So much of the wording of section 1 of the bill, after the word "six" in line 3 of page 2, should be stricken out, the items being covered by the general bridge act.

The bill has been amended as indicated in red thereon, and, as amended, I know of no objection to its favorable consideration by Congress. W. H. BIXBY,

Chief of Engineers, United States Army.

[Second indorsement.]

WAR DEPARTMENT, January 31, 1913.

Respectfully returned to the chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, inviting attention to the foregoing report of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, in whose views the department concurs.

FEDERAL ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT.

FEBRUARY 4, 1913.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed.

Mr. DAVIS of West Virginia, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany S. 5382.]

The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration the bill (S. 5382) to provide an exclusive remedy and compensation for accidental injuries, resulting in disability or death, to employees of common carriers by railroads engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, or in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, reportthe same back with certain amendments hereinafter stated and recommend that the amendments be adopted and that the bill as amended do pass.

This bill, S. 5382, was introduced into the Senate by Mr. Suther- . land, and the bill H. R. 20487, also before the committee, was introduced into the House by Mr. Brantley on the same day. The two bills as introduced were identical in every respect. The Senate has considered the bill introduced therein, and after adopting a few amendments thereto has passed the same. Your committee has elected to give consideration to this bill, known as bill S. 5382 or as the Sutherland-Brantley bill, and has substantially concurred in all the Senate amendments and has added several amendments of its own, as above stated.

Your committee does not deem it necessary to give at length the reasons for the legislation proposed by this measure. We call attention to the fact that this measure was framed by a commission created by a joint resolution of Congress approved June 25, 1910, and that elaborate hearings were had before this commission, which commission submitted a full and complete report of its work and recommended that the bill as introduced into both the Senate and the House be enacted into law. The report of the commission exhaustively considers the entire subject of compensation legislation, and we attach a copy of the same hereto as a part of this report.

Your committee appreciating the importance of the legislation proposed, felt it a duty to thoroughly consider the entire subject and to obtain at first hand all available information relating thereto. For this purpose we have given extended hearings to those favoring as well as to those opposed to the legislation, and in public and in executive session have given careful consideration to the measure. The abundant literature on the subject obtained by your committee, as well as by the commission, is, of course, available to the Members of the House.

While recommending numerous amendments to the bill, we have not recommended any change affecting what was deemed by the

commission as the essential features of the legislation, to wit, that it should be both compulsory and exclusive.

It was strongly urged upon your committee by some parties that the proposed law should be made permissive or optional in form. It was insisted that both employer and employee should have the right to say whether he preferred to work under a compensation law or under a negligence liability law. It appears in the report of the commission that a committee of 21 railroad lawyers appeared before the commission in the early stages of the work of the commission and agreed upon the proposition that the law should be made optional in form and that the railroads of the country should be privileged to submit themselves to its operation or not, as in their judgment seemed best. The commission rejected this proposal, and the reasons therefor are set forth in their report, and are concurred in by your committee. Briefly we call attention to what seems the admitted fact, that this proposed legislation, if sustained at all, must be sustained as a regulation of commerce under the commerce clause of the Constitution, and this being true your committee think the regulation, if prescribed at all, must be made mandatory, as Congress alone can declare it. Your committee is also of the opinion that, not only as a matter of wholesome and proper legislation, but as a matter of uniformity and convenience, when Congress takes jurisdiction of the subject matter of regulating the relations between employer and employee engaged in interstate commerce by railroads in all matters relating to the accidental death and injury of the employee engaged in such commerce that such jurisdiction should be complete and exclusive.

Some suggestion was made to your committee that the law should be framed so that an injured employee, or his dependents in case of death, should have the option to accept compensation or to sue for damages under the existing employers' liability law as in their judgment seemed best for them. We could not agree to this view, for a law of that kind would not only be manifestly unfair to the employer class, but there would be serious danger of such a provision invalidating the entire law. This might result because of the patent unreasonableness of such a regulation of commerce, and in that connection it must be remembered that the power of Congress to regulate commerce is limited to such regulations as are reasonable in character. There is involved in this connection the question as to what extent the power of Congress to enact a compulsory compensation law is limited by the "due process" clause of the Constitution. Your committee after careful consideration of all the questions involved has thought it wisest and best if a compensation law is enacted at all that it shall be exclusive of any other remedy.

The committee has added to the bill an amendment preserving all rights under the existing employers' liability law in the event the proposed compensation law should be declared invalid. This was done out of abundant caution and to satisfy the apprehension of some of the friends of compensation. We are of the opinion that, the Supreme Court having in terms held in the second Employers' Liability case that Congress has the power under the commerce clause to regulate the relations of common carriers and their employees while both are engaged in interstate commerce, and having further

held that the liability of the railroad for injuries sustained by its employees while both are engaged in interstate commerce has a real or substantial relation to such commerce, there can be no reasonable doubt as to the power of Congress to enact the proposed legislation.

We are aware of the world-wide movement in favor of the humane principle of compensation as a substitute for negligence liability. The total inadequacy of negligence liability laws to protect the great mass of injured employees and the dependents of those killed is recognized throughout the civilized world. Under the best of negligence liability laws only a small percentage of the cases of injury and death is provided for. It is also recognized by thinkers, humanitarians, and statesmen of the world that all negligence liability laws result in an enormous economic waste in the method of transferring from employer to employee the awarded damages, and also results in strife and bitterness between the employer and employee, to the detriment of both and to the public. Compensation is designed to supplant the wasteful, extravagant, and strife-breeding negligence liability laws by a system that provides for all who suffer and that approximately divides the economic loss resulting from accident and death between employer and employee. Every great civilized country of the world save the United States has established the principle of compensation, and very many of the States of the Union have adopted it. Your committee believe that the time has come when the Congress of the United States should enact it.

While preserving all of the essential features of the bill as it passed the Senate, we have substantially liberalized it. We have included express companies operated by railroad and their employees within the operation of the law. We have reduced the waiting period preceding the payment of compensation from 14 to 5 days and have increased the schedule of compensation quite substantially by an amendment substituting $120 as the maximum monthly wage for the $100 named in the bill. In many minor but important details the bill has been amended, and among the important amendments is one providing that the State courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal courts in cases where the State legislature shall provide appropriate court procedure for the enforcement of the provisions of the act. In connection with this amendment, we would call attention to what is understood to be the true conception of the principle of compensation. A compensation law is not designed primarily to furnish a new right of action to be enforced by litigation in the

courts.

If compensation can not be collected save through an appeal in every instance to the courts, then compensation is a failure and ought not to be enacted. The experience of other countries and the States of this Union in the enforcement of their compensation laws is that litigation is reduced to the minimum. Compensation is paid automatically, and, best of all, the entire amount paid goes to those entitled to it. The machinery provided in the reported bill for the enforcement of the law appears to be admirably adapted to that purpose. The plan is simple and direct. The adjuster provided for must be as impartial as law can make him, for his compensation being paid by the Government of the United States, he can have no possible

personal interest in creating litigation or in the determination of it. It is believed that in the practical workings of the proposed law it will be but a short time before there will be but little need for the services of the adjuster or the courts in its enforcement. The provision in the bill for agreements between employer and employee acting within the limits of the law, and the further provision for arbitration boards, will, in the opinion of the friends of the measure, serve to dispose of the great majority of cases.

Your committee would suggest that those who would make of a compensation law a mere cumulative remedy to the remedy now in existence have in mind solely the obtaining of an additional right for the employee class and ignore entirely the interests of the employer class and of the public. While compensation is designed primarily in the interest of the employee class by lifting from their shoulders the entire burden now carried of the economic loss resulting from accident without fault, it is also designed to protect the employer class and the public. A mere cumulative remedy would leave untouched the manifold evils and the waste of the present system. It has been shown that the cost to the railroads of the country in complying with the proposed law will substantially exceed the present cost to them of paying for injuries and death, but as an offset to this increased cost there will be reduced expenditure in many ways; but, more than that, there will result a better and more harmonious relation between railroads and their employees, giving better service to the public and reducing the number of accidents.

Your committee believe that the bill as amended provides wise and beneficent legislation and favors its enactment.

The amendments recommended by your committee and hereinbefore referred to are as follows:

Page 1, line 3, after the word "carrier," insert a comma and the following words: "including express companies,'

Page 2, line 6, after the word "carrier," insert a comma and the following words: "including express companies,"

Page 2, line 17, strike out the word "fourteen" and insert in lieu thereof the word "five."

Page 2, line 23, strike out the word "fourteen" and insert in lieu thereof the word "five."

Page 3, line 1, after the word "the" where it occurs the second time, strike out the word "fourteen" and insert the word "five."

Page 3, line 5, after the word "dollars," strike out the comma and insert a colon, and in lines 5, 6, and 7 strike out words "unless such employee elects to furnish his own physician or surgeon or care for himself" and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Provided, That if the employee elects to furnish his own physician or surgeon or to care for himself he shall receive from his employer such expenses incurred therefor by him as are reasonable and just, not to exceed two hundred dollars.

Page 3, line 10, after the word "compensation," insert "or benefits." Page 3, line 14, strike out the period, insert in lieu thereof a colon, and add the following:

Provided, That this clause as to intoxication shall not apply if the employer knew or in the exercise of ordinary care might have known that the employee was intoxicated or that he was in the habit of becoming intoxicated.