so finally they passed the Asquith Act of 1906, which is now in +operation, and applies practically to all of the trades in Great +Britain. They were not so wedded to this unfortunate philosophy of +ours which was the cause of our constitution, and I suppose which led +America first to separate itself from England and which has dominated +American life ever since--this philosophy of independence, this +philosophy of individualism. If we cannot see the benefits that come +to us from following the European systems, we will have to work one +out ourselves. But in my judgment and in the judgment of a great many +others more competent to speak authoritatively upon the subject than +I am, it would seem as though it was the height of folly for us to +ignore the example of Germany and twenty-two Continental Governments +which have followed the lead of Germany. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: I would like to hear some of the employers discuss +this question. Would the employers feel that they were treated fairly +if we singled out a few of the more hazardous industries and did not +cover all industries in the same way, in proportion to the number of +accidents? + +JOHN MITCHELL (New York): I think we must approach this subject as +a practical proposition. I want to make this observation: If these +bills include domestic and agricultural labor, we are not going to +pass the bill. If we are going to work out a practical proposition +with the hope of passing our bills, it seems to me we must exclude +agricultural laborers and those employed in domestic service. I do +not believe the farmers will favor this legislation if it affects +them, and I think that the number of accidents occurring on farms is +not sufficient to make their inclusion necessary for the success of +the bill. + +My judgment is that we should start with men working in dangerous +employments, and then perhaps with a few years' experience under +a bill of that kind, we may decide to include the agricultural +industry. The industries which need it most are the ones in which +there are the greatest number of accidents. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: What is the harm of reporting the bill complete +to the Legislature, and then when it gets in there as a practical +proposition, let them pass it, and if they can not, let them cut out +such industries as they have to? + +MR. MITCHELL: The difficulty is, if the farmers are apparently +justified, the men who represent the agricultural districts will +vote against it, and the legislator who represents a manufacturing +district and who personally might not feel hostile to the +legislation, will vote against it, because he does not want to put +the burden on the farmers. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: Supposing some fellow offers an amendment striking +out these industries which you would leave out in the first place, +can they not pass the bill just the same? + +MR. MITCHELL: Yes, but I am getting at the best way to approach it. + +MR. HARPER (Illinois): The experience in Illinois on Commission bills +has been that it is vastly better to have no opposition at all, and +to eliminate all possibility of amendment if it is possible. In other +words, if the Commission submits a bill to the Illinois Legislature, +they are inclined to take it as it stands, especially if both +sides interested in the matter are on the Commission, because they +say, "Well, this matter has been agreed to and we have no special +interest in it. If it is all right we will pass it." Hence, if we put +something in that requires amendment, it is liable to stir up discord +and dissension; and my personal opinion would be that it would be +wise to avoid that if possible. + +On the subject of classification I think it would be wise to +make a classification based upon the hazardous trades; not the +non-competitive trades, but the hazardous trades, and make it +inclusive and as broad as possible. Include in the hazardous trades +the non-competitive trades, as they have done in New York, but do +not start with any one especially, because our courts here have gone +further on class legislation than anything else, and I think it would +be dangerous for us here to include merely non-competitive trades and +call them hazardous or extra-hazardous. In my judgment it would be +much better to call them extra-hazardous and include in that list the +non-competitive industries. + +EDWIN R. WRIGHT (Illinois): I wanted to suggest that it would of +course be desirable to take in every occupation, but if we take +in the farm labor and servants of Illinois, we cannot possibly +secure the passage of this bill. If we burden our bill with too +many classifications and too many occupations, the moment we get to +Springfield, interested parties, the farmers to start with, would +ask to have the farm labor stricken out, and when you once start +the snowball rolling down the hill, you would strike the meat out +of the bill and lose the confidence of the Legislature, and the +moment you do that you lose the bill as a whole. It would not make +any difference if nine-tenths of the bill were correct, you would +have overshot the mark one-tenth and you would lose the entire bill +because they would cut it all to pieces. + +We have a great many dangerous occupations in this State. A great +many men are killed or seriously injured on railroads every day. +Five men are either killed or injured in mines of Illinois every +day, and the proportion keeps right up through the trades, so that +it is pretty hard to say where the danger starts or stops, but +must classify the different trades in this State if we hope to get +anything at all. + +In comparing conditions here with conditions in foreign countries, +you will have to take this question into consideration: In foreign +countries, as I understand the situation, they raise the workers +there, and if we raised the workers in this State we would soon +arrive at the conclusion they have arrived at in England and Germany. +Here we import the workmen ready-made and grown-up. We do not grow +them in this country, and most of the men who are killed are foreign +born, or a large percentage of them. If we fail in securing the +compensation law, and it has got to take its regular course, we can +get the same results through a different channel. Stop bringing in +the men who are grown up, and raise them here, and you won't have the +workers to kill, but you will have to conserve the workers in this +State and in this nation. Out of 220 firms reporting in Illinois, +there are over 200 accidents a month. + +MR. INGALLS (Wisconsin): The idea in this plan is to include the +railroads and public service transportation company employes as a +whole. Now, is it not wise to consider for a moment the distinction +between those two classes of occupation? All the gentlemen here will +agree perhaps that so far as railways are concerned, and public +service corporations of that character, there isn't any question but +what the Legislature or Congress can pass a compulsory compensation +law. You do not have to classify either at all; any transportation +company which gets its right to exist and to operate from the +Legislature or Congress can be controlled by the Legislature or +Congress with reference to compensation for its injured employes. +That industry can positively be handled in that way. + +Congress has introduced and passed a resolution for the appointment +of a Commission, which will consider that very subject. Those +measures are to be made uniform; the State could readily agree upon +a plan along that line, and it seems to me that with the subject +handled with that idea in view you can pass, under our constitution, +a compulsory compensation law for all railway employes. And those +engaged in interstate commerce could be handled by Congress and thus +make a uniform system. + +As to what occupations should be considered, none of us has +considered in Wisconsin, so far as our committee is concerned, that +we necessarily ought to include farm laborers or domestic servants. +Of course our plan here is different and the discussion seems to +relate to what classification we shall have under an absolute system, +which is quite a different question from that in Wisconsin. I can +readily see how the farmers and employers of domestic servants would +be inclined to oppose a measure as strong and radical as to include +all such employes. I agree with the other speakers that in presenting +that matter to the Legislature you ought to present it as you think +it will be sustained by the Legislature rather than to ask for things +that you know yourselves you probably would not be able to get. In +fact, I think it might be well to keep in mind, in discussing the +occupations, what you can do positively and what there is a great +deal of doubt about being able to do, on the theory of an absolute +compulsory system. + +MR. RANNEY: When the International Harvester Company organized their +industrial insurance plan they omitted all employes except those +working in their mines, in their plant, and on their railroads. We +have some 2500 men in our sales department and experts working out on +farms who are not included in that plan, because we felt that going +beyond the industries was rather a dangerous proposition. Hence, we +included about 35,000 employes and excluded about 2500. + +MR. BLAINE (Wisconsin): I think that if there is any justification +for this sort of legislation it is found in the fact that the +industry or trade should bear the burden and not the workmen. + +I have contended also from the beginning that farm laborers and +domestic servants should not be included. Farmers as they conduct +their occupation in this country to-day do not have any control +whatever over the price or distribution of their products, and hence +they have no opportunity whatever to transfer the cost of industrial +accidents to the consumer. They are not organized. If they were +organized into a vast Society of Equity in every State of the Union I +doubt not but what they could control and dictate who should pay the +cost of this new burden, if it is going to be an additional burden. + +The other industries are organized. They cover vast areas of +territory, and they know how to transfer the cost of production. +The hazard, too, is greater in our industries than in our farming +communities. I think, however, that under the Wisconsin plan we have +taken care of the farmer, and I apprehend no danger whatever from +that source, because he need not come under the plan unless he wants +to. He will be independent of it. + +REUBEN MCKITRICK (Wisconsin): In an article written by Professor +Farnam, statistics are given as to the comparative number of +accidents in farming and agricultural pursuits and in the industries, +and while I cannot state the figures in absolute terms at this +moment, the percentage given is higher for laborers upon the farms +than upon the railroads, for instance. + +That statement is borne out also in the accident rates for farm +laborers as compared with the rates for men in general manufacturing +industries throughout the State. The accident rates are higher for +the farm laborers, and so if you are going to work on a basis of +establishing a classification on account of the hazardous employment, +it seems to me the farmer would have to be included. + +(In closing the discussion on Question 1, the following resolution +was offered by Doctor Allport, but not voted upon, the unanimous +consent to its adoption, required under the By-Laws, not being +granted: + +"_Resolved_, That it is the sense of this Conference, that +State Compensation Laws should be framed to cover all hazardous +manufacturing industries, and that any manufacturing industry in +which accidents occur shall be declared classified as hazardous. That +this classification shall not include farm or domestic labor." + +Upon John Mitchell's motion, Commissioner Charles P. Neill, Mr. H. V. +Mercer, Dr. John B. Andrews, Mr. M. M. Dawson, Dr. Lee K. Frankel +and Dr. William H. Tolman were authorized to represent the Conference +at the International Congress of Social Insurance to be held in +September, at The Hague, and to extend on behalf of the association +an invitation to the International Congress to meet in the United +States in 1912.) + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: The second question is: Do you want the liability +in whatever industries you cover to be an absolute liability; or do +you want to make a law that will permit a contract to be made by the +employer and employe? + +If nobody wants to be heard on that we will pass to the next +question, because that is largely a constitutional question of what +you _can_ do, and you all want to accomplish the same results, as far +as you can. + +The third question is: Whether, in your judgment, we should have a +double or a single liability, if we could get what we want. Do you +want to repeal the common law and statutory remedies or do you want +to add the compensation act and leave the others as they stand? + +JOHN FLORA (Illinois): As a member of the Chicago Federation of +Labor, and knowing the views of that organization, I want to say +that it is the unanimous desire of that portion of the workmen of +the State of Illinois that we first have in the State of Illinois a +law repealing the common law defenses of the assumption of risks, +contributory negligence and the fellow-servant act. We hold, as a +body of workmen, that no compensation law, I do not care how good +you make it, will be worth the paper it is written on unless those +defenses of the employer are taken away from him. Then we do not care +whether it is elective or compulsory. If you take away the defenses +of the employer along those lines, you can make an elective law, and +he is compelled to accept it in order to escape the results of the +statutory law. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: Are you willing to repeal all the common law, not +only the defenses, but the right to recover if the compensation plan +covers the whole field? + +MR. FLORA: I am not at liberty to state that at the present time. +I am careful in making my remarks, because I would first want to +consult my constituents on any questions of that kind. I do know +this, however, that the working people of Chicago do not want to +give up the right of going under the law as it stands to-day and +as they have it in England. We want the right, if we do not like +the compensation, to go to court. As a matter of fact, I think +it is rather a foolish idea that is entertained. If we can get a +compensation law in this State as good, for instance, as the one that +Wisconsin recommends, personally, I am going to write in my dying +request that my wife shall not be fool enough to go to common law, +but to take the compensation, because, I think, she will come out +better in the end. + +I am gathering statistics in Cook County as to the accidents that +have resulted in death, and I find in every case where they have +gone to court they have received a great deal less than if they had +settled with their employers. The largest amounts that have been +recovered, after taking out the costs of a court procedure, have +been less than what they would have received if they had settled +with their employers in 150 cases that I have so far investigated. +Therefore, I think, the idea that the working people have--that they +want access to the courts under the law--is more of a bugaboo than +anything else, and that after a good compensation law is passed we +will have a great deal of trouble in our organization in trying to +teach the people to take the compensation and stay out of the courts. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: Is it not true that the laboring men think now that +they ought to have both systems left open to them, because they are +afraid they are being handed a "gold brick" by the compensation plan, +if their right to recovery under the common law is taken away from +them? + +MR. FLORA: Yes; if you have had many dealings with working people you +will know that they are always afraid of a "gold brick." + +DR. MCCARTHY (Wisconsin): Do you not believe that after a +discussion with the working people they will realize the situation +and understand it better? I know in talking with the labor +representatives up in Wisconsin for the last two or three years +before the Legislature, that they are gradually beginning to +understand what a compensation act is. I think the sentiment is +changing among our labor people in Wisconsin, and I believe this +winter they are going to accept the compensation act without asking +for their common law rights. + +JOHN MITCHELL: I do not believe there should be any hesitancy in +answering that question. The fact of the matter is that the working +people want the right to sue in order to make the employers careful. +We all know, of course, that under any compensation that is proposed +here they are simply averaging up the compensation. That is to say, +a man who is probably entitled to anything at all under any law we +now have, gets something; and the man who is entitled to a great deal +does not get so much. + +DR. MCCARTHY: Do you think it will make the employer more careful? + +MR. MITCHELL: Of course I do. I believe that if it cost an employer +$20,000 to kill a man he would be careful. If it is expensive for an +employer to kill men, he will protect them, but the great difficulty +in this country is that it is not expensive to kill men. It is the +judgment, I think, of nearly every one who has investigated this +matter, that human life is entirely too cheap; it is not expensive +enough for the employers who injure their workmen. + +DR. MCCARTHY: The employers only pay one rate, any way. It falls on +the insurance companies. Why should the employers be more careful? + +MR. MITCHELL: Because their insurance rates are fixed by the +number of accidents or the number of recoveries. I dare say in +England the number of accidents is not as high as it is here. +In fact, a representative of an English insurance company told +me the other day that the British Government pays 30 cents per +capita for mine inspection, and their total expenditure amounts to +$6,000,000 annually. I dare say that while our population is double +the population of Great Britain, that we do not pay in the whole +United States $2,000,000 dollars a year in either factory or mining +inspection, where as a little nation of 40,000,000 people is spending +$6,000,000 annually. That is one reason, I think, why the accident +rate is so much lower in England than it is in the United States. + +MR. PARKS (Massachusetts): I have heard a great deal about this +double liability plan where the workman, failing to win his suit at +common law, would be entitled to compensation under the compensation +act. I believe in Mr. Mitchell's idea in regard to that, and I +believe that is the idea of the majority of the workmen. The cry in +Massachusetts is that they want something different from the present +employers' liability act. I am not so enthusiastic a laboring man as +to think that we are going to get the employers' liability act so +amended that we will take all of that grievance away from the act. +In fact, if we got all of the defenses taken away from the employer +there would be no need of a compensation act. + +We have had that bill before the Massachusetts Legislature for a +number of years, and we have not heard any great talk about workmen +demanding this or that right under the employers' liability act. They +have been asking for something to take the place of the employers' +liability act. They want a workman's compensation act. I do not want +to see this thing come up from the workmen themselves, because I +think it is going to stop this workmen's compensation movement. If +they continually rise and say that the workmen demand this and demand +that it will mean that the workmen will get nothing. I have had +considerable experience in the Massachusetts Legislature in agitating +labor legislation, and, if I do say it, I think Massachusetts in +recent years has put more remedial labor legislation on the statute +books than probably any other State in the Union, with the possible +exception of New York. I give way to New York, because we like to +follow New York, but I cannot say that of the other States of the +nation. Personally, I would like to see the workmen get all they +possibly can get, but we cannot impose too many restrictions on +the employers, and if we recommend in the different States the +taking away of practically all the defenses of the employer under +the employers' liability act, and at the same time recommend the +workmen's compensation act, the whole thing will fall through and we +will get nothing. I believe we ought to go easy and get something +that we can put through. + +I am a believer in fixing up everything before you put the bill into +the Legislature, and have some kind of an understanding between the +contending parties, so that when your hearing comes up both sides +are pretty nearly agreed on the same plan. Take away all opposition +before you have your hearing, because the minute you start opposition +you begin the death of the bill. It is a slow illness, but it means +death. If we can bring about something that will not be too radical, +that will not be too harsh on the employers, we will get something +for the workmen. + +I believe, as Mr. Mitchell said, that the workman ought to have his +right under the common law, but failing in that he should not be +allowed to go to the compensation act. I do not believe in that; it +is a nice thing, and I would like to see the workmen have it, but it +is not fair to the other side. + +MR. BLAINE (Wisconsin): On this question of double liability I would +suggest that the farmer under the Wisconsin plan will study this +law and will learn the benefits of it, and either through mutual +insurance companies, as they have mutual fire insurance companies +to-day, or something of that sort, he will, no doubt, come under +the law and be glad to do so, because it will be a positive benefit +to him. The double liability is somewhat debatable. Under our plan +we take away certain defenses. If we take away those defenses from +the employer, and leave the employe the right to sue at common law, +and also the right to compensation under the act in the event of +failure to win his suit, I think we are doing something unfair toward +the employer and something that the employe does not want. I do +not believe that in Wisconsin the Federation of Labor would demand +that sort of a measure. In fact, I am led to believe that they are +now prepared to meet the committee upon a very reasonable ground as +to the double compensation, and I do believe that while our bill +provides that the right of election shall take place at the time +of employment, that we will be able to meet the committee on the +fair proposition that the right of election shall take place at the +time of the accident, but that that right shall apply to accidents +happening by reason of the negligence of the employer or through his +failure to supply the proper safety appliances for his machines. + +MR. FLORA (Illinois): Of what value would a compensation law be +to the workman in the State of Illinois particularly, where we +have no employers' liability law, if the gate were left open for +the insurance company or the mutual benefit company, or if the +employer could bring in the old common law doctrine of contributory +negligence, assumption of risk, and so forth? What would prevent +the employer or the insurance company, if we did not repeal those +laws, from bringing those in and keeping the workingman out of his +compensation under a compensation law? I would like to know what +protection the working people would have in that case. + +I find also that too many labor representatives are too much imbued +with the idea of protecting the other side. I believe in letting the +other fellow take care of his own side. He is big enough to do it. + +MR. PARKS (Massachusetts): If they had a workman's compensation act +in Illinois the workmen would draw whatever the compensation act said +they should draw. + +MR. FLORA: Cannot they bring in the law of contributory negligence? + +MR. PARKS: No; not under the workmen's compensation act; you are +entitled to so much, if an injury occurs, without regard to the +liability. + +As to Mr. Flora's statement that there are too many labor +representatives who want to look out for the other side, I find that +you get more for the workmen by showing a little consideration for +the other side than by being radical. + +MR. RANNEY (Illinois): In answer to Mr. Flora's question, I attended +the National Manufacturers' Association meeting in New York and +talked with about fifty or seventy-five large employers of labor, +and there was not one of them that was in favor of a fair employers' +liability law. But what they want to know is definitely what this is +going to cost them. If they have got to be liable for every accident, +they have got to know not only the expense under the compensation +act, but the additional expense under an action at common law, which +is an unknown quantity. I know that large employers in general are +in favor of a fair compensation act, but I do not think they are +in favor of double liability, because they will never know where +they are. The laboring man quite properly wants to have a fair +compensation act and wants a fair amount, but if he elects to go to +common law, he should take that chance. Otherwise he will get a fair +compensation without any legal action whatever. + +MR. INGALLS: Would a liberal rate be more preferable to the employers +than a double liability? + +MR. RANNEY: I think it would. + +MR. INGALLS: Of course, if you can fix the rates all right it might +go a long way toward covering the proposition. + +MR. RANNEY: I am not speaking for any employer, but I think that if +a bill is adopted that is fair to both parties, that the employer +should have some protection on that side. I am simply voicing what +Mr. Mitchell said yesterday, that he was not in favor of the English +act, which gives double liability. + +MR. MITCHELL: I am not in favor of double liability, but I am in +favor of the alternative. + +MR. RANNEY: I do not think the employers would have any objection to +an alternative, but they would not be in favor of a double liability +where they might have to fight the case in court and then in the +event of their winning the suit the workman could come in under the +compensation act and get compensation. That does not seem to me to be +fair. + +DR. MCCARTHY: Do you want the election before or after the accident? + +MR. MITCHELL: After. + +DR. MCCARTHY: If the employers' liability acts that have been passed +were any good, or could be amended in any way to stop litigation, +we would not be here. England tried for nearly a hundred years to +modify the employers' liability act. The only thing we are here for +is to knock out the everlasting cost of litigation, and the most +perfect act that we can get will be the one that will knock out this +expensive litigation. If a man is entitled to elect after he gets +hurt there is going to be an awful confused state of affairs and the +tendency, I believe, will be to increase litigation, because the +temptation will be constantly before that man through the attorneys +coming to him to go into litigation. + +MR. MITCHELL: In England there are less suits under the English +employers' liability law than there were three or four years ago, +and every year shows a less number. On the other hand, there are a +great number under the compensation act. That demonstrates that in +England, even with the double liability, the men are not suing under +the employers' liability law. + +DR. ALLPORT (Illinois): I can give you the figures on the employers' +liability law and workmen's compensation act for 1908, and that may +perhaps enlighten the Conference in regard to the exact status of the +act at this time. Out of 2065 deaths in trade accidents in 1908, only +524 out of those cases were made the basis of proceedings, or not +much more than one-fourth of them, in the county courts, and only 12 +suits were brought for damages under the employers' liability law. +In other words, only 12 of those 524 suits took advantage of the old +Gladstone act to bring a suit for damages under the double liability. + +PROF. F. S. DEIBLER: I think a great many of the suits that come up +in England are suits to determine whether the accidents occurred in +due course of employment. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: I have a letter from Mr. Gillette that does not +exactly come under this heading, but I think you may be glad to hear +it at this time. It reads as follows: + + MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., June 9, 1910. + + _Mr. H. V. Mercer, City._ + + DEAR SIR: Our study abroad developed a few things that stand + out so clearly that I should like to have you know them before + you go to Chicago. They are matters that ought to be carefully + safeguarded in legislation of this kind. + + First, the cost. Even after the act is most carefully drawn + and the compensations are restricted to the utmost, the cost + is bound, in my opinion, to be two or three times as great + as under the present system. This means, of course, that the + compensations must not exceed one-half wages in any event, and + the death benefits must be limited as well as compensations + for total disability. The payments to children must be graded + according to the number, with an outside limit and there must + be a waiting period without compensation at any rate not + less than two weeks, and I think thirty days before benefits + begin, and these benefits must not be retroactive in case the + disability extends beyond the two weeks or the thirty days. In + other words, every economy must be inserted and even then I + believe the cost will be increased from two to two and one-half + times. + + Then the doctor question wants to be carefully considered. + France is having a serious time over the doctor question. It + is the curse of their system, and they are also experiencing + great difficulty with the matter in Germany and England. If + the English law had been left the way Mr. Chamberlain intended + it, so that an independent doctor could have been called in at + the request of _either_ instead of both parties, it would have + saved them all kinds of trouble. + + Then there is another matter that ought to be carefully + considered, and that is the matter of discrimination against + agent or employe physically imperfect. The situation in + England to-day is beginning to force a physical examination of + employes. Mr. Holmes of the Hosiery Workers' Federation stated + to me that in his opinion there were 150,000 English workmen + who could not obtain employment by reason of excessive age or + physical imperfections. + + They are having a lot of difficulty in Germany over various + questions arising out of their law. Over 17 per cent. of the + claims get into litigation. This looks rather discouraging + to us. Of course this arises largely from the fact that this + litigation costs the workmen nothing. + + I should like to write a few hundred pages on this subject, but + I haven't time. + + You might be interested to know that while in England the risks + are practically all insured in private companies, the cost to + the employer is less in England than it is in Germany, France + or Austria. In France about 25 per cent. of the risks are not + insured, and of the remainder about 60 per cent. are carried in + private insurance, and 40 per cent. in mutual companies. The + conditions and character of the workmen are so different over + there from those existing in America that it is pretty hard to + estimate the comparative costs if one of the foreign acts was + transmitted to this country. Beside that the rates of wages are + very much lower, although of course the benefits, being based + on the wage rate, are nearly in proportion. + + The above estimate of cost of two and one-half times our + existing cost is based on a contribution of 20 per cent. by the + workmen. It looks as if the thing would have to resolve itself + into a matter of some form of mutual insurance, both employer + and employe contributing to the cost, or with a waiting period + or else a longer waiting period, and a fund provided by the + employers to take care of the accidents, the employes providing + a fund to take care of sickness and temporary disabilities + during the waiting period. + + I am now having my notes written up, and will soon have a table + of the comparative costs in England, Germany, Belgium, Austria + and France, and possibly Denmark and Sweden. + + Yours very truly, + + GEORGE M. GILLETTE. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: I have not heard yet from Mr. McEwen. He is the +labor commissioner, and I was in hopes that we would have a letter +from him as well as this letter from Mr. Gillette. + +The next question is the proposition of compensation; that is, +whether you will have a limited sum or a pension plan, or what you +will have. + +WILLIAM H. MOULTON (Michigan): In the iron and copper mining region +of Michigan for a great many years we have had a plan of payments +to which the men and the employers have contributed equally. These +payments have been made monthly to the men during disability, and in +any event they should not be made at any longer intervals than once a +month. These sums have continued for a year, and in case of death, a +death benefit has been paid from this fund. + +The mining companies are very much interested in this compensation +law. This is evidenced by the voluntary action of the harvester +company and the United States Steel and some of our other independent +companies. The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company, which I represent, +have been contributing in this way for a great many years at all of +our mines. We employ now perhaps 3000 or 4000 men, and another thing +which is of advantage to them is this: We found it was a common +custom when a man was killed in a mine for the men to stop work until +the day of the funeral, no matter whether our boats were lying +idle waiting for cargoes or not. I think you will all agree with me +that we generally get what we pay for, and if we expect a man to do +something for us we expect to pay for it. Our proposition to the men +was this: They stopped work out of sympathy for this man who had +been killed. We suggested to them that it would be more an act of +sympathy to follow out this plan, that they should continue at work +until the day of the funeral and we would pay them for all the time +they worked, and then if they took a half-day off for the funeral we +would pay them for that half-day just as though they worked, but that +this amount of money should be a contribution from them to the family +of the man who had been killed. The last amount that I remember that +was paid in that way was $298 which that family received in addition +to the benefit fund. Our company also is paying to the widow and +orphans the sum of $12 a month to the widow and $1 a month for each +additional child under the age of 16 years, for a period of five +years or until the widow remarries. This is done with the idea that +by the time the children have reached the age of 21 they can support +the family. + +We also endeavor to reduce accidents by frequent inspections of our +mines and monthly reports, and periodical inspections also, and in +case of any serious accident we have a committee who visits the scene +of that accident, carefully inquires into the cause of it and makes +a recommendation for the benefit of that mine and of all our other +mines. + +I am sure I am voicing the opinion of all the Lake Superior region of +the iron and copper mines when I say that we are heartily in favor of +some plan of compensation for the workmen of our country which shall +be a liberal one. + +MR. DAWSON (New York): Nearly every bill which has so far been framed +has proceeded on the basis that it is necessary to limit the length +of time for which the benefit is to be paid. That is to say, even +though a workman has become totally and permanently disabled, the +benefit is to be paid for three or four years, and then is to stop. +This overcaution grows out of two things; one of them is that we are +almost entirely thinking of this as a compensation scheme which the +individual employer is going to pay for. It may be that our laws +will be passed in that form; but, even if they are passed in that +form, experience in every country in the world has demonstrated that +almost all employers will be insured, and the loss will be paid by +companies which can just as well continue payment so long as it is +necessary for it to be continued, and charge premiums and set up +reserves accordingly. + +It is my personal opinion that we ought not to frame our laws on +the basis that employers as a class are actually going to pay these +compensations directly. We should frame them with a view to their +being insured, and that, therefore, this will not be an intolerable +burden upon any individual employer unless he makes a fool of himself +by neglecting to insure. + +The second reason is ignorance as to the cost. The additional +cost when benefits are paid to the disabled as long as disability +continues is extremely small. Relatively few persons who have been +totally and permanently disabled are living after five years, but the +need is greater than ever for those who are. In point of fact, it +will add very little to the total cost to give the benefit throughout +their disability. You may argue, on the other side, that because +there are a few of them, we can as well cut them off; but a scheme +that starts out to cure this evil--this economic flaw in our business +system, and that, notwithstanding, turns loose a permanently disabled +man after five years because he happens to be so unfortunate as still +to live--is fundamentally shortsighted and should not be tolerated. +I, therefore, earnestly urge those Commissions which have not yet +prepared their bills, to make the benefit payable during the entire +period of disability. + +MR. MCCARTHY (Wisconsin): On certain minor injuries, would you say +that was true? + +MR. DAWSON: Not so true. My impression about minor injuries is that +a careful study of the Austrian practice will be of great value. +These benefits are not paid as an annuity at all unless the person is +injured at least to the extent of 20 per cent. of his earning power. +Smaller impairments are compensated by lump sums. + +Again, in the matter of widows and orphans there is a whole lot of +feeling that you must cut them off at the end of three or four or +five years. There is no occasion for that, and every reason why it +should not be done. The additional cost of paying during widowhood +and minority is not heavy; and you should again, in my judgment, +take into account that you are expecting this business to be insured +and should encourage its being insured, and encourage the employer +to run the risk himself. Of course, in a very large plant, it is +quite possible for an employer to insure himself, because he can have +an average experience to judge from, but I am not referring to the +exceptional case. + +JAMES A. LOWELL (Massachusetts): The practical difficulty which +strikes me is this: In Massachusetts, and everywhere else, for that +matter, we have a financial situation to face. I would say, and +every man here would say, that it would be much better to have a +pension for a person who needs to be pensioned; but we are brought +up at once in the very beginning, and this thing comes right up and +hits us in the face: How much is it going to cost? It is very well +to say, as Mr. Dawson has said, that it won't cost much. Perhaps +it won't, but the question is how much. It may be just the turning +point in Massachusetts as to whether we can do it as a practical +financial measure--to have a lump sum or a pension. I, personally, +should be very much in favor of a pension. But there must be some way +of ascertaining how much this pension is going to be. It appeals to +me that as a practical measure in the beginning of this thing, that +although we should like to be able to say to the man who is injured +for life: "We will give you so much a month for the rest of your +life"; that we cannot do it right off, because we do not know whether +he will live five years or whether he will live twenty-five years. +The difference between the amount which you will pay if he lives +twenty-five and the amount you will pay if he lives five years may +be just the difference between a possible scheme and an impossible +scheme. + +The employer's trouble about this thing is the uncertainty. The +amount of it is not so great an objection. It is not that the +employer would say, "Well, if I have to pay $5000 for such-and-such +a case I cannot do it. I can pay $2000, but I cannot pay $5000." The +trouble is he does not know whether he is to pay $2000 or $15,000. +That is the difficulty. It strikes me in starting your system here +you have got to find something that is certain. If there is to be a +pension you have got to put a limit of time on it so that it may be +definite. + +If we were to pass a law for Massachusetts to-morrow, and contained +in that law were those various pensions, we should not know anywhere +near how we were coming out; and, I understand, and I will stand +corrected on this if I am wrong, that they have not figured those +accurately in either Germany or Austria or in England. The amount +of the pensions which had to be paid was much greater than was +calculated. If they had known at the start they were to pay this +greater amount it would not have made so much difference because they +could have arranged it, but they did not know it and, therefore, they +are getting a higher amount put upon them than they thought they +would, which is very unfortunate for a great many reasons. + +MR. DAWSON: There are reliable tables by means of which adequate +premiums and reserves for annuities to the disabled and to widows and +orphans can be computed. + +DR. ALLPORT: I have a copy here of the workmen's compensation act +of 1906, the English act, and I think it might not be a bad idea to +read you the provision in the English act covering this matter. Of +course, the English act started out just as our act must start out +if we start out on the basis of compensation. It must be based on a +certain proportion of the wage of the individual. When we come to +consider the matter of disability, the point that comes up is whether +we shall pay a man for a total or permanent disability in a lump sum +or whether we shall limit the time in which the payments shall be +made. It seems to me as though that is purely an actuarial matter, +and that it is something which will adjust itself if any law goes +into effect. No employer in England carries his own insurance; it is +all carried by some form of insurance, and so the insurance companies +will have to work this matter out for themselves, and they are going +to be able to do it. The better class of insurance companies have +prospered under that class of insurance. The provision in the English +law is, briefly, this: It provides for the payment of compensation +for disability as long as the disability lasts, and in case of death +it provides for payment to the children until they reach a workable +age, and for the widow until she marries again. Then there is this +provision: + +"Where any weekly payment has been continued for not less than six +months, the liability therefor may, on application by or on behalf +of the employer, be redeemed by the payment of a lump sum of such +an amount as, where the incapacity is permanent, would, if invested +in the purchase of an immediate life annuity from the National Debt +Commissioners through the post-office savings bank, purchase an +annuity for the workman equal to 75 per cent. of the annual value +of the weekly payment, and as in any other case may be settled by +arbitration under this act, and such lump sum may be ordered by the +committee or arbitrator or judge of the county court to be invested +or otherwise applied for the benefit of the person entitled thereto." + +These cases are put into the hands of the court and paid by the court +and not by the attorneys, and it is left optional as to whether he +will take a lump sum or an annuity. + +DR. MCCARTHY: Some of the county judges over there with whom I +talked told me that they were doing everything possible to keep +the lump sums from being paid, because they believe that is a bad +practice. There is no agitation over there that I could find in +either Germany or England for limiting the time that a man should +receive compensation. They understand over there that it has got to +fall upon somebody in the end, and you must remember that in Germany +and in England, to a large extent, this is done to keep away from the +necessity of caring for the poor, and all that sort of thing. You go +to any insurance company over there and say, "I have so many people +working in my factory under such conditions; what are your rates?" +and they will give you the rates and take care of an injured man for +the rest of his life. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: It has seemed to me sometimes that it might be +a good plan to provide for a lump sum settlement, subject to the +approval of a court, in case a firm wanted to go out of business, or +something of that kind. A corporation might want to dissolve, or the +time of its charter might expire, and in that case what is it going +to do? + +MR. DAWSON: It would go to an insurance company and purchase an +annuity to cover it. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: Suppose it is a big company that had been carrying +its own risks? + +DR. MCCARTHY: That is an actuarial matter. If it is a mutual company +in Germany, there has to be a reserve kept by those companies to +provide for the possibility of their going out of business. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: It seems to me we might now go to the question of +whether we will administer our compensation law through the courts +or through boards of arbitration. In New York I notice that they +recommend staying under the courts in their present bill. + +PROF. SEAGER: The characteristics of the two bills that have passed +in New York were explained yesterday, and I will try to avoid +repeating what was said at that time. When it comes to the details +of the plan that the New York Commission recommended, and which the +Legislature has adopted, the reasons why we did this rather than +that are almost trivial, because they were always practical reasons +of expediency. We have a Commission of fourteen members, and eight +of them were members of the Legislature; one of them was a farmer; +several of them were lawyers, and two of them were employers, so they +represented in a very broad way the different interests of the State. +It would have been quite impossible to get that Commission to agree +on a plan that would include the farmers. It was difficult to get the +employers to agree on our plan. + +Taking up the details, however, we were very much impressed by the +aspect of the case that Mr. Lowell spoke of a few minutes ago; that +is, the uncertainty as to what it would cost and the opposition that +developed against the measure because of that uncertainty. For that +reason we felt that we ought to make the probable cost as definite +as we could, and that meant requiring lump sum payments rather than +continuous payments, limiting the period during which the continuous +payments should be made in case of disability, and in other points +making the measure precise and definite, when, from the point of view +of the social interests of the community, it ought to be more vague +and indefinite, that it might be adapted to the requirements of each +special case. It was on those grounds of expediency, remembering +all the time that this was the first step, that if the Legislature +of New York passed these bills it would be the first State in this +country to go in for any kind of workmen's compensation, and that +every country which has adopted this policy has found it necessary +to amend and modify as the result of experience, that the schedule +which we finally agreed upon took the form that it did; that is, +limiting the compensation in case of disability to not more than +$10 a week, and to continue in case of a permanent disability for +not more than eight years. In death cases not more in the aggregate +than four years' wages, and not to exceed in any case $3000. That +schedule has the advantage of being definite and of being one which +enables the insurance actuary without much difficulty to name a rate, +and, needless to say, we got such rates from the insurance company's +representatives before we finally decided on that schedule. + +As to the administrative features of our bills, our difficulty was to +devise a plan which would do away with litigation and at the same +time be constitutional. We all of us recognized the merits of some +scheme of arbitration as preferable to court procedure, and yet the +more we looked into it, and the more we studied the complexities of +our system in New York, the more we were impressed with the necessity +of creating an entirely new system of jurisprudence, if we were going +to have in that State a scheme of arbitration comparable to the +English scheme of arbitration. For that reason we left that to future +amendment of the bill, and left the judicial procedure very much as +it is under the employers' liability law, believing that under a +law requiring definite compensation, both employer and employe, for +their own interests, would keep away from litigation, and would enter +into voluntary arrangements for arbitration that would not require +a resort to the courts. Resort to the courts may be taken by either +side under these bills as before, but it is our confident belief that +it will not be taken, and that this plan will very greatly reduce +the litigation, and at the same time greatly increase the number of +reasons these bills took the form which they have taken. + +MR. HARPER (Illinois): Do you provide that in case any question +arises under the compensation plan, suit may be brought and the +merits tried in an action at law? + +PROF. SEAGER: Yes. + +MR. HARPER: And you also provide, I believe, that no jury trial shall +be permitted? + +PROF. SEAGER: No; such a provision was in the original bill, but +was stricken out of the act. I am sorry that I am not a lawyer, +and, therefore, cannot explain the point definitely, but the other +provision was simply to make it possible to bring suit and recover +a lump sum in case there was any default in the periodic payments +required in cases of disability. That is, in case of default in the +payments under this provision the employe or the dependent entitled +to payment can immediately bring suit and collect a lump sum in +damages. + +SENATOR SANBORN (Wisconsin): We have appreciated in Wisconsin all +these troubles and oppositions you have been discussing here, +and have been trying to find some way that we can put a law into +operation in Wisconsin so that we can have some basis for improvement +hereafter, realizing at the outset we were going to meet the +opposition of the manufacturers if they did not know exactly what +it would cost. If we were going to get their hearty support the +rates would have to be so low that they would know it was not going +to cost them any more than at the present time. On the other hand, +we realized that the laboring man does not want to give up anything +he has got, but wants more. That he is entitled to more than he +is receiving under the law everybody, I think, will concede. The +question was, how were we going to accomplish that and get for the +laboring man all that he would get under the law. + +We realized that practically 60 per cent. of every dollar that was +paid out by the employers for industrial accidents under the present +system was wasted and did not go to the laboring man, and if we could +bring about a system which would prevent anywhere near that great +amount of waste, and turn that money over to the laboring man who was +injured, we felt that we would be taking one great step in advance, +and we are trying now to get a system by which that can be done. In +fact, we want to do away entirely with court proceedings, if possible. + +The first step we propose to take in this regard is to change the law +generally in our State, so that the manufacturer will feel that he +must have relief. In order to reach that result we are going to make +them all liable for the negligence of the fellow-servants and strike +out the assumption of risk. We have practically agreed on that, and +that leaves the only defense remaining for the employer, that of +contributory negligence. That will reach a great many cases, and +leave it so that the manufacturer will feel that he must have some +relief. + +Our whole plan is optional. No employer and no employe is obliged to +come under it, but if a manufacturer or an employer of labor wants +to come under it, all he has to do is to file a declaration with +the commissioner of labor, and he is under it. He is not under it +definitely, because he can get out at the end of any year by serving +notice sixty days in advance of his desire so to do. + +Then, as far as the laborer is concerned, the plan is that as a part +of his contract of employment he waives his right to anything else +except the compensation, and this law will fix his compensation. Then +we follow that up by arbitration to settle all the disputes that may +arise. The only question that can arise for the court to pass on is +whether the arbitrators have exceeded their jurisdiction under the +law, but all questions of fact are to be settled by the Board of +Arbitration. If we had some criterion to follow, something that we +could point to definitely as to just what would be the result to the +employer and the laboring man, we would feel differently. But we feel +that we can put this system into operation, and we feel further that +the manufacturers and the laboring men in their present spirit will +operate under it until we can arrive at something definite. We are +endeavoring to make our schedule just as large as it can be made. +Our schedule is indefinite and will undoubtedly be increased over +what it is in the bill. In other words, we propose to do just as the +railroads have always done, to put onto the traffic for the benefit +of the laboring man every dollar it will bear, and get that money +to the man who is injured with as little expense as is possible. +That is what we are aiming to do, and we know of no other way to do +it except by putting it under a voluntary system, so as to get away +from the constitutional conditions that you meet everywhere. Under a +compulsory system you cannot do that, but under an elective system +you can. + +As to the expediency, we feel that our people will try it, and if it +does not work it will not take any act of the Legislature to annul +it. We can accomplish some results, and the time will come when we +can have some figures perhaps to give conferences like this in their +effort to ascertain what is best as the policy to be followed. We +started out first with an insurance scheme connected with it, but we +abandoned that and made up our minds to make it just as simple as +we could, and to let the employer of labor have the widest possible +scope to protect himself. If he does it through mutual insurance +companies, well and good; if he does it through the other insurance +companies, well and good; the idea being to hamper him as little as +possible in that respect. All we want is to make it absolutely sure +that when a man is injured he will receive his pay. That has been +one of the troublesome questions; we have tried to make a provision, +which is still tentative, by which the employe's claim shall be an +absolute lien upon all the property of the employer. + +PROF. SEAGER: We have not previously provided for the expenses +of this Conference or for the expenses of the next Conference we +may hold. With that thought in view, I would like to move that +the members of the Commissions and committees represented at this +Conference be requested to use their best efforts to secure an +appropriation from the funds of such Commissions and committees of +$50 from each Commission and committee toward the expenses of our +Conference. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: Without any formal motion that will be taken as the +sense of the meeting. + +MR. DAWSON: I move that when we adjourn, we adjourn to meet in St. +Louis, and that the time be fixed between Christmas and New Year. The +reason I make this suggestion is that there are to be other meetings +at that time in St. Louis--the American Economic Association and the +American Association for Labor Legislation, and also because by that +time all the bills of these various Commissions will be ready, and we +can have a final interchange of views before they go to their various +Legislatures. I will add to that motion also that the Executive +Committee be given power to change the date and place of the meeting +if they deem it advisable. + +(The motion being seconded was adopted by a _viva voce_ vote.) + +DR. ALLPORT: It appears in the matter of making provisions of the +kind we have been discussing that their constitutionality would +depend on two aspects: First, that we take the view as suggested +by Mr. Mercer, that it lies within the police power of the State +to regulate this matter and so constitute all these employments as +dangerous employments, or whether we shall put into the law something +which looks like a joker. The particular point I have reference +to is this: The specifications in Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the +Wisconsin tentative bill relative to waiver of the matters we have +been discussing; that is, assumed risk and contributory negligence, +fellow-servants, etc. The second bill recommended makes this +provision: "The provisions of this act shall apply to any person, +firm or corporation transacting business in this State who shall have +elected to accept and operate under such provisions." + +That implies an election to accept the provisions of the act. In +Section 4, however, is this provision: "Every person, firm or +corporation engaged in business in this State that has an employe in +his or its service shall be presumed to have accepted the provisions +of this act. Every employe, as a part of his contract of hiring, +shall be deemed to have accepted the provisions of this act unless +at the time of such hiring he contracts in writing to the contrary, +in which case the employer shall not be liable under the provisions +of this act. Every employe whose contract of hiring is in force at +the time his employer elects to provide compensation under this act, +shall be deemed to have accepted the provisions thereof unless he +files a notice in writing to the contrary with his employer within +thirty days thereafter." + +I am not a lawyer myself, and I do not know what that means, but I +would like to know from somebody who is posted in constitutional +law as to whether that method of circumventing the usual provisions +of the law is strictly in accordance with the rulings under our +constitution. That is, whether a law can specify that we shall have +the right of election under the law, making the provisions of the law +specific, and then in the following section specify that unless they +shall elect to the contrary they shall be supposed to be acting under +the provisions of this law. That is the way in which Wisconsin has +gone behind the constitutional part of the law. + +SENATOR SANBORN: The Legislature can always say what the fact is +presumed to be, and the presumption is that every manufacturer will +elect to accept this law. Whether they have or not is a presumption +of fact, and we do not have to prove that. In other words, as a +matter of course, we presume that every man has elected, but we do +not have to say that he has elected. + +CHAIRMAN MERCER: It seems to me, gentlemen, in the course of +these proceedings, that the first thing to be done is to prevent +accidents. The second proposition is to compensate the injured for +those accidents which you do not prevent. You cannot prevent by +penal legislation; you cannot prevent by the assumption of damages +of an uncertain quantity, because those things have already been +tried and have failed. You can prevent accidents better, I think, by +placing a certain, simple and rapid liability upon the industry which +both sides shall partially bear, and which will compel both sides +to understand that there is a financial risk upon them that will +increase their cost absolutely if any accidents occur. I do not think +any large proportion of that should be placed upon the laboring man, +perhaps not over 15 or 20 per cent. + +The laboring man, however, is in a better position to determine +whether or not a man is faking; he has his own channels of reaching +him. He is in a better position to see that the machinery is +protected, and to see that the rules are enforced in the factory, +and he is the man who is in a position to see that a fair settlement +is made if he has a financial interest in it, and not to say in +an off-hand way, "Oh, well, the man has been hurt, give him $50." +Besides that, when he has such a proposition as that and feels that +it is not a subject of charity, but a business proposition, and a +matter in which he has a right to help in the administration of it, +he wants to administer it quickly and rapidly. It appears that the +European countries which have adopted some such scheme as this have +found it to be the most satisfactory. No man will believe that he +will be injured in an accident. The moment a man starts in on the +proposition of whether he himself is going to be injured, he becomes +an unfit subject to ask for employment. He is not in a position to +go to the employer and say, "You must guard that wheel," or "protect +this machine." But if a situation is devised where one man can go +to the other and say: "You are the employer and you must stand +five-sixths of the cost of an accident, and we one-sixth, and you +must protect these men; here is a man over here that will not live +up to the rules, fire him. Here is a man that does not know his +business. Do not let him work in this place. We have an interest in +this matter. It is costing us money if he injures somebody, and we +want these men protected." You can see what a different situation +arises. + +The employer must take the word of the laboring man for that, because +the laboring man is where he can see and know, and the employer is +not in a similar position. The result of that is to increase the +confidence in the laboring man, to increase the precautions taken +to prevent accidents, and to increase the mutual respect and good +feeling between the two men, if you place them both where they have a +mutual and certain liability. + +As to what is a dangerous employment, as to whether or not you should +cover some or all, I have no doubt that there is not a man in this +country, a farmer, a mechanic, a laboring man, a doctor, a lawyer or +any other professional man, but what is perfectly willing to have +and desires to have a fair compensation law if he can know just what +it is going to cost him, and just what his insurance will cost him, +in order to avoid the present uncertainties and evils that flow +from existing conditions. The case of domestic servants has been +mentioned here. One of our judges in the federal court in our State +had a servant break her leg on his back porch last year. He took her +to the hospital and took care of her, but would not he rather have +been paying three dollars a year for insurance for all the risks that +might come to her in that industry? Would not you rather do that +yourself? And besides that, from the humane standpoint, would not +you rather that the poor girl should be placed in a position where +she certainly will receive compensation in case of an accident which +perhaps she or any one else could not have avoided, than to have her +go on and lose her wages or else you pay them to her? + +Then you say you must not go to the farmer. I say to you that I +believe that the farmers in this country would welcome such a +proposition if they understood it. There is not a man, an employer or +a laboring man, who, when you place the proposition before him in any +such form as we are discussing it here, would sanction it off-hand. +But there is not a man in this country that I have ever seen who +has studied this question for any length of time, intelligently and +carefully, but what believes that the more nearly you can get every +industry into one certain, definite and simple liability the better +off you are. + +Look at it as a business proposition--and it is a business +proposition--it is an insurance risk and it ought to be left in such +a way that the liability is direct. The first thing the business man +undertakes to consider on this proposition is what will it cost me; +can I afford it? Every time you put on a double liability, every time +you leave a thing uncertain, you increase the risks to him and the +cost to him in his business, and he so understands it, and that is +something which you should give consideration. I do not believe there +is a labor representative here, I do not believe there is a laborer +in this country, who entirely understands the matter, who is mature +in his judgment upon it and who has studied it and understands the +whole situation, but who would be willing that you should repeal all +of the statutory provisions now existing, repeal all of the common +law, if you give him something which he knows is not a gold brick. +If you simply say you must have this liability, it is not a question +of contract, because that still leaves an uncertainty; but if you +say, "You will be paid in accordance with a certain percentage of +your wages if you have an accident in your business," everybody will +then know just exactly where they stand on the proposition, because +it is only a question of actuarial calculation to determine what the +compensation is, and I think everybody would be willing to accept a +law drafted in that form. It will cost the business men more, but +the laborer is going to get more out of it, and it is good business +for the business men. You cannot tell me, gentlemen, that all of the +large financial institutions and corporations of this country that +have voluntarily adopted this scheme in the last three years would +have done so, if they had not come deliberately to the conclusion +that, taking into consideration the humanitarian features of the +case, and the mutual relations that exist between the employer and +employe, that this is a step which naturally and logically will be +profitably adopted in this country, and one of the most hopeful signs +in the present economic situation is that labor and capital are +dealing together on matters of that sort, and doing away with the +strife and friction that has heretofore prevailed between them. + +With respect to the theory that should be followed in this +legislation, we must understand that both employer and employe must +be willing to stand some restrictions. Neither has more interest in +its remote consequences than has the State. We cannot keep up the +old system and add a new without leaving all the uncertainties and +adding the burdens of certainty. We would leave the burdens of cost, +the weight of a large part of the injustice, a considerable amount of +the delay and most of the prejudicial feelings that now prevail with +respect to the worst accidents and their final determination. There +is no doubt but that it would be the worst cases where the remedy +through the courts would be used in the present system. + +Penalties as such, criminal or civil in nature, ought not to be +considered in this legislation where it does not rest upon the basis +of fault; penalties never tend to good mutual feelings as between +the parties. It is no time to stir up strife when both parties are +willing to negotiate fairly upon this question. It is no time to heap +unusual obligations when the employer and the State are willing to +make a fair compulsory system. Neither is it any time to deprive the +laborer of fair compensation; but it is the time to place a liability +on a fair basis, comparable to the risk and the situation in other +countries, and allow a simple, safe, quick remedy that is absolutely +certain. + +To be certain, we must remove any idea of recovery as a penalty; we +must prohibit the bar of recovery by any fault of the employe. Cases +in which the employe would directly and voluntarily be at fault are +so few that they would cost the employer and the public much less +than the defense of the trials if we should undertake to introduce an +element of fault as a defense. The theory of workers' compensation +is to get away from fault, and it ought to be barred upon that side +as well as the other. + +The bill under consideration in this program was meant to be a bill +that would accomplish the purposes when more elaborately worked out +that we all feel should be had. The title is made broader than an +ordinary legislative act, so as to allow a system of law that would +repeal all other laws on the question, and substitute this remedy for +those which exist and add it where there is none. We, therefore use +the term "code" in order to cover a system of law. See Johnson _vs._ +Harrison, 47 Minn., 575; Central of Georgia Railway Company _vs._ +State, 104 Ga., 31, Section 1. + +We have defined dangerous employment in this act with a view of +covering every occupation which has accidents. This will give every +person the opportunity to guard against the obligations that arise +from injuries occurring in and growing out of the conduct of a +business. + +It is for the Legislature first to determine whether or not this is a +proper classification, and if there be reasonable basis for declaring +the employment to be dangerous, the courts will follow the judgment +of the Legislature, even though their own judgment might not accord +with that of the Legislature. See Lochner _vs._ N. Y., 198 U. S., 45; +Holden _vs._ Hardy, 169 U. S., 365. + +This definition of dangerous employment is studiously meant to be a +broad one. It is not dependent upon classification of industries on +the basis of manufacture, mining, railroading or other segregated +employment. Its purpose is to so define dangerous employment that +every employment which is, in fact, dangerous will be so defined +exactly in proportion to the dangers that actually occur. Being +a dangerous employment for each accident which it has, and not +dangerous unless it has those accidents, the definition is especially +equitable in two aspects. It induces those operating the same sort +of employment to keep their accidents down; it makes those who have +accidents liable exactly in proportion to the accidents which they +have in fact. + +We have not used the term "accident" in the law because of the +uncertain meaning of that term throughout the state and federal +courts of this country. We find that this term in some instances +has been construed in the popular sense; in some instances it has +been construed to mean that which has happened without the fault or +intent of any one. We fear great litigation as to what it would mean +if the term "accident" should be used. The terms arising out of, and +in the course of, such employment have been sufficiently defined by +the English courts under their act that they will need no further +definition here than the words themselves would indicate. + +Section 2: + +It is the intention of this act to make the employer liable to pay +compensation, and it would be the purpose probably to make the +employe liable to stand a small amount of the carrying charges +as specified in this act when worked out. Some argument has been +produced in this convention to the effect that it would be difficult +to hold the employer in case he had no fault, but fault is not +necessarily the basis of liability in such cases. See Chicago, R. I. +and Pac. Ry. Co. _vs._ Zernieke, 183 U. S., 582. + +The man who put into operation the dangerous machinery of dangerous +employment would be liable by reason of public necessity to be +controlled under the elements of the police power for the protection +of the general welfare. It has been intimated here that this rule +would not apply except in the case of _quasi_ public corporations, +but this is not the law. Relations otherwise private may become +public under public necessity if the State decides that the public +needs protection. See State _vs._ Wagener, 77 Minn., 483; Harbison +_vs._ Knoxvill Iron Co., 183 U. S., 13. + +It has been urged that no man can have the right taken away from him +to sue in the courts for injuries under such circumstances. Generally +speaking, it is the rule that a party has no vested interests to a +right of action at common law for a future injury. A tort action +grows out of a breach of the duty which the State provides that one +of its individuals owes to another, either by reason of the peculiar +situation as between the parties, or by reason of a public burden +which has a peculiar favor in it for the one who is injured. This +direct liability the State has imposed by the implied adoption of the +common law or by statute, both of which it has the power to repeal. +It has repealed or has modified the common law or statutes every time +it has imposed a new obligation or taken away an old obligation with +respect to tort actions. See Martin _vs._ Pittsburg and L. E. R. +Co., 103 U. S., 284; Holden _vs._ Hardy, 169 U. S., 366; Snead _vs._ +Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 151 Fed., 608. + +With respect to the remedy, we think that the remedy provided here +is the appropriate and proper one. It would be so if it were fire +insurance. See Wild Rice Lbr. Co. _vs._ Royal Ins. Co., 99 Minn., +190. Such a law, leaving the general question of liability to be +determined and simply providing a reasonable method of estimating and +ascertaining the amount of the loss, is unquestionably valid in both +this country and Europe. See Hamilton _vs._ The Liverpool and London +Ins. Co., 136 U. S., 242, and cases therein cited. + +The fact that the liability is conditioned upon the application of +a remedy as substantially provided in the act does not in any way +affect the constitutionality if it is carried out as we suggest. The +theory is that until the appraisal is made by the award provided +there is no liability. See President, etc., V. and H. Canal Co. _vs._ +Penn. Coal Co., 50 N. Y., 250; Wolff _vs._ Liverpool, L. and G. Ins. +Co., 50 N. J. Law, 453; Hall _vs._ Norwalk Fire Ins. Co., 57 Conn., +105; Reed _vs._ Washington Ins. Co., 138 Mass., 572. + +It has been intimated that the employer might be forced by such law, +when the employe could not be so forced. We fail to see the force of +this argument. The reason why the employers cannot be forced, if it +is done equally, is that it deprives them of their liberty secured +by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution to contract +with respect to their labor as they see fit upon the theory that the +liberty of contract is a property right; but neither the right of +property of the employe nor the employer stands above the general +public good. The general welfare was one of the principal purposes +given in the Preamble of the Federal Constitution as the reason +for the making of that constitution. It has been consistently and +persistently upheld by the courts whenever needed for the protection +of public good; as long as government exists it always will be so +upheld. It is an absolute and final necessity. With this right the +Federal Constitution was never intended to interfere except in +the few instances limited by the Fourteenth Amendment; except as +specifically limited the State has as much power as a foreign nation +upon this question, and that amendment does not prohibit the exercise +of such power to the extent that it is necessary in dangerous +employments. See Mayor, Alderman, etc., of N. Y. _vs._ Miln, 11 +Peters, 102; Lochner _vs._ N. Y., 198 U. S., 45. Other cases cited +_supra_. + +In this respect, too, we must not overlook the fact that the employer +and the employe do not stand upon an equality in their negotiations +with respect to dangerous employments. Stripped of political +perplexities and personal prejudices and ambitions, the fact is, and +must be recognized, that the fundamental reason for the interference +by the State with respect to these matters rests upon the bare fact +of the inequality of abilities of the respective parties to take care +of their interests by reason of the peculiar situations. In the case +of Harbison _vs._ Knoxville Iron Co., 53 S. W., 955, the Court said: + +"The Legislature, as it thought, found the employe at a disadvantage +in this respect, and by this enactment undertook to place him and +the employer more nearly upon an equality. This alone commends the +act, and entitled it to a place on the statute book as a valid police +regulation." + +The Supreme Court of the United States approved this opinion in +Knoxville _vs._ Harbison, 183 U. S., 13. + +In respect to the length of hours, dangerous labor may be required, +it was said by the Supreme Court in Holden _vs._ Hardy, 169 U. S., +366: + +"The Legislature has also recognized the fact, which the experience +of Legislatures in many States has corroborated, that the proprietors +of these establishments and their operatives do not stand upon +an equality, but that their interests are, to a certain extent, +conflicting." + +Then in the case of Narramore _vs._ Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co., 96 +Fed., 298, a case involving the rights of railway employes to have +switches blocked, while Judge Taft was sitting on the Circuit Court +of Appeals, he used this language: + +"The only ground for passing such a statute is found in the +inequality of terms upon which the railway company and its servants +deal in regard to the dangers of their employment. The manifest +legislative purpose was to protect the servant by positive law, +because he had not previously shown himself capable of protecting +himself by contract; and it would entirely defeat this purpose thus +to permit the servant 'to contract the master out' of the statute." + +An employe cannot successfully say to a railway president, "Run your +business carefully or I will quit." This is a new right and not +necessarily triable by jury in State courts. Am. _vs._ Morrison, 22 +Minn., 178. See Minor _vs._ Happersett, 21 Wall., 162. + +We might argue this legislation at length, but it seems useless at +the present time. There is an agitation throughout this country, +unequaled upon any other single subject, in favor of a fairer system +of compensation to meet the necessities somewhat along the lines that +foreign countries have done. No subject in this country has ever +been studied more deliberately; no attempt has ever been made upon +the part of all parties to approach a legislative subject in this +country with less partisan feeling or more careful study. Employes +have awakened to the conditions in a substantial way. Employers +are willing that they should have something of a fairer and more +substantial nature. The State needs it for its own protection as +well as the protection of its members. Public sentiment is aroused, +but it is being judiciously controlled. We might have pending in +this country a civil war larger than the Civil War of the sixties +was and not do as much injury at the present time as the industrial +accidents. Fair people, therefore, are going to be willing to have +laws that will tend first to prevent accidents, and, second, to +fairly compensate for them, and to do it in such way as to be an +inducement to both the employer and employe to prevent the accident. +We want society protected also. No better time will ever come for +a fairer legislative act upon this question than at the beginning. +If the movement is uniform, and held in check long enough to be +understood, there will be no difficulty about passing the laws. Every +bad law injures the cause, every unfair law will prejudice it. The +basis is the police power and the liberty of occupation, and contract +can only be controlled where necessary; that is, in dangerous +employments, but can be in all such employments. + +(This concluded the business to come before the Conference, and +on motion of Joseph A. Parks, of Massachusetts, the meeting stood +adjourned _sine die_.) + + + + + APPENDIX + + BRIEF REPORT + + SECOND NATIONAL CONFERENCE + + WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION FOR INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS + + WASHINGTON, JANUARY 20, 1910 + + +The second meeting of the National Conference on Workmen's +Compensation for Industrial Accidents was held in Washington, at the +New Hotel Willard, on January 20, 1910. + + +FORENOON SESSION. + +SECRETARY H. V. MERCER, Chairman of the Minnesota Commission, called +the meeting to order at 10 A. M. He announced that in response to the +following invitation which had been sent to governors, ninety-four +delegates had been appointed from nineteen states: + + "Dear Sir: + + As you are no doubt aware, several of the States have created + commissions and legislative committees to investigate the + present Employers' Liability Laws and report plans for + betterment along the line of Workmen's Compensation Acts. + + A conference of these commissions and committees was held at + Atlantic City, on July 29th, to 31st last, a report of which + is this day sent you under another cover. At that time it + was resolved to hold a second conference, to be attended, if + possible, by some person or persons designated by the Governor + of each State. (See pages 277-9; 302-3, Atlantic City Report, + supra.) + + It has been determined to hold this second conference at + Washington on January 20th, immediately after the conference + on Uniform Legislation, which has been called by the National + Civic Federation, and to which we are informed the Governors of + the various States have been requested to send representatives. + + You are respectfully urged to designate one or more persons + specially qualified to take part in our second conference. + In case you designate persons to represent the State at the + Uniform Legislation conference we would suggest that you + might designate one or more of the same persons to attend the + conference on Workmen's Compensation. + + Enclosed is a brief account of the Atlantic City Meeting, which + explains more at length the general purpose and scope of these + conferences. + + We shall appreciate it if you will advise the Secretary at your + earliest convenience as to the persons designated to attend + this conference so that he may put himself in communication + with them and arrange the details." + +On motion, Mr. Mercer, in the absence of Dr. Chas. P. Neill, was +elected temporary chairman, and Professor Henry R. Seager was made +secretary of the meeting. + +MR. MERCER: + + "Our executive committee did not formulate any regular program. + We thought that the speeches ought to be limited to ten minutes + and unless there is objection we will act upon that principle. + We have drafted a short bill which we present here, not with an + idea that it is correct, or that it is absolutely the bill that + should be passed, but with a view of bringing up the different + points for discussion. This matter has been discussed from the + standpoint of theory sufficiently long and some of us think + that we should get down to practical things." + +SENATOR J. MAYHEW WAINWRIGHT, Chairman of the New York Commission, +described the preliminary work of that body (as outlined again by +Miss Crystal Eastman, at the third meeting in Chicago [Page 13]). +Senator Wainwright said, in part: + + "The great difficulty is to determine how one State can adopt + any system of compensation before the other States, and to + secure the information upon which may be based a precise + conclusion as to what the increased cost to the employers would + be. It seems to me that it is going to be very difficult to get + at exactly what the effect upon the industries of the States + any particular bill will have, until some measure is tried. We + are warned not to be the pioneers in the field. That raises, + it seems to me, a very great ethical question, for this is a + serious matter, and involves basic justice. It seems to me that + we should question whether so much importance should be given + to the cost, unless we are sure the cost is going to be pretty + nearly prohibitive. In other words, if the thing is right, and + fundamentally just, hasn't somebody got to start it and make + a beginning and take some little chance as to what its effect + may be. Another difficult matter, of course, is to determine + the effect upon the smaller employers of labor, and there, we + can only judge from the foreign experience.... The only thing + we can be absolutely certain of, is that the present system is + unsatisfactory and that there should be a change. So far as our + commission is concerned, we will not cease from our labor but + will unremittingly direct all our efforts to this subject until + we, in the State of New York, can arrive at a solution which + our commission will feel is the right one."... + +COMMISSIONER CHARLES P. NEILL, of the United States Bureau of Labor, +arrived at this time and assumed the chair. He said: + + "Gentlemen, I wish to apologize for my inability to get down + here at the opening of the session. It has not been a want of + interest in this subject that has delayed me, for there is + probably no subject in which I have more interest than the + one of employers' liability and workmen's compensation. For + the last eight days we have been engaged in bringing about + the adjustment of a controversy which required as a solution + some form of workmen's compensation. We have been dealing with + the representatives of switchmen in the railroad yards, and + if there is any occupation in which more men are maimed and + butchered, I do not know what it is. Discussion brought forth + at almost every point the necessity of doing something in this + country to put us on what we might call a half civilized basis + for taking care of the derelicts of industry." (Applause). + +SENATOR A. W. SANBORN, Chairman of the Wisconsin Commission, was then +introduced and he outlined the preliminary work of that Commission +(in a statement similar to the report made at Chicago by Senator +Blaine [Page 10]). Senator Sanborn also said: + + "As we look at it in Wisconsin, we are surrounded on three + sides by very lively competitors in the manufacturing line; + there is only a certain amount that we can load on our + manufacturers and let them compete until we reach a bill that + is uniform in the group of States in the Northwest. As one of + our large manufacturers expressed it at one of our hearings, we + are willing to pay twenty per cent. or twenty-five per cent. + more than we are to-day, however, if you put it on a definite + basis so that we know how much.... + + ... Now, I hope we can derive some benefit here by getting + down to specific things. I think it is generally conceded by + everybody that has paid any attention to the subject, that + the time has arrived when something must be done; the present + situation is absolutely intolerable, giving rise to great + unrest, and people feel there is great injustice under the + present system." + +PROFESSOR HENRY W. FARNAM, of New Haven, stated upon call, that the +Connecticut Commission accomplished practically nothing. He then +made an appeal for united action between the states for the purpose +of securing greater care and greater uniformity in investigation and +legislation. He offered the services of the American Association for +Labor Legislation (of which he is president), in any endeavor that +would bring about a better understanding between the different groups +now interested in this question. + +MR. MAGNUS W. ALEXANDER, of Lynn, stated upon call, that there was at +present no Commission in Massachusetts. + +MR. JOHN MITCHELL, of the New York Commission, in discussing a +proposal to study costs of industrial insurance in Germany, said: + + "I think it is important, that we should understand that + neither in purpose nor in action is it contemplated that + a movement of this kind shall delay the efforts of the + commission to reach conclusions. I quite agree with you that + an investigation as to the costs and operation of the laws in + Europe would be of advantage to us, but I quite well recognize + that that is a slow process, and I think we cannot afford to + wait for several years before we do something definite in this + country. Now, I should like to say that I recognize very well + how important it is to our industries that they be kept on a + fairly competitive basis. I am not at all satisfied, however, + that the establishment of a system of compensation, even in one + of our states, would be a serious handicap to the employers of + that state. I think that we ought to take into consideration + the experience abroad. Now I do not know whether it is because + of the compensation laws in Germany, or in spite of them but + I do know that co-incident with the establishment of their + insurance system, which is the most comprehensive of any in + Europe, prosperity took a rise. The German Empire has forged + ahead at an unprecedented rate since the establishment of their + comprehensive system of insurance and compensation.... + + ... The relation of the various countries of Europe to each + other is not unlike the relation of our own state governments. + Competition between some of the continental countries is as + keen as is competition between some of our states. I am not + willing to agree either that increasing the cost of a product + will necessarily put that product out of the running with + the same product produced in another state. There are a good + many other considerations entering into the matter: If better + laws or better wages attract better workmen, then there is + a compensation to an employer even though his wage-scale be + higher or his cost greater than prevails in a competitive + industry in another State. The best workmen are attracted to + those industries and to those localities where conditions + of employment are most satisfactory, and I dare say that + every employer will agree that the best workman is to him + the cheapest workman even though his wages be higher.... I + feel, that our state would not suffer in the race for trade + if we should establish a compensation system, and I believe + that Minnesota would not suffer and I believe that Wisconsin + would not suffer. We cannot afford in the United States to + wait until all States, even though they be only competitive + ones, are ready to adopt one system of compensation, any more + than we ought to wait before we advance wages in one state + until all the other states are ready to advance them, and we + certainly do not do that. As a matter of fact there is scarcely + an industry conducted in the State of Wisconsin, Minnesota, + or New York, whose wage schedules are made at the same time, + notwithstanding the fact that they have competitive industries. + There are very few industries in this country whose wage rates + and conditions of employment are regulated nationally; there + are very few industries where organized workmen are employed + that attempt to make wage scales on a national basis; true, + there are some, such as coal mines and the railways, but in + the machinery trade, in building construction, and in all the + miscellaneous industries, the wage schedules are made local and + without any special relation to the wage schedules of other + states.... + + I, of course, am anxious that we shall have the very best + information obtainable, and of course it is desirable that + all the states should act together, but I think it is equally + desirable that some of the states act quickly because it is an + evil, and a growing evil, and it is more readily recognized now + because we have been talking about it. The workingmen of the + country are aware now of the conditions that prevail in other + countries and we are very much dissatisfied with the conditions + we now have. Employers themselves are going outside of the + law to try and compensate workmen for injuries. Practically + all of the large employers in the United States recognize and + concede the inequity of the present law, by trying on their own + account to draft some system to pay workmen more money wherever + there exists a necessity for speedy relief. Now, I wanted to + make those observations because I do not want to agree to + a proposition here for an investigation of the conditions + in Europe, if that investigation means, either in purpose + or in effect, that we are going to wait the returns of that + investigation before we get something that is substantial in + America." (Applause). + +MR. C. B. CULBERTSON, of the Wisconsin Commission, said in brief: + + "The conditions in the United States are far different from + what they are in Europe, and the testimony taken before our + Commission shows that two industries standing side by side, + being practically the same, having practically the same number + of machines, with practically the same number of men employed, + would have rates of which one would be half as great as the + other, and would be fair in each case, because the accidents + in the one concern were twice what they were in the other. Now + this is going to be a very hard matter to get at if you wait + to get these figures and then attempt to follow them. And a + third point; I believe the employers in Wisconsin, as well as + the laboring men, are ready for this proposition at this time, + and I believe we are going to have it in Wisconsin at the + next legislature. I do not think we are going to wait for any + instructions from Europe or for any figures from there." + +At this point two resolutions which had been adopted at the Atlantic +City meeting, in July 1909, were re-adopted,--requesting the U. S. +Bureau of Labor to publish the foreign compensation laws in English, +and to investigate the comparative cost to employers, of liability +insurance under the American system, and workmen's compensation under +the British and German systems. + +MR. MILES M. DAWSON, of New York City, said: + + "I agree with the Wisconsin, Minnesota and New York Commissions + that if we are to get anything done this year, we should go + ahead and do it without waiting, for these tables of cost are + by no means absolutely necessary.... But the things which can + be brought out by that information are not quite the same + things you are apparently thinking about.... A thoroughly + competent expert, who will know what he is after, can put that + information in the hands of the Bureau of Labor for publication + by September or October next, and there is no reason why the + Minnesota legislature or the Wisconsin legislature should + hold up its report for an indefinite length of time. I have + known New York pretty well, and if the Commission in New York + renders a report during the present session and it meets with + the approval of most of the Commission in New York, there is no + doubt in my mind but what something will be done in New York + before the present legislature is over." + +DR. CHARLES MCCARTHY, of Wisconsin, said: + + "I am thoroughly in favor of getting the statistics from + Europe and I fully realize what a job that is. I believe, + however, there is a way of going ahead as Mr. Mitchell and + Mr. Culbertson have suggested without getting the statistics. + Perhaps we are trying to get too much at once upon the + statute books. I would suggest that these industries might be + classified as to the dangers which they incur, not necessarily + the industries that are particularly dangerous, but a group of + industries could be taken and the law applied to them, and a + bill could be introduced in the three legislatures applying to + those particular industries. The rates could be fixed in that + law so reasonable that the manufacturers could not oppose the + law, with a provision in the law that after investigation, or + within a certain time, those rates would be increased in the + future. Now, as an experimental thing, as a thing which all + States could agree upon, that would not be hard to get and + would not be hard to put upon our statute books. It would be + an opening wedge, it could be tried before the courts and the + principle determined by the courts and then applied within + a few years to other industries of a dangerous nature. I do + not think the process of statute law making is a process of + getting all the statistics and facts from foreign countries; I + think that it is the other way in America. Our statutes work + out differently in the psychology of the working man, and I + believe the way to do it in America is to get some particular + group of industries that we know are dangerous and get three of + the States to act together. I think the workmen will meet that + half way, with the idea of increasing in the future. It is an + entering wedge that all can agree upon." (Applause). + +MR. J. P. COTTON, counsel for the New York Commission: + + "If we ever come to workmen's compensation, there has to be + back of it sometime an efficient insurance system and the + data of the English experience on that is of the very highest + importance.... I do not see any reason why, in non-competitive + trades, any American state is not now ready to go ahead and + establish a system of compensation at such a rate as will at + least grant relief to the workmen. But that does not make any + less important the collection of foreign figures in particular + accident experience." + +DR. MCCARTHY: + + "How will it do to make a classification based upon actual + statistics of deaths and accident rates and put it up to the + courts? Suppose the courts do knock it down, then they will + tell what we can do in the future. We don't want to be afraid + of the veto of the courts, for in the end they will tell us + what we can do. We have to go through that experience some time + and we might as well begin with our best foot forward,--with + the best case we can make." + +MR. GEORGE M. GILLETTE, of the Minnesota Commission: + + "... It seems to me that the question of cost on the one side + and compensation on the other are so closely interrelated that + it is absolutely impossible to consider the one without the + other. If the other members of this Conference do not desire + this information, I have no desire to press it; it has already + been expressed by resolution in the minutes of the preceding + Conference. Personally, however, I am going to investigate the + costs and the working of these compensation acts abroad. + + I offer the following resolution: + + 'Resolved: That a committee of three be appointed by the Chair + to confer with the Honorable Secretary of State to secure the + cooperation of the Government, and its aid through our Consular + and Diplomatic Service in obtaining information as to the + workings of the foreign compensation acts and the criticisms + which are made at the home of the various acts.'" + +The resolution was adopted, and John Mitchell, A. W. Sanborn and Geo. +M. Gillette were appointed. + +MR. BERTRAM PIKE, of New Hampshire: + + "I would suggest in connection with getting the insurance rates + from abroad, that we ascertain what has been the actual cost of + the workmen's collective policies in the different industries + and States in this country, because it will show almost + absolutely what it costs to protect those men." + +MR. OWEN MILLER, of Missouri: + + "I think that suggestion is a good one." + +MR. WALLACE INGALLS, of Wisconsin: + + "The accident insurance companies know what injuries occur in + the principal manufacturing industries. They have definite + information." + +SENATOR HOWARD R. BAYNE, of the New York Commission: + + "Our Commission has adopted the plan of discussing tentative + propositions in order to confine our attention to specific + questions. I move that this Conference now direct its + discussion to the consideration of whether the scheme of + workmen's compensation in all cases of industrial accidents is + industrially feasible at the present time." + + [The motion was carried.] + +MR. WILLIAM BROSMITH, counsel for the Travelers' Insurance Co., of +Hartford: + + "I do not know that I am in a position to give you any advice + as to the industrial feasibility of workmen's compensation. + Personally, I am a strong believer in workmen's compensation." + +THE CHAIRMAN: + + "Do you believe that the insurance companies would be willing + to place at the disposal of this conference, or any one, the + actual experience they have had under collective insurance; + in other words, would they be willing to allow statements to + be taken from their figures showing precisely the number of + accidents in any given occupation or the total number of people + insured, the number of injured, the kind of injury, the time + the injuries lasted, of course leaving out the question of how + much was paid by the company?" + +MR. BROSMITH: + + "I can speak positively for one company. I know that we will + be very glad indeed to furnish to the State Commissions the + experience of our company on industrial accidents. I have + offered already to do that for the New York State Commission. + I have no right, of course, to speak for other companies, but I + am confident, that all of them which write industrial accident + insurance or which cover it in one form or another, will be + glad indeed to furnish their experience. I do not believe that + the value of statistics you gather abroad as to the practical + working of workmen's compensation and insurance in foreign + countries will be of much value, but I do believe that in our + own country, where we have a vast mass of experience it will be + of practical benefit. + + The company which I represent has been transacting accident + insurance in this country for fifty years. We have written, + I presume, millions of policies of accident insurance upon + persons engaged in industrial occupation. We have that + experience all tabulated and arranged and classified so as + to show the injuries sustained in the different occupations, + the injuries sustained at occupation, the injuries sustained + foreign to occupation, the premiums charged and received in + all of these years, the loss ratio and the accident ratio. I + believe, the insurance companies in the United States could in + a very short time know the exact amount paid by any employer + of labor as a premium rate, or cost of insurance which would + be necessary to protect the employer against the compensation + which he in turn would be obliged to furnish to his employees. + I believe that experience will be very valuable to the State + Commissions and I know, that so far as the accident companies + are concerned, when a scheme of compensation is perfected in + any State, it is to that experience we will go in order to + ascertain what we will charge the employer for the insurance + protection. We will not go to the experience of any liability + insurance. That may have a value, I presume it has, but it is + not at all comparable to the value of experience in personal + accident and health insurance, and particularly the experience + of the companies which write industrial insurance. + + At the present time, the insurance company has the privilege of + selecting its risk, and the benefit of that selection affects + the premium charged. Today we may insure a thousand employees + of the Pressed Steel Car Company, but we will select that one + thousand; the ones who are of bad habits, careless, or of bad + morals we decline to take. Under the workmen's compensation, + however, we would have to insure all of the employees of a + given industry, good, bad and indifferent. The fact that we + would have to insure all of the risks in a given industry + without selection, would have the effect of increasing the + premium somewhat. However, under workmen's compensation I would + assume that the injuries to be covered by the insurance would + be only the injuries sustained in occupations, so that a very + considerable percentage of the injuries now covered by general + accident insurance, would be taken out of the insurance under + workmen's compensation." + +PROF. SEAGER: + + "If we asked your company to name the thirty most hazardous + industries carried on in New York State, it would not be a + matter of difficulty?" + +MR. BROSMITH: + + "It certainly would not be difficult to give you the thirty + most hazardous all over the country." + +MR. WILLIAM F. WELCH, of West Virginia: + + "Would the insurance companies, under a compensation act, + require the rigid medical examination that is now required?" + +MR. BROSMITH: + + "No. There is no medical examination in accident insurance now." + +MR. MERCER: + + "I have prepared a bill that I thought would stimulate + discussion, and I have had it printed in order that you might + look it over." + +Mr. Mercer then explained briefly the provisions of his tentative +bill, which, with modifications, was presented again at the Chicago +meeting, and is printed on page 40. + +At one o'clock the meeting adjourned until 2.30 P. M. + + +AFTERNOON SESSION. + +The Committee on Permanent Organization through its chairman, Prof. +Seager, submitted a report, which was adopted,--providing: + +1. That the members of the permanent Conference shall be the members +of all State Commissions on the subject, one permanent representative +to be appointed by the Governor of each State, and ten members at +large to be elected at any regular meeting of the Conference; + +2. That a permanent executive committee of fifteen members be +appointed by the Committee on Permanent Organization; + +3. That the Secretary of the American Association for Labor +Legislation be named as the Assistant Secretary of this Conference; + +4. That the Conference meet in Chicago on June 10th, 1910. + +The sentiment of the Committee favored public meetings, but with +privilege of voting limited to the members of the Conference. + +The Executive Committee was directed to draw up a suitable set of +by-laws for submission at the Chicago meeting of the Conference. + +On motion, a committee consisting of Messrs. Seager, Mercer and +Dawson was appointed to draw up a bill and submit it to the insurance +companies for cost figures, and to furnish copies of the bill for +distribution, at least twenty days in advance of the next meeting in +Chicago. + +MR. M. L. SHIPMAN, of North Carolina, made a plea for more specific +announcements concerning arrangements and place for meetings, in +order that there might be less confusion on that account in the +future. + +The Conference, after a temporary adjournment for the purpose +of having a photograph taken, took up, section by section, the +discussion of Mr. Mercer's tentative bill. + +Upon the question of the proper classification of hazardous +employments it was practically agreed that any attempt to include +agricultural laborers and domestic servants in a compensation +measure, would probably result in failure. "You cannot pass a bill +of that sort," declared Dr. McCarthy. "Anybody who has been around a +legislature knows that the farmers, on questions of this sort, are +way behind the laboring man or the manufacturer; they are full of +prejudice and will fight a bill of that kind every time." + +The constitutional difficulties in New York were discussed by Senator +Bayne who laid special stress upon: (1) the death limit clause; (2) +the right of trial by jury; and the due process clause. "Some of +us," said Senator Bayne, "have about concluded that the only way we +can justify any compensation act for industrial accidents will be +through the exercise of the police power of the State. And we think +this principle lies at the bottom of the police power: that it is +competent for the legislature to declare that a proposed remedy is +based upon the police power, but it must in fact be dangerous to +the health or public safety or welfare of the community. The mere +fact that the legislature so declares it, does not make it so. It is +subject to investigation by the courts, and if they find that it is +reasonable then they will leave it to the legislature to declare the +extent of authority under that police power with those limitations." + +In answer to these objections Mr. Mercer cited numerous court +decisions (printed in pamphlet form by Mr. Mercer) which led him +to feel more sanguine of what may be accomplished under our +constitutions. In answer to Prof. Seager's question: "Is it +probable that the court will take the view that a general workmen's +compensation act is a reasonable exercise of the police power?" Mr. +Mercer replied: + + "My understanding of that is that under the general theory + where twenty-three of the most important foreign countries have + passed legislation on the theory that there was a reasonable + foundation for it, where six or seven of the forty-six states + have passed laws requiring commissions to investigate this + proposition, where men would meet at Atlantic City and discuss + this subject as we did for two days, where the National Civic + Federation devoted a day to it in New York, and where we devote + a day to it here, where there is literature all over the + country and every magazine has some article on the subject at + the present time, and probably all of the corporations coming + around to the view that we need certain legislation, I do not + believe any court would say that there is any opposition to a + reasonable discussion of the question, and that the legislature + has not the right to declare it was a dangerous employment if + we limit it to the industries that have hazards." + +Prof. Seager outlined the plan of "extra-hazardous" occupation +classifications favored by the New York Commission and Dr. McCarthy +pointed out the danger of too much definition. "My experience with +bill-drafting is that in getting the most simple statement of a case, +the less you say, the better." + +MR. JOHN LUNDRIGAN, of New York, gave it as his opinion that "any +scheme of compensation that follows the job or the employment, +instead of the individual, is wrong and will fail." He said he did +not believe men engaged in hazardous occupations would be willing to +waive their right to undertake to recover in the courts whenever it +could be shown that the employer was negligent. + +[The stenographer who reported the remainder of this brief session +lost his notes, and there is no further record]. + + + + +INDEX + + +SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTS + + _Alexander, M. W._, 127. + + _Allport, W. H._, 57, 89, 102, 108, 114. + + _Barry, James V._, 32. + + _Bayne, Howard R._, 131, 134. + + _Blaine, John J._, 10, 47, 48, 49, 94, 100. + + _Brosmith, William_, 131, 133. + + _Buchanan, Frank_, 58, 59, 61, 80. + + _Bullock, Henry W._, 71. + + _Business transacted_, 38, 39, 95, 96, 113, 114, 129, 130, 133, 134. + + _Classification of Hazardous Employments_, 44-50, 52, 54, 55, 56, + 58, 67, 71, 74, 76, 82-95, 116, 119, 129, 133, 134. + + _Constitutionality_, 43, 49-53, 55, 57, 58, 70, 74, 77, 111, 114, + 121-123, 130, 134, 135. + + _Contract vs. Absolute Liability_, 51, 52, 74. + + _Contributions by employees_, 72, 75, 104, 105. + + _Costs_, 88-89, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107, 111, 117, 126, 131. + + _Cotton, J. P._, 130. + + _Court Administration vs. Boards of Arbitration_, 70, 73, 109-113. + + _Culbertson, C. B._, 61, 128. + + _Dawson, Miles M._, 31, 39, 43, 44, 49, 67, 82, 89, 105, 106, 108, + 109, 114, 129. + + _Deibler, F. S._, 102. + + _Double Liability_, 55, 59, 61-63, 67, 71, 76-78, 80, 96-104, 120. + + _Duncan, M. M._, 32. + + _Eastman, Crystal_, 13. + + _English System_, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 67, 68, 69, 75, 76, 83, 87, + 88, 90, 98, 101, 102, 103, 108. + + _Farnam, Henry W._, 32, 126. + + _Flora, John_, 66, 96, 97, 100, 101. + + _Freund, Ernst_, 26, 56. + + _German System_, 57, 58, 73, 75, 86, 87, 90, 103. + + _Gillette, George M._, 103, 130. + + _Gray, John H._, 59. + + _Harper, Samuel R._, 52, 70, 92, 111. + + _Hoffman, Frederick L._, 31. + + _Illinois Commission_, 22-27. + + _Ingalls, Wallace_, 74, 80, 89, 93, 101, 131. + + _Insurance Companies_, 68, 73, 81, 82, 83, 88, 98, 100, 103, 109, + 132. + + _Interstate Competition_, 17, 59, 77, 86, 89, 125-128, 130. + + _Kingsley, Sherman_, 64. + + _Limited Compensation vs. Pension Plan_, 72, 104-109. + + _Litigation_, 75, 79, 80, 103, 110, 112. + + _Lowell, James A._, 27, 44, 45, 47, 83, 107. + + _Lundrigan, John_, 135. + + _Massachusetts Commission_, 27-31. + + _McCarthy, Charles_, 86, 97, 98, 102, 106, 109, 129, 130, 134. + + _McKitrick, Reuben_, 95. + + _Mercer, H. V._, 10, 26, 32, 33, 39, 43-50, 54, 58, 66, 82, 84, 85, + 86, 89, 91, 92, 96, 97, 102, 104, 109, 114, 115, 124, 125, 133, + 135. + + _Miller, Owen_, 131. + + _Minnesota Commission_, 33-38. + + _Mitchell, John_, 21, 30, 31, 61, 79, 91, 92, 95, 97, 98, 101, 102, + 127. + + _Moulton, William H._, 104. + + _Neill, Charles P._, 126. + + _New Jersey Commission_, 31-32. + + _New York Commission_, 13-22. + + _Ohio Commission_, 32. + + _Parks, Joseph A._, 29, 31, 46, 55, 98, 100. + + _Pike, Bertram_, 131. + + _Ranney, G. A._, 80, 94, 101. + + _Repeal of Common Law and Statutory Remedies_, [See "Double + Liability"]. + + _Sanborn, A. W._, 47, 51, 111, 115, 126. + + _Saunders, Amos T._, 75. + + _Seager, Henry R._, 19, 21, 38, 39, 46, 53, 54, 85, 86, 109, 111, + 113, 132, 133, 135. + + _Shipman, M. L._, 134. + + _Smith, George W._, 20. + + _Starring, Mason B._, 22, 44. + + _Steele, H. Wirt_, 32. + + _Sumner, Charles A._, 84, 85. + + _Uniform Legislation_, 17, 59, 78, 94, 126. + + _Wainwright. J. Mayhew_, 125. + + _Welch, William F._, 133. + + _Wisconsin Commission_, 10-13. + + _Wright, Edwin R._, 23, 78, 79, 92, 93. + + + * * * * * + +Transcriber's Notes: + +Obvious typographical errors were repaired. + +P. 49: Words of Chairman Mercer--"although the judgment of the as +laid down in Lockner"--apparent missing word is as in the original. + +P. 78: Words of Edwin Wright--"injured person fails to report within +a very limited time, his it presented a question"--"his" is as in the +original. + +P. 111: "the number of reasons these bills took the form which they +have taken"--original read "sons" in place of "reasons." + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Proceedings, Third National Conference +Workmen's Compensation for Industrial Accidents, by Various + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 3RD NAT. CONF. WORKMEN'S COMP. *** + +***** This file should be named 44214.txt or 44214.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/4/4/2/1/44214/ + +Produced by Audrey Longhurst, JoAnn Greenwood, and the +Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at + www.gutenberg.org/license. + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 +North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email +contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the +Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |