commissions, etc. The second volume is made up of minutes of evidence and a record of the public hearings held by the commission. Considerable space is given in the report proper to a consideration of the legal aspects of the question, while the social and economic reasons for a change in the law are also discussed. The conclusions of the commission were in favor of a law providing "a uniform plan of insurance, practically compulsory in its nature," and the argument as to constitutionality is, of course, directed to the support of such a law. Besides the draft of a compensation bill, the commission recommended an investigation of occupational diseases, an increase in the number of factory inspectors, and an increase of the penalty for violations of the laws requiring the installation of guards and safety devices in factories and workshops.

An optional State insurance law was enacted in 1911 and amended in 1913 so as to make it compulsory.

OREGON.

The commission of this State was appointed by the governor, representatives of employers, of employees, and of the general public being chosen. The report' is a pamphlet of 23 pages, 15 of which are taken up with a draft of a bill prepared by the commission.

No hearings or statistical investigations seem to have taken place, the commission having taken into consideration the action of other States in legislation in the same field, and its results. This was said to be "of incalculable value," and the bill reported was "in large measure a composite of features of acts of other States which have been tried and proven, with modifications necessary to a proper unification."

The law of Washington was chiefly followed in this draft, an elective system being substituted for a compulsory one, however, the insurance fund to be maintained by contributions from both employers and employees, as well as other changes of less importance. The reason for this change is chiefly the uncertainty as to the constitutionality of a compulsory law, while the practically general acceptance of the proposed law was anticipated on account of the withdrawal of the customary defenses from employers not accepting the act, and the certain and obvious advantages offered to the workmen by it.

A law was enacted in 1913 in practical agreement with the recommendations of the commission.

1 Report of Commission to Draft a Workmen's Compensation Bill to be Submitted to the 27th Legislative Assembly, 1912.(?)

PENNSYLVANIA.

An act of June 14, 1911, directed the appointment of a commission with the duty of investigating the prevention of industrial accidents and the compensation of injured workmen and their dependents. The report1 consists of but 55 pages, mainly occupied with drafts of bills for consideration by the legislature. As to accident prevention, existing legislation is commended and its amendment and better enforcement advised.

The question of the desirability of a compensation law as compared with the present liability law is considered as no longer open to debate, the only point being the type to be adopted. State insurance is thought not desirable, as it removes the incentive to vigilant safety work and affords opportunity for injustice in the determination of premium rates. A compulsory compensation system is recommended similar to that provided by the New York statute of 1909, which was declared unconstitutional in the Ives case, but was thought to require an amendment of the constitution of the State, which is urged. In the meantime an elective compensation system is proposed and a draft of a bill submitted. Correlated laws are recommended to meet the situation that would arise in connection with a compensation law, the full list being an amendment to the factory act, an act requiring employers to make reports of accidents, an elective workmen's compensation law, an act providing for the incorporation of employers' mutual insurance associations, an act regulating policies of insurance so as to secure the payment of benefits directly to injured workmen in case of the insolvency of the employer, and an act authorizing the appointment of an industrial accidents commission.

The commission contemplated in the last-named bill was to make a study of accidents, observe the workings of the compensation law, and suggest such amendments as might be suggested by the first two years of experience. No compensation law was passed at the regular session of 1913. Each house of the legislature passed a bill, but the two houses were unable to reach an agreement.

WASHINGTON.

2

The report of the Washington commission is one of the briefest, comprising but 5 pages of a pamphlet of 48 pages, the remainder of the pamphlet being taken up with the proposed bill and a discussion of its provisions from a legal viewpoint. Like the Ohio bill, the bill offered is one that provides for State insurance, and so far from feeling itself bound by the case cited by the Minnesota commission it regards

1 Report of Industrial Accidents Commission, 1912.

2 Report of Commission to Investigate the Problems of Industrial Accidents, 1910.

this case as controverted by decisions in the Slaughterhouse cases (16 Wall. (U. S.) 36), and the State Dispensary cases (State v. Porterfield, 47 S. C. 75; Farmville v. Walker, 101 Va. 323; Carsed v. Greensboro, 126 N. C. 159, etc.). It is said that "it ought to be a sufficient answer that in the proposed act the State is not engaging in a business, but only creating and through State officers disbursing funds, to which the State contributes nothing, in the administration of the police power by the means deemed by the legislature most effective. There is no possibility of a revenue or profit to the State, and the State is not insuring anybody or anything." The law enacted provided for compulsory insurance administered by a State department, and has been sustained as constitutional.

WEST VIRGINIA.

The legislature of this State provided by a joint resolution of February 24, 1911, for the appointment of a commission, the members of which were in part named in the resolution, and in part to be selected from the senate and house, to investigate what States have laws on the subject of liability and compensation and the purport of such laws, to secure data as to the industries of the State and as to the amount of liability litigation in the State, and to consider the advisability of legislation on the subject. The sum of $5,000 was appropriated to meet the expenses of the commission.

A volume of 274 pages was issued as Part I of the commission's report,1 covering the liability and compensation laws of the several States, with a summary of their principal features and opinions on their form, contents, constitutionality, and administration, and the more important bills drafted by State commissions and associations of employers and labor organizations. A second volume to contain the findings and recommendations of the commission was announced, but a subsequent communication to the United States Commissioner of Labor stated that in all probability no other volume would be published.

The first chapter presents definitions of employer, employee, vice principal, etc., in terms of the statutes of a number of States, while the second presents the text of the liability and compensation laws of the various States. Chapter 3 summarizes these laws, and the fourth chapter presents proposed drafts of bills. The last chapter is chiefly quoted matter bearing on the points previously considered and on the legal aspects of compensation.

1 Report of the Employers' Liability and Laborers' Compensation Commission, 1911.

WISCONSIN.

The report of the Wisconsin commission is a pamphlet of 98 pages, presenting a draft of a bill which is discussed section by section to set forth the working and purpose of the various provisions rather than to support their constitutionality. There are about 40 pages of tables showing the nature and results of accidents, the outcome of damage suits, insurance costs, etc.

The counsel for the commission concluded that no compulsory system of compensation could constitutionally be enacted, except for the State and its subdivisions, while an elective system would be possible and, by the withdrawal of the defenses commonly offered by employers, acceptable as well.

The commission reports that from the beginning they agreed that accidents or deaths suffered in industrial pursuits should be reasonably compensated, not as a matter of charity, but as a matter of justice; and that as a rule the manufacturers of the State have approved a change in the conditions and have expressed at all times their desire to cooperate in framing a suitable bill and in gathering helpful data. As to the matter of uniformity of legislation, the commission regarded it as important that Wisconsin and other States, particularly those that are adjacent, should adopt a uniform or nearly uniform scale of compensation, though it did not think it important that the bills should be similar as regards compulsory or optional features.

A law was enacted in 1911, in practical accordance with the recommendations of the commission, and has been declared constitutional by the courts of the State.

UNITED STATES.

The Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation Commission of the United States was appointed in accordance with the provisions of a joint resolution of Congress approved June 25, 1910, to report by the time of the opening of Congress in 1911. By subsequent legislation its term was extended to March 1, 1912.

The report of this commission is approached in size only by that of New York, and comprises two volumes of 214 and 1,495 pages, respectively.

The first volume contains the report proper of the commission, and three appendixes, the first being a memorandum showing the law and conditions in the United States, Germany, and England, the second presenting the bill recommended by the commission, and the third a statistical appendix of 81 pages showing accident data for

1 Report of the Special Committee on Industrial Insurance, 1911.

2 Report of the Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation Commission, 1912.

the years 1908, 1909, and 1910, of railway companies operating practically one-half the railway mileage of the United States. Judgments and settlements for different classes of injuries, the accident rate for different classes of employees by districts, and the days lost by reason of accidental injury are the principal items presented. The second volume contains about 300 pages of briefs and minutes of the hearings.

While, on account of the constitutional restrictions on congressional action, the special subject of the hearings and briefs was a compensation system for interstate railway service, the economic and constitutional principles underlying the idea of compensation were necessarily considered, and much of the discussion related to these general phases of the question. Of those appearing before the commission or submitting briefs, by far the larger number were favorable to a substitution of the compensation idea for that of liability, though on the question of compulsory and elective systems there was more of a division.

Constitutional questions were argued ably and at length, the conclusion of the commission being that Congress possesses the power of absolute control in the field under consideration. A compulsory compensation law was therefore recommended for enactment, the law to be exclusive within its scope. It was said in the report that an elective law appeared to the commission to be fundamentally unsound. "A law is a rule of conduct prescribed by the law-making power. It should operate upon all alike, irrespective of the wishes of the private persons affected by it. It would seem to be an anomaly in legislation to prescribe a rule of conduct to be observed by the private citizen which the law-making power deemed to be wise, just, and wholesome, and at the same time leave it to the private citizen, as his pleasure or convenience may determine, to say whether or not he will or will not be bound by the terms of the law."

The rule of expediency that may control a legislature in its attempt to avoid conflict with the Constitution did not affect the commission's attitude, since it was "thoroughly convinced of the constitutionality of a compulsory law."

The argument for exclusiveness is along the same lines. "The basic principle upon which a compensation law is urged is that the existing system of liability for negligence is wasteful, unjust, and provocative of ill feeling between employer and employee. To provide for compensation in all cases, whether fault exists or not and at the same time permit the employee to elect between an acceptance of this compensation or a resort to the common-law remedy, would simply amount to a perpetuation of the principal evils of the existing system."