The bill that was submitted by the commission passed the Senate at the session of 1912-13, with some amendments, and was further amended in the House, finally failing of enactment because the two Houses were unable to adjust their differences in the face of the opposition that developed to the bill during the closing days of the session. Bills embodying the principles of the commission report and several of the amendments incorporated during the consideration of the measure by the Sixty-second Congress were introduced into both Houses at the called session of the Sixty-third Congress. A copy of this bill, known as the Sutherland bill, from the Senator who was chairman of the commission, is printed following the laws reproduced in this report.

This completes the list of reports known to the Bureau at the time of publication of this report. A commission of Louisiana, provided for last year, and those of Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and Vermont may be expected to report in due course, and others may have been created and the action not have come to the knowledge of the Bureau.

It is obvious that in the state of knowledge of the subject in this country five years ago there was an important place for these commissions to fill in considering both the economic and legal aspects of the questions involved. With the accumulation of material of a statistical nature and the numerous briefs presenting the social and economic arguments, the necessity for such commissions is largely discounted. As regards the legal aspects, the opinions of the courts of last resort of seven States furnish a guide to legislation in States in which similar views as to the lawmaking power are held.

Beginning with a Massachusetts committee in 1903, there has been a series of more than 25 bodies of this nature acting in an investigating capacity, whose conclusions have been unanimously in favor of doing away with the liability system and substituting therefor one of compensation; the only approach to a difference of opinion on this subject being a committee appointed in Connecticut in 1907, which, while recognizing that compensation was highly indorsed and agreeing that it would probably come to be the controlling system in the future, was unable to recommend its adoption at that time.

Not only have the commissions been thus unanimous, but in the hearings before the commissions, open to all who wished to present their views as individuals or as representatives of organizations or associations, the defenders of the liability system have been a very small minority. One of the most prominent and perhaps the most active among these opponents of the compensation system said in introducing his argument before the Federal commission:

The most impressive feature of the entire discussion has been the almost undivided support given the theory of workmen's compensation by those employers and employees that have appeared before

legislative committee hearings. There seem to have been but few to question its advisability or to present reasons why the abandonment of American ideas and the adoption of European practice may be detrimental, at least to those American workmen who have expended years in building up magnificent systems of compensation for death and disability arising from any cause, and in creating by constant agitation a public sentiment, which during recent years has resulted in greatly improved employers' liability legislation, both State and National.

The writer realizes that the great mass of working people in this country have not exhibited that degree of ability and determination necessary to protect themselves in the proper manner, and that something should be done to help these helpless working people. What is said herein against the theory of workmen's compensation does not apply to the millions who have proven themselves helpless, and who apparently must depend upon a paternal government for compensation for injuries arising out of modern industries. The sole purpose is to present the question from the standpoint of a railway employee in train service, who has found means of helping himself in matters of compensation for injuries, arising out of his employment.

Obviously this opposition is not directed toward compensation as an idea, but toward its application to a small and highly organized body of employees, important in their field, but not typical of the millions of unorganized or less closely organized working men and women whose situation precludes the possibility of self-supported and self-administered benefit systems. And the question is hardly an open one as to whether or not it is desirable to have one law for one class of a railway company's employees and another for another, or even for different fields of industry; so that while the restricted railway organization (Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen), of which the writer above quoted is the head, has put itself on record as opposed to a Federal compensation law for interstate carriers, the American Federation of Labor has for a number of years been working for compensation legislation for all classes of employment.

No State or country that has adopted compensation has ever returned to the older system, so that questions of desirability or feasibility may be said to be answered for all legislatures before whom the subject may come, and that without the necessity of statistical or other argument.

The question of the type of law seems hardly more capable of satisfactory solution by a commission than without its aid. The cooperation of such bodies as the American Federation of Labor, the National Civic Federation, the American Association for Labor Legislation, and the commissioners on uniform legislation, despite their strength and the thoroughness of their work, can not be said to have been markedly effective in securing uniformity of type, or of amount of compensation, on which latter point the Wisconsin commission considered that stress should be laid rather than on the general type

of the law. Doubtless the most satisfactory answer to the questions as to type will be given by experience, as intimated by the Colorado commission, but the States do not seem much inclined to defer action to observe in this country the working out of systems that have been long used in European countries. The Legislature of Michigan solves the problem of experimentation by offering practically all options to its employers as to methods of administering the benefits contemplated by the law; i. e., directly by the employer, if of proved solvency; by insurance in any authorized insurance company; by funds maintained by mutual associations of employers; and by a State fund to which employers may arrange to contribute. This is for the avowed purpose of a determination by experience of the system best adapted to the conditions prevailing in the State. The New York act of 1913 contains practically the same provisions in this respect.

PROGRESS OF LEGISLATION.

Legislation providing for stated benefits payable without suit or proof of negligence was first enacted in the United States in the form of a cooperative insurance law of the State of Maryland in 1902. This law was of restricted application, affecting only mining, quarrying, steam and street railways, and work by municipalities in constructing any sewer, excavation, or other physical structure. This law was to be administered by the State insurance commissioner, and made payment an absolute requirement in case of death. It was declared unconstitutional as depriving parties of the right of trial by jury and conferring on an executive officer judicial or at least quasi-judicial functions.1

The next law within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States was an enactment by the United States Philippine Commission in 1905, authorizing the continuance of wages for a period during disability, but not exceeding 90 days, in case of injury received by employees of the insular government in line of duty.2

In 1908 the Federal Congress enacted a law "granting to certain employees of the United States the right to receive from it compensation for injuries sustained in the course of employment."

Next in order of time was the Montana statute of March 4, 1909, in effect October 1, 1910, providing for the maintenance of a State cooperative insurance fund for miners and laborers in and about the coal mines of the State. Contribution to the fund was compulsory, employers to pay on the basis of the tonnage of coal mined and employees on the basis of their monthly gross earnings. State

1 For an account of the operations of this law and the opinion declaring it unconstitutional, see Bul. No. 57, pp. 645-648, 689, 690. The law itself is given in Bul. No. 45, pp. 406-408.

2 Act No. 1416: See Bul. No. 71, p. 394.

officials were to administer the fund, payments for death and disability being provided for.

While compulsory, the act was not exclusive as against injured workmen, who were permitted to sue under the employers' liability law, though bringing suit forfeited benefits under the law. The double obligation imposed upon the employer by the act was held by the supreme court of the State to invalidate it, though in its essential features it was held to be a valid exercise of the lawmaking power. The opinion of the court will be further noticed under the heading "Constitutionality and construction of statutes."

The next law enacted in this field, and the last before the effect of investigations by commissions came to be influential, is a local law of 1910 of Maryland establishing cooperative insurance funds for the coal and clay miners of Allegany and Garrett Counties. This act is not affected by the compensation law of 1912, and provides for equal contributions to a fund to be collected and disbursed by the treasurers of the respective counties. Miners in Allegany County must pay 27 cents per month and in Garrett County 38 cents per month, employers paying like amounts, unless funds in fixed sums have accumulated in the hands of the respective treasurers. The county commissioners administer the act, the maximum payment for death being $1,500, while for maiming injuries a schedule of awards is provided, the maximum being $750, though medical relief in the amount of $1 per working day for not more than 26 weeks may also be allowed. For injuries without maiming $1 per working day may be allowed for not more than 52 weeks. Suit may be brought, but doing so bars compensation rights, and conversely the acceptance of benefits bars the right to sue. The fault of double liability which was held to invalidate the Montana statute is avoided in this law by a provision which authorizes an employer who has defended a suit, and against whom judgment has been rendered, to deduct, on compliance with certain conditions, the amount of such judgment and costs from the payments thereafter to be made by him to the county fund."

It is to be observed of the foregoing legislation, antedating what may be called the commission period, that it is of limited application, either locally or as to the classes of employees affected; also that there appears to have been but little regard to actuarial requirements in its enactment. Indeed in the Federal and Philippine statutes there is no occasion to consider this question, as they are simple compensation laws in form, but in fact falling far short of establishing a balanced compensation system. The remaining laws to be noticed

1 For the law in full see Bul. No. 85, pp. 658-661.

This act is given in Bul. No. 91, pp. 1066–1070; amendments enacted in 1912 appear in Bul. No. 111, pp. 88, 89.

may be said to be of general application, and have either followed the investigations of commissions or have been enacted under conditions making the results of such investigations available to those interested in their enactment.

The first of these laws to be noted is the elective compensation law of New York, 1910, followed in the same session by a compulsory law for hazardous occupations. Ten laws were enacted in 1911, 7 providing for simple compensation, and 3 for a system of insurance; while in 1912, 3 States enacted compensation laws and 1 an insurance law; and in 1913, 7 States were added to the list, in 5 of which a compensation law was enacted, while 2 provided for a system of insurance. The finding of unconstitutionality of the compulsory law of New York as determined by the court of appeals of that State in no way affects the elective law; furthermore a new compulsory law was enacted in 1913, as already noted; so that there are now 22 States having laws of this class on their statute books, of which 16 are compensation laws and 6 provide for insurance. All these laws are reproduced on subsequent pages, as well as the Federal law applying to certain employees of the United States, with its amendments, and the modified United States commission bill applicable to employees engaged in interstate commerce. By an act of August 24, 1912, Congress authorized the President of the United States to provide a system of compensation for employees on the Isthmian Canal and the Panama Railroad. This was promulgated by President Taft as an Executive order of February 26, 1913, to take effect March 1, 1913. On account of the lack of an appropriation to meet the payments provided by the order, an order was issued by President. Wilson on March 24, 1913, suspending the operation of the order of February 26, and continuing in effect the act of May 30, 1908, and its amendments relative to employees of the Isthmian Canal Commission. The order providing compensation is reproduced, however, as the later order only suspends and does not abrogate it.

The constitution of Arizona as adopted when that State was admitted to the Union contains a provision authorizing the enactment of a compulsory compensation system; while California, New York, Ohio, and Vermont have amended their constitutions to the same effect. Also, the Legislature of Wyoming has taken steps to submit a similar amendment to the people of that State at the next general election. These amendments and the proposed amendment are also reproduced.