Chapter V: Section 1: , as to what extent that applies to farm workers. Supposing (1)

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.