plausible with that of suicide; the decision of the lower court was reversed on the ground that the burden of proof rested on those advocating the suicide theory, and compensation was allowed. (Milwaukee Western Fuel Co. v. Industrial Commission, 150 N. W. 988.) This accords with the position taken in a very similar case by the accident board of Michigan, where it was said that the lack of direct evidence would not be allowed to defeat the applicant's claim if the facts and circumstances justify and reasonably require the inference that death was due to drowning as the workman was leaving a lumber dock for dinner. Similar to the foregoing was the conclusion of the Supreme Court of California in a case (Western Grain & Sugar Products Co. v. Pillsbury, 159 Pac. 423) in which an award for the death of a night watchman was allowed, the body not having been found, but evidences of a struggle and other circumstances suggesting murder eing disclosed.

On the ground that questions of negligence had nothing to do with the right of claimant under the compensation act, the Supreme Court of Kansas (Ruth . Witherspoon-Englar Co., 157 Pac. 403) declared that evidence as to the misconduct of a foreman in ordering the workman into a place of danger was prejudicial to the rights of the company where there was a trial before a jury. But if the findings of the jury are not in reality affected by such evidence, its erroneous admission will not necessitate the reversal of the judgment. (Oliver v. Christopher, 159 Pac. 397.)

INSURANCE.

As pointed out in the discussion of the provisions of the acts, the laws of several States provide for State insurance funds either exclusive in their operations or competing with private insurance institutions. Naturally stock companies writing insurance of this kind are opposed to the idea of a State monopoly, the situation being particularly acute in the State of Ohio, where the question of monopoly was in discussion between the insurance companies and the State authorities, the law being differently interpreted by the two parties. The commission took the view that the intent of the law was that insurance should be taken in the State fund and not elsewhere. The supreme court of the State in a case considered the law as permitting stock companies to write insurance, and requiring all employers of 5 or more workmen regularly in the same business, other than employers providing self-insurance, to pay into the State insurance fund the amount of premium determined and fixed by the State authorities. Self-insurers were, moreover, held to be required to contribute to the surplus fund, which is a guaranty fund for the State insurance fund. The existing provision of the General Code

conferring upon employees the rights of the employer under any insurance policy which he may carry after the employee has secured a judgment against his employer for injuries due to the latter's negligence was held not to be repealed by the compensation law but to remain subject to construction in connection with the provisions of the compensation law. Contracts providing indemnity for employers in all cases in which they are required to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the compensation act, may be written by any insurance company, stock or otherwise. The question as to whether or not employers can insure against other liabilities than those established by the compensation law was left undecided, reargument to be had thereon when the court should again

convene.

The California commission ruled an insurance policy in effect on its delivery and during its existence, even though no premium is paid thereon; the law makes the employer and insurer jointly liable for compensation payable under any policy, and a failure of the former to pay and of the latter to collect his premiums, is a persona' matter between the two parties and does not bar the employee's rights. Quite similar is a ruling construing the Iowa statute to the effect that under the law of that State the employer is primarily liable to the injured employee regardless of any arrangement which he may have with the insurer to carry the risk. He may protect himself by insurance, and, indeed, is required to do so; but if for any reason the insurance company is not able to carry out its contract, the injured person or his beneficiaries still have direct recourse to the employer for the amount of compensation due.

Subject to mention either under this heading or under that of course of employment is a case (Bayer v. Bayer, 158 N. W. 109), in which an employee of a carpenter was injured while doing some work for the latter's brother in an undertaking in no way connected with the business of the injured man's employer. The employer was insured against the risks of his business, and the insurance company was joined in the defense against the enforcement of an award made by a committee of arbitration and approved by the industrial accident board of Michigan. The arbitrators had said that the only question involved was whether the employee was under the employer's control and was paid by him; but the court ruled that the policy was expressly and effectively limited to cases of employment "in the operation of and in connection with the business herein stated." The order of the board for the payment of the award was therefore vacated.

EXPERIENCE UNDER THE ACTS.

The laws of most of the States provide for reports showing experience under the acts, and a very considerable volume of material has accumulated from these States, showing the extent of acceptance of the elective laws; the condition of the funds where State insurance or State organized mutuals are provided; number of accidents classified by causes, nature, and duration; premiums paid; expenses of administration; medical and surgical costs, etc. The reports vary much in subject matter and mode of presentation, and comparisons are not feasible in respect of many of the points involved.1 It would be impracticable and hardly appropriate in a bulletin devoted to the development and interpretation of the laws to take up the statistical side of the question, besides the duplication involved in reproducing matter so extensively included in the REVIEW. The bureau has in course of preparation studies in the administration of compensation laws involving a presentation of methods and results, and necessarily there will be to some extent an inclusion of statistical matter in these studies.

Perhaps no form of legislation has achieved so wide an acceptance since its first adoption in the United States, and the forecasts of its supporters a few years ago that it would speedily supplant the liability doctrine throughout the country seem in a fair way to be vindicated. The very considerable amount of amendatory legislation that appears in States having laws, while a confession of the experimental stage in which such legislation yet remains, speaks still more forcibly

1 The bureau has presented summaries of a number of these reports in its MONTHLY REVIEW, as follows: Massachusetts workmen's compensation experience, July 1, 1912, to Sept. 30, 1914, vol. 1, No. 3; Report of the California Industrial Accident Commission, June 1, 1913, to June 30, 1914, vol. 2, No. 1; Report of the Washington Industrial Insurance Department for the year ending Sept. 30, 1914, ibid.; Report of Wisconsin Industrial Commission on Workmen's, Compensation Insurance, June 1, 1915, ibid.; Report of Iowa Industrial Commission to June 30, 1914, vol. 2, No. 2; Report of Industrial Accident Board of Montana, Oct. 1, 1915, ibid.; Report of the Industrial Insurance Department of Washington for the year ending Sept. 30, 1915, ibid.; Report of the Public Service Commission of West Virginia, June 1, 1913, to June 30, 1914, ibid.; Report of the Industrial Accident Board of Massachusetts for the year ending June 30, 1914, yol. 2, No. 3; Statement of condition of the Ohio State insurance fund as of Nov. 15, 1915, ibid.; Report of the Industrial Commission of Oregon for the year ending June 30, 1915, ibid.; Report of the Industrial Board of Illinois, June 30, 1915, vol. 2, No. 4; Report of the Industrial Accident Commission of Maryland, Nov. 1, 1914, to Oct. 31, 1915, ibid.; Report of the Industrial Accident Board of Michigan for the year 1915, ibid.; Report of the Industrial Accident Commission of California, July 1, 1914, to June 30, 1915, vol. 2, No. 5; Massachusetts workmen's compensation experience, June 1, 1912, to Dec. 31, 1914, ibid.; New York (advance data for nine months, July 1, 1914, to Mar. 31, 1915), vol. 3, No. 1; Industrial Commission of Ohio, department of investigation and statistics, Report No. 21, Industrial accidents in Ohio, Jan. 1, 1914, to June 30, 1915, ibid.; Wisconsin (advance data as to completed experience under workmen's compensation insurance policies to Dec. 31, 1915), ibid.; Board of Compensation Commissioners of Connecticut, Second annual report for the year ending Sept. 30, 1915, vol. 3, No. 2; State department of labor of Nebraska, Report upon the operation of the workmen's compensation law for the year ending Nov. 30, 1915, ibid.

of the purpose to perfect the laws and incorporate in them the results of experience which has shown defects and inequalities, the amendments, almost without exception, having been in the direction of broader application and more liberal benefits.

The Federal Government is conspicuous by reason of its early entrance into this field of legislation, but hardly less so for its slowness in remedying the defects of the statute of 1908 when they became so apparent during the eight years of progressive legislation by more than 30 States of the Union. Prior to the enactment of the law of 1916, four partial and inadequate laws covered a part of the approximately 490,000 civilian employees of the United States, at a cost of some $600,000 per annum; while of the new law it is estimated that a less amount will carry its more equitable and scientifically distributed benefits, covering the entire group, at least until the accumulation of a considerable number of continuing payments.

What will be the next step on the part of Congress can not of course be foretold. The importance of a railroad law can hardly be overstated in view of the confusion resulting from the attempt to construe compensation and liability laws side by side as must be done in by far the greater part of the territory of the United States to-day. The Employers' Liability (railroad) Act of 1908 was well in advance of the legislation in its field when enacted, but the same can not be said after the lapse of the brief period since that date, even the liability laws of some of the States surpassing it in liberality. Instead of the enactment of a Federal compensation law, however, it has been proposed that Congress repeal the liability law of 1908 and relegate the entire subject of redress for injuries to railroad employees, both interstate and intrastate, to the control of the State laws. The District of Columbia is governed by no legislation except in the matter of commerce by railroad, workmen generally being under the common law, and an antiquated construction of it at that; so that there is a need in this regard, as well as for the employees of the District, who may well ask to be placed on as good a footing as are those of the Federal Government, with whom they are in constant contact and comparison. And, finally, the status of the employees of contractors may properly be considered, Congress having by its action in passing the law of 1916 committed itself to a standard that other workmen within its purview may regard as their measure of rights; while on the other hand, the enactment in behalf of those who may be called its own employees clears the way for Congress to act in behalf of others for whom its responsibility is not so direct, but who must nevertheless look to it for any adequate protection in case of injury in employment.

42704°-17-19

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES.

The insurance of the employers' risk under the compensation laws is the subject of various forms of treatment, as appears from the fact that some of the laws are in themselves insurance laws, others require some form of insurance without specifying its type, while still others leave the matter entirely to the initiative and choice of the persons interested. Stock companies writing employers' liability insurance under the old laws naturally extend their activities to cover the obligations imposed by the new legislation; and both by provision of law and by a natural growth to meet new conditions, the question of the formation of mutual companies came into increased prominence. In some States the compensation acts themselves contain provisions covering this subject, while special acts regulating the formation of such companies have been passed in several others, and while they are not strictly parts of the compensation laws, they are so closely related to their operations that they should be considered in this connection. Their similarity of form and purpose makes it unnecessary, however, to reproduce each of them at length, and that of New York is here given as representative of this class of laws. The act is in the form of an article of the law of the State relating to insurance corporations, and is as follows:

Who may incorporate.

NEW YORK.

CONSOLIDATED LAWS.

CHAPTER 28. ARTICLE 5-A.-Workmen's compensation insurance—
Mutual companies.

(Added by chapter 832, Acts of 1913, extra session.)

SECTION 185. Thirteen or more persons may become a corporation for the purpose of insuring on the mutual plan against loss or damage resulting from accident to or injury suffered by an employee or other person and for which the person insured is liable, or the liability of the employer to pay compensation to his employees, or the compensation of employees under any workmen's compensation law * * * by making and filing in the office of the superintendent of insurance a certificate to be signed by each of them, stating their intention to form a corporation for the purpose named, and setting forth a copy of the charter which they propose to adopt, which shall state the name of the proposed corporation, the place where it is to be located, the mode and manner in which its corporate powers are to be exercised, the number of directors, the manner of electing its directors and officers, the time of such elections, the manner of filling vacancies, the names and post-office addresses of the directors who will serve until the first annual meeting of such corporation, and such further particulars as may be necessary to explain and make manifest the objects and purposes of the corporation. Such certificate shall be approved or acknowledged and recorded in a book kept for that purpose by the superintendent of insurance and a certified copy thereof shall be delivered to the persons executing the same.