REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM WORKMEN'S COMPEN SATION ACT. At the last meeting of the Conference held at Milwaukee in August, 1912, the draft of a Compulsory Workmen's Compensation Act submitted by this committee was considered at length, and, after being somewhat amended, was tentatively approved. The committee was instructed to continue its work and report to the next Conference. The personnel of the committee was changed by the retirement of Charles Thaddeus Terry, Esq., who was elected President of the Conference, and by the appointment of Hiram Glass, Esq., of Austin, Tex., to fill the vacancy. Aldis B. Browne, Esq., has recently resigned, and his place has not as yet been filled. The members of the committee have done considerable work during the year. The Chairman, in November, 1912, attended meetings held in New York under the auspices of the National Civic Federation, where numerous addresses were made by a considerable number of persons interested in the subject of Workmen's Compensation. A member of the Industrial Accident Board of Massachusetts explained the workings of the Massachusetts law and a member of the Industrial Accident Board of Michigan gave a full account of the Michigan law. The committee held a well-attended meeting in New York in May, 1913, and, after full discussion, adopted several important amendments to the acts as submitted last year. The most important of these is the placing the work of administering the law in the hands of an Industrial Accident Board. The committee was assisted at this meeting by members of the Legal Committee of the National Civic Federation and by members of the Legislative Drafting Association. The committee submit this year, as they did last, two acts, one an Elective Act and the other a Compulsory Act. The Elective Act is framed upon what may be called the New Jersey theory, i. e., the employers are left to insure themselves or not as they deem best. Some members of the committee favor what may be called the Massachusetts or Michigan theory, by which the employers, in order to come under the act, are required to get insured. These members reserve the right to submit their views to the Conference, and all members of the committee reserve the right to suggest further changes and amendments when the acts are considered by the Conference. HOLLIS R. BAILEY of Massachusetts, JOHN R. HARDIN of New Jersey, Special Committee. REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE SITUS OF REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION. The Special Committee on Situs of Real and Personal Property for purposes of taxation reports: The committee was authorized by the Conference of 1912 to cooperate with other bodies toward carrying out the recommendations of its first report. It is hoped that such cooperation may be obtained from the National Tax Association and from permanent state commissions now existing or hereafter to be created. The adoption of scientific and equitable principles of comity and law regarding the situs of taxable property can be expected only as the result of efforts extending over a considerable period of time. The committee respectfully suggests that it be continued with the same powers granted to it in 1912, in order that it may avail itself of any opportunity that may present itself for further action. ERNST FREUND, Chairman, JOHN H. VOORHEES, J. R. THORNTON, HENRY H. INGERSOLL, REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO COOPERATE WITH THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY. To the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws: The Special Committee to cooperate with the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology has the honor to report: The American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, through a sub-committee of its Committee on Criminal Procedure, is in cooperation with the Legislative Drafting Bureau in the preparation of the draft code of Criminal Procedure. This sub-committee will report progress to the forthcoming meeting of the American Institute, but there is not yet anything further to report in regard to the matter. The American Institute Committee on Indeterminate Sentence has prepared a digest of the laws of Maine, Nevada and Oregon, which, during the last year, have been added to the number of states now operating under either the indeterminate sentence, probation or parole systems, under the auspices of its Chairman, Edwin M. Abbott, who presented at the last meeting an exhaustive digest of the laws of the various states on this subject, which will be found printed in the journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, in volume 3, page 543. Respectfully submitted at the request of JOHN H. WIGMORE, Chairman. By NATHAN WILLIAM MACCHESNEY, REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM LAW RELATING TO BOILERS AND THEIR INSPECTION. To the Commissioners on Uniform Laws in Twenty-third National Conference: The Special Committee on a Uniform Law relating to Boilers and their Inspection respectfully reports as follows: At the annual Conference held at Milwaukee in August, 1912, it was voted that the President appoint a special committee consisting of five, to consider the advisability of a uniform law relating to boilers and their inspection. The President appointed as such committee the following: C. A. Severance of Minnesota, A. V. Cannon of Ohio, Carlos C. Alden of New York, Ernst Freund of Illinois and George B. Young of Vermont. The latter gentleman is unfortunately no longer a member of the Conference, and for that reason felt that he should not join in a report on the subject. The other members of the committee have considered the question, making examination of the laws in force in different states. relative to the inspection and testing of boilers, as a result of which, it is found: First No law of this class now in force would, if enacted generally, bring about either uniformity in the construction of steam boilers or uniformity of inspection of the same. The laws on this subject in Massachusetts, Ohio and Minnesota are perhaps more elaborately drawn than any others now in force; but in each case these statutes provide for a board having charge of the matter of inspection, with power to make rules relative to such inspection. No guide is given in the laws of either Massachusetts or Ohio, and there is only a partial attempt to lay down definite statutory requirements as to tests in Minnesota. |