Page images

Now, this being so, I want to apologize in advance for some of the ideas which may be considered illogical by some people, because not being a lawyer, I have gone about the subject from an economical viewpoint. I believe that a good compensation law, the first of all, should be considered from an economical standpoint, then of course, if we can't have that, we must trim it as near as we can, always sticking to the fundamental principles, and always being willing on everything to give and take.

Mr. Schwedtman read tle following paper :

I have had the pleasure of studying some of the arguments which have been inade before this Commission, especially those at the Dayton meeting and at the Cincinnati meeting. I am profoundly impressed wit! the thorough study which your Commission has given the important problem in the short period since its appointment by Governor Harmon, about July 1, and the great progress whichi you have made since your organization o'l August Ō, as is shown by the remarks of the various Commissioners, and especially, by the remarks of your worthy Chairnian.

I have the honor of representing the National Issociation of Janufacturers, and as Chairman of its Industrial Inde'unity Insurance Committee, I have devoted several years to a study of the subject of employers' liability and workers' compensation. Our committee was as fointed by the President of the Association, who happens to be one of the best known citizens of the State of Ohio, Mr. John Kirby, Jr. You are no doubt aware that many of your best and most influential employers, are members of this association.

At Mr. Kirby's request, Mr. James A. Emery and I, spent four months in Europe investigating European compensation, prevention and insurance systems. I shall endeavor to convey some of the splendid information which we have secured in my answers to the Commission's questions. We have had special advantages in our European investigation which, by way, covered visits to England, Scotland, France, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Switzerland and Italy, in all of which countries we met the highest government officials connected with workers' compensation, as well as the most influential employers and scientific men, statisticiais, etc. We made a special study of accident prevention in the splendid institutions which exist for this purpose in Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, Munich, Vienna, Budapest, Zurich and Milan. Practically all the figures, charts and diagrams which I would like to show you in connection with my statements, have been taken from official statistical records. Most of the charts and diagrams were prepared by government experts, placed at our disposal, after our own designs.

Being an enthusiast on this subject, and coming fresh from our investigation tour, my statement mame be longer than you care to have it. For that reason I have placed it in writing, and whenever you want me to stop, just say the word.

To prevent duplication and save time I shall deal principally with German statistics, while Mr. Emery will probably devote most of his time to English facts and figures.

Our European investigation was not carried on with the hope of adopting any one of the Old World systems as a whole. We have always held, and we now hold, that this is impossible, because 11011c of the Old World systems would fit into our economic conditions, but a careful examination of the best work carried on by nther nations should enalıle us to follow their success and avoid their mistakes. Our European investigation had iwo objects: First, to study the problem; seconci, to study the way in which the problem is met by the various nations.

It is practically impossible to study this problem intelligently in the United States. It requires very competent statistics, which are not available here. Noth

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

U. S. A.




107. 1. Age, Horticulture. S:0-k Raising, Forestry,

9,923.2.37 2. Intry

11,235 23: 3. Traces and transportation.

3.477.625 4. Domestic and personal service and pub.ic service. 471.625 5. P:oirasiri ai a:d public service..


10381.765 7,1135,309 4,760.961 5.78 657 12:2,538




Pubis Offriais and soldiers in the United States are covered under "4"; in Germany, under "5".

(Som jeg 221, 222, 223 a:.d 221 United States statistical abstract, 19:19.) (See pagas 12 a:d 13, Statistisches Jahrbuch, 1910.)

For twe: ty-five years Germany las de: cted more time, ability and money, tian any other tatic], to accident prevention, accident insurance and accident etst.tics, a'i what is her a sual rumber of injured workers now? 662,321 for the year 1:2-9, a:rt te annuai numes of injured workers, totals as well as in j'ai pritagtag, is morbina 'p year after year. And is Germany dismayed or dis


couraged on that account? No, she goes on more unitedly and more getically than ever, firmly convinced of the correctness of her principles and methods of meeting the problem.

I have been specially inipressed with the careful study which your Chairman has given to German statistical records, as shown in his introductory statements at the various meetings. Some splendid original statistical material was published during the recent 25th anniversary celebration of the beginning of German accident insurance. I had the good fortune to be present at this celebration, and some of these new figures muy interest you. German records show the following for the year 1908 :

9,687 workers were killed. 1,072 workers were permanently and completely disabled. 56,806 workers were permanently maimed. 73,584 workers were temporarily disabled. 142,965 injuries extended over 13 weeks. 662,321 is the total number of injured workers. 1,008,677 workers received pensions to the amount of 39} million dollars

for occupational injuries.

Truly tremendous figures, which might be used to splendid advantage, for terrible comparisons such as we are accustomed to hear on the lecture platform and in some newspapers. How small they would look in comparison with the total of 6,000 killed and wounded in the Spanish and Philippine wars, or the 105,000 killed and injured soldiers in the six bloodiest battles of our Civil War, or even the 500,000 killed and injured workers, which number has been given by someone, as the annual result of accidents in the United States. But this report is not intended as a work of fiction, therefore, we will continue to consider and compare facts. We have already shown that the number of industrial accidents is increasing from year to year. The death rate due to industrial accidents is also increasing, as is evident from a study of Chart 2. It indicated that the number of deaths caused by accidents has increased from 52 per 10,000 total deaths in 1901, to 81 in 1908. On the other hand, Chart No. 3 shows that of all the death causes, accidents rank fifteenth Diseases of the digestive organs cause 131 per cent of all the deaths; tuberculosis, 9-7/10 per cent; old age, 9-1/10 per cent; paralysis, 8 per cent; blood circulation diseases, 7-3/10 per cent; pneumonia, 7-2/10 per cent; diseases of the breathing organism, 51 per cent; cancer, 4-1/10 per cent; diseases of the bladder, etc., 1-6/10 per cent; whooping cough, 1-4/10 per cent; diphtheria, 1-3/10 per cent; accidents, 8/10 of 1 per centwhile 8/10 of 1 .per cent covers the total number of workers killed in accidents in the industries and in agricultural pursuits; it does not take account of partial and permanent disability caused the workers.

Your first question is: “What is your opinion as to the fairness of the law in this State with regard to liability of the employers to accidents to their employes; what, if any, are your suggestions as to the amendment of the law ?”

The Ohio law comes under the category of employers' liability laws. I believe that it is impossible to frame an employers' liability law which will work satisfactorily and with full justice to all concerned. All European nations, with the exception of Switzerland, long ago discarded employers' liability laws, and have replaced them with automatic workers' compensation systems. In Switzerland, which for many years, has had the broadest employers' liability laws, we have found, employers, workers, as well as government officials, thoroughly dissatisfied with its working, and it is expected that the liability law will be re



one I imagine could go on all day because the subject bristles with ideas, but I think I have now taken up more time of the Commission than I should.

So far as the railroads are concerned, we want to protect our employes, if we only knew how to do it by any appropriate scheme, but I cannot advocate any character of compensation act which I could say as an attorney would stand the test, and I doubt very much whether any one could do it, and I suggest that we ought to go pretty slow on this proposition before we reach a final conclusion which is to be put in form of legislation. It does seem to me that the New York law and the Massachusetts law are defective for the purpose of getting after the result which we are trying to reach. I am not saying anything about their fairness but they are not going to help us as they work out, and I think what ought to be done is that before any law of any kind be presented with your recommendation to any legislative body, that after you have had these various hearings, after you have prepared a statute, that at that time there ought to be due consideration given, not only from an economical but from a legal standpoint, rot only from the proposition of the fairness of the law, but from the proposition on the constitutional limitation before you put it on your statute bocks, for you may bring about the same situation which they have in New York — simply add to your statute books a lot of statutes for the purpose of making more law for the lawyers to work out, and not help either party.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to ask whether or not you have read the German act?

Mr. Carey: I have not read the German act fully or in detail, but I know from summaries of the German act which I have read in treatises, the general scheme - it is an industrial scheme with a fund created.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that most of the arbitrary questions, which you are referring to, are eliminated under the German act. I will first ask you whether you think any scheme of insurance against loss of wages, by the workman is feasible at all?

Mr. Carey: No, I think we are further away from that than any other. I do not think it possible under our present conditions and constitutional limitation to make the employer or employe place insurance with a third party. It seems to me that that is further away than a statute which modifies their relationship between cach other, yet my opinion is not worth much on that, because I have not given as much thought to industrial insurance as it demands, and I do not know whether you can pass a law which will compel you and me against our will, employer and employe to go to some one else and put up premiums.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: You could take care of that as they do in Germany.

Mr. Carey: I do not see how you can get away from the question of constitutional limitation just the same. It all gets down to this proposition. As long as we go voluntarily we need no law; but when you get back to the act, if a man refuses to pay money, you cannot make a man pay money to another without getting into court. I do not see how you can get away from that. An administrative body cannot issue an execution.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: What employments should the act cover; have you any opinion on that?

MR. CAREY: I have no opinion on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then you would not have any opinion whether all injuries should be covered irrespective of negligence?

MR. CAREY: I have no opinion on that, either. I have not got to the details.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall all persons engaged in such employments be included? Shall all employments be included ?

MR. CAREX: I do not think I understand your question.

[ocr errors]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall all persons engaged in employments be included?

Mr. CAREY: I presume a general scheme ought to be worked out whereby everybody-some things I imagine you will have to work out-a scheme ought to be worked out particularly for everybody, I imagine. When you get down to details there would be a good many that you would have to eliminate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Should the compensation be paid in installments or in a lump sum?

Mr. Carey: I have no opinion on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, then, what about the length of the waiting period after the accident until this compensation should be paid ?

VR CAREY: I have not given much thought to that.

M. CHAIRMAN: Have you any opinion as to what dependents of persons killed should be included ?

MR. Carey: No.

MR. CHAIRMAX: Have you any opinion as to whether an employe should contribute to this fund?

MR. CAREY: What fund?

MR. CHAIRMAN: To a fund raised by a compensation act or an insurance act?

MR. CAREY: You mean your scheme of industrial — of course under the English system there is no fund.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under the compensation act.

MR. CAREY: I am of the opinion that the burden ought to be distributed between the employer and employe on some equitable basis, whether it be the payment of money or the surrender of rights.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What in your opinion should be the method of determining controversies?

MR. Carey: I have attempted for some time to suggest that I did not believe that any controversy involving the payment of money, could be determined finally except in a court of law. I presume if the parties can agree voluntarily agree on their dispute; if not, there ought to be some kind of arbitration to which they can appeal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In case of compensation act, or insurance act should be agreed upon, do you think in your opinion that all the liability laws and the common law's, furnishing the present remedies, should be repealed ?

Mr. Carey: I think I have discussed that, or attempted to discuss that pretty thoroughly. I do not believe that you could equitably have any distribution of the premiums, as I call it; I do not mean by that alone the payment of moncy, without the law be voluntary on the part of both parties, or compulsory on the part of both parties.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will read an opinion here on one point by Prof. Williston of the Harvard law school:

“If a law can be framed which is constitutional in its main purpose, some subsidiary questions may arise, chief among them being the possibility of avoiding trial by jury? In my opinion, this can be done. A person can undoubtedly waive his right to a jury trial and by giving the workman alternative rights either at common law or under a compensation law, but compelling him to elect after the injury which he will have, it would seem that the procedure under the compensation law need not include jury trial so far as he is concerned. But the employer also has a constitutional right to jury trial, though he may not care to insist upon it. If, however, the procedure under the compensation statutes requires forms of relief which common law courts cannot give, it would seem constitutional to give the remedy to a court having equity powers and not having a jury. The right to pay the compensation in installments and to diminish and increase it may be given by the statute and such relief cannot be secured by a common law

« PreviousContinue »