employer and employee." Company manufacturing face brick, 100 employees, "Cheaper than employers' liability insurance and more just to employees.' Coal company, retailers of coal and builders' supplies except lumber, 9 employees, "Accepted because we feel that it relieves us of danger of suit in case of accident, which is likely to put a small firm to the bad. It gives the employees an arbitrator to see that they receive just compensation." Manufacturers of soap and laundry supplies, "We favor that part of the act that protects the employee by paying a specified amount, without court costs and attorney fees.' Company manufacturing dashes and fenders for vehicles, 100 employees, "We believe it to be a just law both for the employer and employee." Bedding company, manufacturers of mattresses, 46 employees, "First, from a humanitarian standpoint; second, because the indemnity insurance put this company in the position of antagonism to the just claims of its employees for injuries sustained, whereas under the State act we can work hand in hand with our injured employee to see that he gets a just compensation, while at the same time self-interest makes us see that no unjust awards are paid." Furniture company, manufacturers, 60 employees, "Looked very good and is good." Company mining coal and manufacturing coke, 200 employees, "Thought it best for employees, also our company. Canners of fruits and vegetables, 100 to 600 employees, 'Justice to employees and protection to employer." Coal-mining company, 150 employees, "State rate is only 18 cents per $100 higher than liability insurance, and employees receive benefit in case of accident or death without legal proceedings; also State law is compulsory after December 31, 1913." Private hospital for the sick, 100 employees, "Believe it to be a good thing." Motor company, gasoline motors for automobiles and trucks, 60 employees, “We believed it to be fair both to employees and employers." Rolling-mill company, rolling iron and steel bars, 600 employees, “Principally on account of the compensation feature, as we considered that one of the new conditions which must be met by all employers. Also on account of the complete protection as compared with the limited protection of the ordinary insurance policy." Roofing and asbestos materials, 400 employees, "We believed the workman would get what he was entitled to without the expensive legal cost and that he would be better satisfied by the State's decision." Clay-products company, manufacturing paving block and building block, 43 employees, "More economical, and the employees will receive the benefit instead of insurance companies' lawyers." Printing works company, 70 employees, "We thought it would be an improvement over the regular liability companies, and it has proven so." Shoe-machinery concern, 20 employees, "Accepted because under the Ohio law we felt that all moneys paid in went toward paying the injured employee instead of lawyers or investors in insurance companies." Art works, 500 employees, "We regard it the best protection for the least cost we ever had. It is a good thing for the employee and the employer." Shoe company, 1,750 employees, "We believe our law equitable to both employer and employed."

Reasons for rejecting the act.-Refusal to accept the act in Ohio has usually been based on the high rates to be borne, especially by large employers in occupations not deemed by them hazardous. While

the law soon becomes compulsory, the following replies are given as testimony bearing on the general discussion of the question: Hydraulic machinery, gas, and gasoline engines company, 125 employees: "We are entirely satisfied with our present arrangement for liability insurance, and it is such that we need not be concerned with it, as regards settlement with injured; too expensive and caused men to lay off for two or three weeks when they were not hurt very much; mash a toe or finger and get two-thirds pay from State while disabled. Lots of them would never have quit work if the State did not pay them. I think the settlements were satisfactory to the men, as they could get along very well on two-thirds pay. We found it encouraged men to get hurt and they were not hurt nearly as badly as they let on to be." Company manufacturing soap, candles, glycerine, etc., 90 employees: "Were carrying liability insurance; did not change as State premium rate was higher." Manufacturers of stoves and ranges, 650 employees: "We shall have until the end of the year to decide." Company manufacturing vehicles as assembled, 50 employees: "Rate is too high, making total cost entirely too much." Tool company, manufacture of oil, gas, and artesian well tools, machinery and supplies for same, 95 employees: "Rates so much higher than regular insurance companies are charging." Company manufacturing sectional bookcases, filing cabinets, etc., 1,400 employees: "Rate too high; have decided to take chances of noncompliance." Steel company, rolling steel plates and sheets, 200 employees: "Rate too high; also entails a great amount of detailed clerical work usually taken care of by insurance company." A company with 450 employees: "Payments by our company and predecessors in 30 years on account of accidents have not aggregated $5,000. Under present law premium would have aggregated $60,000."

RHODE ISLAND.

Reasons for accepting the act.-In Rhode Island the reason given usually is that the "provisions of the act made it practically compulsory.' In one case, "Insurance company told us to accept it." Economy and freeing the employer from uncertainties in outlay were shown in such replies as: "To avoid risk and litigation"; "Could get a better insurance rate by accepting than by rejecting it"; "It furnished legal means to stop disputes and suits and settle cases of accidents"; "Elimination of the 'shyster lawyer' and a large liability judgment having to be paid in a lump sum, which might seriously cripple a small concern.' Another set of reasons runs: "Believe that under the law the employee will receive more and the employer pay less than in the past," manufacturer of machine tools, 100 employees; "Better than common law liability for us and for help"; "Our own protection and benefit of our employees," founders and machinists, 250 employees; "Thought it advantageous and saving trouble and litigation," department store, 820 employees. One reply is: "For its definiteness; money paid goes to the injured party; not shared by others," cotton manufactory, 625 employees.

Reasons for rejecting the act.-The act was not accepted by some employers simply through their negligence, according to their reports. One, mentioning the amount that accidents have cost him this year 30003-S. Doc. 419, 63-2-12

declares his intention to come in under the act. A small employer writes: "Never considered the act; working right in with help and looking for safety of all as far as possible; only one slight accident in five years." No deep discussion of its terms comes from any of those who have rejected the Rhode Island law. One man says: "Altogether too one-sided; an employee can scratch his skin and get damages."

WISCONSIN.

Reasons for accepting the act. Of the Wisconsin employers reporting that they have accepted the act, the largest proportion assign as their reason for doing so "the taking away of all our defenses," or "Forced to accept compensation by latest revision of the act," or "Had to come under the law by September 1, 1913, or elect to stay out," or in other words expressing the one idea that "it would be safer under the law than to be outside." However, other reasons given signify faith in the law, a desire to give it a fair trial, or a hope that under its operation there might, and probably would, be a decrease of friction with employees, of costs through engaging counsel, and of the annoyances through protracted litigation and postponed settlements. A considerable number of the replies speak of humanitarian motives as actuating acceptance. A company having 200 employees writes: "Believe in it strongly as fairer to the men." Another company, with 310 employees, writes, "We want the men to get what is due them instead of insurance companies and lawyers." An employer with 30 persons on his pay roll says, "Because we believe that the employee should receive compensation for injury according to a fixed schedule, regardless of fault." A company manufacturing automobile frames and parts, 700 employees in summer and 1,300 in winter, says, "We felt it ought to be fairer to the workmen than the common law." A concern with 50 to 75 employees reports, "To avoid spending money for litigation that should belong to the insured." A box manufacturing company with 20 employees writes, "Our reason for accepting State compensation is that it will benefit the employee as well as the employer, inasmuch as it will eliminate lawyers' fees on both sides and injured employee will receive full amount of compensation awarded him by commission." A manufacturer of box shooks, crating and wire reels, 75 employees, "Wanted the State to protect us and in our opinion the liability was less." A company manufacturing tires and rubber goods, 1,000 to 1,300 employees, "Practically compulsory." Other replies run: "Does away with lawsuits;" "Best for all concerned;" "The best way out of difficulties caused by unjust claims;" "Just and certain compensation, quick relief, and no lawyers' bills." One reply was, "To try it;" another, "Cheaper in our opinion;" a third, "We believe in it."

Reasons for rejecting the act.-The majority rejecting the act say there is little or no probability of accidents in their respective occupations. So report a cigar manufacturer, a firm of practicing attorneys, a maker of sheet-metal work and hardware, a real estate dealer, a firm carrying on a general store, a retail druggist, and several dry goods houses. The other principal cause of rejection is the high cost. A firm making canoes, rowboats, etc., says under this heading, “The insurance rate for us would be $2.45. All our employees, except two

men, do light hand work where there is very little danger of getting hurt. In all our experience, covering a period of over 26 years, we have not known of anyone getting hurt beyond a mere scratch in this department. But we would be required to carry insurance on our entire pay roll." A company manufacturing turned wooden-ware and tight cooperage writes, "Our reasons for rejecting it are many. First we are not in sympathy with the law because it takes away the right of jury trial entirely, which is guaranteed to us under the Constitution. It takes away our defense, whether we accept or reject the law. It places our business under the jurisdiction and dominion of a political commission, who have the right if we go under the law to make an examination of our business at any time. It is paternal and socialistic. Since the introduction of the law it has increased the number of accidents in our factory by over 100 per cent. If a man can cut a finger and lay off for two or three weeks, draw his wages, have a doctor's and hospital bill paid, with all medicine, he would rather do it than work. As far as we are concerned, the compensation act of Wisconsin has damaged our business more than we can estimate."

NO. 7. SUGGESTIONS BY EMPLOYERS FOR AMENDMENT OF LAWS.

"Do you suggest any changes in your compensation law?" This question brought more replies than any other in the list sent by the commission to employers in the States having compensation acts. The answers from each State fell naturally into classification, each bearing on some provision or lack of provision in the particular law. In making up the following chapter, replies typical of those from every one of the classes have been selected, repetition being avoided to the extent possible. Every distinct suggestion, it is believed, has a place here. While the impressions of the small employers have been given considerable attention in this symposium, it is to be kept in mind that the large employers usually have a proportionately greater experience in dealing with payment for accidents, and therefore their views of the laws are perhaps less liable to be influenced by unlikely probabilities. The wide range of suggestions in certain of the States is evidence not only of the lively interest in the problem of compensation, but more especially of the stage of education with regard to the subject attained by employers in general.

From the point of view of criticism of the law as it stands in each State investigated, the suggestions afford a summary of the attitude of the employers of the State toward the whole question of compensation. On the whole, the expressions of the authors of the replies constitute a verdict favorable to the policy, yet new, as it is, to the United States. The information here given the public is trustworthy. It is first hand. It is not drawn from the domain of conjecture. It stands for dollars and cents expended and to be expended. It is given in earnest; not one of the responses here recorded but was set down on reflection and with the purpose of imparting fact to the minds of other men engaged in the same complex social task which, in its financial phase, is at once personal and public. If a few of the opinions permit the inference of hasty formation or exaggerated expression, the writers can not complain of being ignored in the investigations and readers are given the opportunity of weighing the propositions coming from all sides and from every set of proponents. It being the aim of the commission to embody in its report if not all, at least all the salient points, of view brought forth in this nation-wide discussion, the suggestions have been adjudged worth while the space accorded them in these pages.

CALIFORNIA.

The California reports divide themselves, with regard to suggestions for changes, into three classes. The majority omit replying; half the others plead inexperience with the law or refer to its brief existence as good reason for not suggesting amendments. The remainder give a variety of opinions as to improvement, the following being examples: Acetylene, oxygen welding, cutting and equipment company, 12 employees: "It is our belief, based on experience, that rates are not