There has not been sufficient experience under these schedules to permit a report as to their operation. However, it is apparent that the subject of working out a proper schedule is receiving considerable attention in the various States and involves a problem for the future.

XXI. CONTRIBUTION BY EMPLOYEES.

When the agitation for the substitution of workmen's compensation acts for employers' liability laws began to crystallize in the United States, a strong movement developed among employers to have the workingmen contribute from their wages a part of the fund from which compensation should be paid. In fact, the first Ohio statute provided that compensation to workmen should be based upon 60 per cent of their wages, 10 per cent of which should be contributed by the workmen. It is interesting to note, however, that while this law was in effect the employers did not as a rule require the workmen to make this contribution, even though having a legal right to deduct the 10 per cent of the cost from the pay roll. ployers stated to the commission that while originally they favored the plan of a joint contribution, they found that in operation it was impracticable and therefore of doubtful value, stating as a rule that no such deduction was made, and explaining that they preferred to bear the entire cost themselves. Ohio employers said that they not only did not want to bother with the bookkeeping details connected with the workmen's contribution but they did not want to take anything out of the employees' pay. The present Ohio law does not require the workmen to make any contribution.

Em

When, some years ago, the question of joint contributions by employers and workmen was under consideration by the National Civic Federation (which, it is to be said was the first association in the country that undertook a study of workmen's compensation legislation and declared for it), it was the unanimous opinion of all the groups which comprise the federation that industry should bear all the financial burden of any compensation laws to be enacted in any of the States and that workmen should not be called upon to make any contribution to the fund from which compensation was to be paid. The sentiment expressed was that inasmuch as an injured workman accepted less than full wages as compensation, and in addition bore all the physical pain and mental suffering, he should not be called upon for any further contribution. This recommendation of the National Civic Federation, no doubt, had much to do in obtaining an acceptance of the now prevailing principle that industry alone ought to bear the financial burden and pay the monetary cost of compensation to workmen injured in the course of their employment. A representative of the Cleveland Employers' Association stated to this commission:

I think the subject of having the workmen contribute to the fund, and sharing the payment of a portion of the fund, would be of some interest to you. That is a very unhappy proposition. I do not know of an instance where any portion of the premium was collected from the workmen. That feature of the law is not received in good favor.

When asked for his opinion as to whether the attitude of the employers would have been different with regard to the joint contribution if the amount to be deducted from the workmen's pay had been larger than the 10 per cent provided by the Ohio law, he said: I do not think so. The employers did not care to bother with it.

He further stated that there was a feeling of dislike on the part of employers to make deduction from the pay of the men in their employ, and that—

such procedure always entails a great deal of explanation and it usually results in some ill feeling, even if it is not manifested on the surface.

XXII. LITIGATION UNDER COMPENSATION ACTS.

Legal controversies between employer and employee arising out of the latter's right to compensation or damages for injuries in his employment have practically ceased to exist among those employers and employees operating under workmen's compensation acts. Even in those States in which the employee is given some remedy in addition to his right to compensation, he very seldom exercises that remedy and it has become practically a dead letter and, as appears elsewhere, the more modern statutes are eliminating all remedies except the right to the statutory compensation. So far as the employee's rights under the compensation acts are concerned, there is but very little controversy, and his right to and the amount of compensation, and the length of his disability, are generally easily ascertained and agreed to by the parties, and such agreement confirmed by the industrial accident boards. Disagreements between the parties are decided by arbitrations with the right in most cases to appeal from the arbitrations to the full board and from the board to the courts upon questions of law. The decisions of industrial accident boards upon questions of fact are final. As a rule, the payment of benefits under the law commence with the expiration of the first week of compensation. In case of a difference between the employer and the employee calling for an arbitration, the arbitrations as a rule delay the payments not more than three or four weeks and in case of an appeal to the full board not more than four weeks additional. Quite frequently the payments commence even though an arbitration is called for, as the question involved in arbitration may not affect the amount of each weekly payment. This is also true in some cases where the appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law is involved. The appeals to the Supreme Court, as a rule, involve the construction of some provision of the statute and are made for the purpose of settling the law upon that point. Such appeals have not occurred to any great extent; the courts have been resorted to for the purpose of settling questions arising under compensation acts in not more than 10 cases in any one State. The statistics from the State of Michigan well illustrate this situation. In that State, during the period of the first fifteen months of the operation of the act, approximately 15,000 compensation claims were paid, involving only 266 arbitrations, 61 appeals from the arbitration committee to the full board, and 10 appeals to the Supreme Court. In Wisconsin, during the period between July 1, 1912, and July 1, 1913, compensation was paid by the employers, without order of the commission, in 3,048 cases, hearings held and awards made in 50 cases, and 5 cases carried to the court for review. This condition is characteristic of the condition existing in at least all of the compensation States having industrial accident boards.

XXIII. ADMINISTRATION BY INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARDS. The compensation acts of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Ohio, California, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Texas, Nevada, Oregon, West Virginia, New York, and Washington provide for administration through an industrial accident board, though known in some of these States by different names. The Illinois act did not originally provide for it, but by the new act such a board is created. These boards are appointed by the governor of the State. Settlement agreements made between an employer and employee are filed with the board and must be approved by it to be effective. All questions. are settled by the board and are conclusive, except questions of law, which are considered by the courts only on appeal from the industrial accident board.

Except in Texas and Illinois, whose boards have been organized very recently, and in West Virginia, Nevada, and New York (not yet appointed) this commission has held consultations with members of boards in all the States in which any exists. These officials, without exception, so far as this commission has been able to ascertain, are taking an active interest in their work and giving general satisfaction to both employers and employees.

When parties to a compensation case are unable to agree an accident commission stands ready to hold informal hearings and aid in adjusting the differences. In case this method fails, one of the members of the board, together with two other persons selected by the disputants, act as arbitrators. Under the law, a decision of these arbitrators may be appealed to the entire board.

The members of the boards become specialists. They get to understand problems that arise under the administration of the law; they know the type of people who come before them; they work out a uniform administration of the law; they bring about prompt adjustments; when accidents are reported and compensation agreements not entered into, they investigate; and they quite frequently return agreements for correction which contain amounts not proper for the particular injury and the consequent loss of time. In most of these States employers are required either by statutory provisions or by rule adopted by the board to file with it receipts showing that weekly payments have been actually paid as directed by the board. Everywhere, both employer and employee testify to the satisfaction given by the accident boards. They agree that the members of these boards are not only in full sympathy with the law but that in their decisions they give the employee the benefit of the doubt and all other benefits he is entitled to under the law. A few employers have resented State interference in what they claim to be their own affairs. Employers in general, however, state that they wish to uphold the law and have it carried out; and that they would rather have a liberal construction of a statute than be subjected to bickerings, antagonisms, and uncertainties. As already stated, what they are most interested in is to have the law uniformly executed and all uncertainties removed, so that they may know definitely the methods of the administering body and the burden that is likely to be placed upon their industries. The fact that these boards have the power to investigate, and to refuse to approve settlement agreements in cases of noncompliance

with the law, makes employers and insurers careful in their adjustments and in their other proceedings under it. The employers and insurers of a State must in the course of the administration of compensation meet the same board in connection with every accident that occurs. Every employer knows that if he deceives or trifles with the board, his future acts will be subjected to a keener scrutiny. Every insurance company knows that if it does not treat employees fairly, or attempts to take advantage of them, the industrial accident board will know it and will be suspicious of its future acts.

The necessity that a board or official shall be intrusted with the powers that are invested in the industrial accident boards, and that failure to do so opens the door to fraud and imposition upon employees, is apparent when one considers that a great majority of the claims arising under the compensation law are for periods covering but a few weeks, involving a comparatively small amount of money, and that in many cases an injured employee, either from unfamiliarity with the law or from the feeling that the amount involved would not justify him in going into the courts with his claim or employing an attorney, would accept a less amount than he is entitled to under the law. With this opportunity open to them, employers, either themselves or through adjusters, might make settlements to their own advantage. No matter how well intentioned an employer or an insurance company might be, if its adjuster could make a percentage of saving in settling accident claims, a competitive advantage would be obtained and this practice would soon become general.

This state of affairs is illustrated in New Jersey, and the opportunity exists in other States acting without industrial commissions. In New Jersey there is no State record showing whether or not employees are being fairly treated under the act. By the law, settlements must be reported to the commissioner of labor, who places them on file, but he has no power to investigate or to supervise the settlements, and from statements made to this commission it would seem that only a part of the settlements are reported to him.

An examination of the records of the commissioner of labor of New Jersey showed that many of the reported settlements are manifestly irregular. The following are examples, it being an easy matter to select others: Finger amputated; injured party entitled to minimum amount of $425, plus unknown amount due for lost time; received only $250. Half of first finger amputated; entitled to $166; received $151. Death; beneficiaries entitled to $1,500; received $1,100. Death; entitled to $1,500; received $380. Death; entitled to $1,500; received $1,149. In each of the last three-the death cases- -a lump sum was paid without procurement of an order of the court, as required by the statute. In another case, in which the beneficiaries were entitled to at least $1,500, they received nothing. On the face of these reports they appeared to be for a less amount than the law prescribes. Considering the opportunity for irregular adjustments that exists under the New Jersey law, it is fair to suppose that at least in some of these cases an injustice was committed. There is no way of proving whether or not the employees of New Jersey are receiving the compensation to which they are entitled. That is a serious defect in the system of that State. From information received by this commission, it seems probable that not over 60 per cent of the amounts payable under the New

Jersey statute are being paid. The opportunity for fraud exists, fraud that it is difficult to detect. This condition could not exist in a State having an industrial accident board with power to approve all settlements and follow up the payments and see that they are made in full.

The defect in the New Jersey law, with some of its consequences, was well described by Commissioner of Labor Bryant of that State in an address made at the 1913 convention of the New Jersey Federation of Labor, in which he said:

New Jersey has one of the most practical and workable compensation laws or employers' liability laws that were ever enacted in this country. It was practically the forerunner of this class of legislation, a type which has been largely followed by other States, but there is one defect which I consider serious, and which should be remedied. That law, after having been drafted, is practically turned adrift to work out its own salvation. I believe there should be some supervisory power over its operation. Employers and employees enter into compensation settlements absolutely at variance with the compensation schedule indicated by the law. The very object of the passage of the law was to see that the injured operative received fair and just compensation. This compensation was to be paid to him absolutely in accord with a specific schedule which had been prearranged. He was to get the entire amount. It was not to be frittered away in court costs or lawyers' fees. That was the fundamental object of the law. Fortunately we had a law enacted which requires the reporting of all settlements from casualty companies to the department of labor and also all settlements between a manufacturer and an employee providing there had been no insurance company in the matter. I want to tell you what actually happened yesterday. A girl came into our office seeking advice. She was injured on April 25, losing one of the phalanges of the first finger, and was unable to resume work until July 10, a period of 11 weeks. She was entitled to $21.50 for medical aid for the first 2 weeks, and $31.50 for temporary disability, plus $61.25 for permanent injury. The permanent injury compensation was not given to that girl, compensation for the amount which she would lose by inability to work, because the girl had to go through the balance of her life with a portion of her finger missing, and it was intended by that law that she should receive compensation on that basis. This is the settlement made with that girl: Her doctor's bill of $13.50 was paid by the employer, but instead of $92.75 compensation due she was offered an insurance check for $28, providing she returned $14 of that $28 to her employer. Fortunately for that girl she came to our office and explained the matter. We made out the schedule I have read to you and gave it to her, showed her the section of the law, told her what she was entitled to, and told her to go to Judge Knichtel and get it. The girl fortunately had intelligence enough to come to the department of labor, but many such cases are being settled throughout the State without any supervision. So, it really brings itself back in a measure to the days of the old claim agents, when a man went to an injured person with a handbag full of $1 bills and tried to get the family to sign off for the undertaker's bill in one room while the remains were in another. That was the reason for passing this law. I maintain there should be some supervisory power and that before the employer is discharged of all responsibility and liability, the compensation should be approved by somebody. You might think that was an isolated case; of course it is a horrible example. We hate to think that any civilized person would be so small as to take advantage of a poor girl under such circumstances, but actual statistics prove that of all the reports we receive, 19 per cent of those settlements were made contrary to the schedule. Now, the very unfortunate part of our compensation law is the fact that our records show that approximately 19 per cent of the cases reported to us were paid in a faulty or irregular manner. Seven per cent did not receive any compensation. Fourteen per cent did not receive medical aid.

These figures are obtained from the reports filed by employers and they are based on the requirements set forth in the compensation schedule, which, of course, represents the serious aspect, that the real object of the law in 26 per cent of these cases was evaded. Some amounts were small and some were large. In one case $425 were due and they paid $250 and left the injured party short $175. The man signed for a discharge of all obligations. In another case $168 were due and $151 were paid, leaving a shortage of only $15, but that is a whole lot to the man injured and not able to work and get full compensation and having perhaps a family dependent upon him. In another case a party entitled to $282 received $257, leaving a shortage of $25. Let us ake a fatal case. In one case where the dependents upon a person killed were enti