STATEMENT OF W. W. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I appear to-day as chairman of the committee representing the employers. The employers of the District of Columbia are unanimously in favor of the Bruce-Underhill bill. This is not an employers' bill. This is a compromise bill. The bill has been before you at other times and we have made strenuous objection. Amendments have been made from time to time to meet objections to the bill as originally drawn. There are several things the employers object to in the hill, but the bill is a fair, square bill drawn to meet the needs of the employees of the District of Columbia, and that is the reason why we stand fairly behind it.

It is more liberal in its provisions than either Virginia or Maryland, on either side of the District of Columbia, have in their laws, where our most direct competitors come from, so there ought not to be any fault found on account of lack of liberality in so far as it applies to the employees. We have not heard any complaints from the other side, and would very gladly hear from the other side what they find fault with in the Bruce-Underhill bill from their standpoint. We admit that in the past there were some employers who did not want an employees' compensation or workmen's compensation law in the District of Columbia, but that feeling has been wiped out long ago. We feel that we ought to have such a law now. There are 43 States in the Union which do have it, and we ought to have it in the District of Columbia and we are for it. The fact that it is more liberal than some of the acts in many of the States is a matter which, of course, has occurred to you. There is no objection so far as we see. point we want to stress most is that the Bruce-Underhill bill is drawn on the lines of the Maryland and Virginia laws, in a good, straight, clean fashion so far as we can see it, and therefore we are behind it 100 per cent.

The

Another thing that we are very strong about is this: The BruceUnderhill bill is a home-rule bill, to be administered by our superintendent of insurance who is administering all other insurance laws in the District of Columbia and who is certainly capable of carrying out the provisions of the law. At least you ought to give him a chance, in view of his long experience, before you talk about having it administered under a Federal board. We do not have any too many rights in the District of Columbia as private citizens anyway, so please do not take any away from us, but give them to us the best you can. We believe if you give the insurance commissioner a chance to administer the law as proposed in this bill, there is not going to be any complaint from labor.

I think it is very unfortunate that we come here as two groups, employees and employers. I think we ought to come as citizens of the District of Columbia working for a workman's compensation insurance law that we can all be proud of. We believe we have such a measure in the Bruce-Underhill bill. The provisions under the Maryland law are $18 minimum where ours is $25. The provisions under the Virginia law are $12 minimum where ours is $25, so that we certainly have liberal provisions for taking care of employees in the District of Columbia.

We hope that you will give us a law which is applicable to the needs of the District of Columbia and not bring in a longshoremen's act or any other act which is applicable to the entire country, applicable all over the United States. We have no long arguments to make, but we have with us representatives of different organizations and I would like to have them say just a few words. I will call first on General Stephan, representing the Merchants and Manufacturers' Association of the District of Columbia.

Senator BLAINE. Before General Stephan proceeds, may I say that I have had prepared a comparative analysis of the proposed compensation acts, including S. 3565, copied after the longshoreman's act, the Bruce-Underhill bill, and the Capper-Fitzgerald bill, as well as the United States employees' act of 1916. I do not have very many copies, but I will give one copy to each group and will have a copy inserted in the record at this point.

The comparative analysis of proposed compensation acts is as follows:

Comparative analysis of proposed compensation acts for the District of Columbia (and the act of 1916 for United States employees)

STATEMENT OF GEN. A. STEPHAN

General STEPHAN. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I represent the Merchants and Manufacturers Association of the District of Columbia, which is composed of about 300 firms, and they, to a large extent, cover the conditions which are proposed by this bill. We are heartily in favor of the argument presented by Mr. Everett just now and concur in everything he said. We likewise desire that our affairs be administered by our agencies here in the District of Columbia and not by a Federal agency.

We likewise emphasize our favor of the Bruce-Underhill bill. We think that bill has been carefully thought out and is more applicable to our local conditions than either of the other two bills which have been mentioned here. We do not think the longshoremen's act should be applied here because it is too general in its scope, has not been studied or framed with a view of meeting local conditions. What we want is merely to take this law and have it applied to the District of Columbia. There are many features of it that are not in harmony with local conditions, whereas the Bruce-Underhill bill is framed with the object of meeting local conditions after careful study of the compensation acts in adjoining States.

It is proposed in the other bills to operate through Federal agencies. We think that the Federal Government should not tax the country at large with the cost of operation of the enforcement of the local law. Under present laws the insurance companies are taxed one-half of 1 per cent on their premiums. This tax is employed to pay for the enforcement of the Bruce-Underhill bill. We therefore feel that our local agencies should be the ones to administer the law as brought forth in the Bruce-Underhill bill and not under the longshoremen's act or the Fitzgerald bill.

Senator BLAINE. Under the Bruce-Underhill bill the employers are taxed to make up the fund for administrative expenses.

General STEPHAN. Yes, sir. We already have the insurance tax, Mr. Chairman, which we think should be used by the existing agency. Why not use that agency for the purpose of carrying out the act? Those are the only two points I want to bring out, and I thank you. STATEMENT OF WALTER C. BALDERSTON, REPRESENTING THE WASHINGTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. BALDERSTON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here representing the Washington Chamber of Commerce. For a long time the Washington Chamber of Commerce have wanted a workmen's compensation law. They have advocated it for a long time. What is known as the Underhill bill is one that the chamber has gone on record as favoring. We are here to-day representing the Washington Chamber of Commerce as being in favor of the BruceUnderhill bill. The Bruce-Underhill bill provides that it is to be administered by our local agencies.

It might be a question, and I understand it has been before the committee, that it might appeal to the Washington people that in view of the fact that an amendment to the longshoremen's act provides that the Federal Government is to stand all the expense, that that would appeal to the Washington people. In reply to that sug

gestion I would say that I believe I express the sentiment of practically all-if not all, the majority-when I say that the Washington people, even though by having the affairs administered by the insurance commissioner of the District of Columbia or whatever other local agency is selected, would far prefer that means to a Federal Government parental agency. They realize that it may cost them something, but notwithstanding that they are in favor of that plan rather than to have the affairs administered by the Federal Government. They feel as though it is a local matter. In other words, it is a question of local self-government. The fact that there is some expense attached to it is not material.

The bills which have been considered by the organization which I represent have been discarded in favor of the Bruce-Underhill bill, and we are heartily in favor of that bill.

Representative JENKINS. May I interrupt you right there?
Mr. BALDERSTON. Yes.

Representative JENKINS. It is not the United States Chamber of Commerce that you represent?

Mr. BALDERSTON. Oh, no; not at all.

Representative JENKINS. The Washington Chamber of Commerce have spoken and they recommend the Bruce-Underhill bill? Mr. BALDERSTON. Yes.

Representative JENKINS. They have done that in past years? Mr. BALDERSTON. Yes, with reference to the Underhill bill. I think the Bruce bill is the same thing, as I understand it.

Representative JENKINS. Has your chamber of commerce taken any action recently on the matter?

Mr. BALDERSTON. No.

Representative JENKINS. It has not taken any action recently? Mr. BALDERSTON. When I say "recently" it depends on what you mean by "recently." The matter has come up from time to time. We have had notices of these meetings from time to time and the question would come before us, and on those different occasions, which have been within a few months, the matter has come up, but not before the organization itself.

Representative JENKINS. Has your organization spoken authoritatively since the convening of this session of Congress?

Mr. BALDERSTON. Except through the committee or the board of directors. The matter did not come before the whole body.

Representative JENKINS. Your association is made up of business men, is it not?

Mr. BALDERSTON. Yes.

Representative JENKINS. The laboring class of people are not represented in your chamber of commerce, are they?

Mr. BALDERSTON. Oh, yes. When I say "business men," I am including laboring men as well.

Representative JENKINS. You would not want to give us the impression that the Washington Chamber of Commerce is organized for the benefit of employees, would you?

Mr. BALDERSTON. I do not want to give any impression. I want to give the facts and those are the facts. The Washington Chamber of Commerce is made up of men from all walks of life. We have representatives of the labor organizations, and we have repre