was unwilling to sign the report of the majority on the ground that the provisions of the bill as drafted by them were lacking in fairness and liberality.

VIRGINIA.

The commission provided for by a joint resolution of February 5, 1916, of the General Assembly of Virginia, submitted to the governor a report with a tentative draft of a bill for consideration in anticipation of the meeting of the legislature in January, 1918. The report itself is brief, dwelling first upon the wide acceptance of the compensation principle in the United States. A summary comparison of the principal features of the laws is then reproduced, after which the subject of insurance is discussed, the conclusion being adverse to the adoption of a State monopoly, though a State fund is recommended, to operate in competition with other methods of insurance. In the draft of the bill an elective system was proposed, but election was presumed by both employer and employee in the absence of contrary notice. Employers rejecting the act forfeit the common-law defenses, while employees electing to reject the act are subject to those defenses in cases in which the employer has not rejected it. A waiting period of 14 days is proposed, with a 50 per cent compensation basis. Benefits may not continue beyond 500 weeks, nor exceed a total of $1,000. The act is to be general in its scope, excluding casual laborers and farm and domestic employments; employers of less than three persons are not covered, though voluntary election may bring in all excluded employments and classes of persons, excepting, of course, those engaged in interstate commerce. State and municipal employees are compulsorily included. Provision is made for medical benefits for not more than 30 days. Payments to children normally cease on their reaching the age of 18. The act is to be administered by a commission appointed by the governor for terms of 6 years, appeals from its decisions being allowed to the court of appeals. The bill was amended by eliminating all steam railroads from its scope, and by providing for an administrative fund by a tax on insurance companies and self-insurers, and, with other changes of less importance, was passed.

With the exception of North Dakota, the States now without compensation laws are confined to the southeastern section of the United States, bounded on the west by Missouri, Arkansas, and Mississippi, and on the north by Tennessee and North Carolina.

1 Communication from the governor transmitting the report of the Virginia Commission on Workmen's Compensation. Senate Doc. No. 3, 1918. 32 pp.

NEW LEGISLATION.

Five States in 1917 and one State in 1918 adopted a compensation system. In Idaho and Utah the laws are compulsory where applicable, while in Delaware, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Virginia they are elective, but election is presumed in the absence of action to the contrary. Compensation benefits for total disability continue through life in Delaware, Idaho, and Utah, while a limitation of 10 years appears in the law of New Mexico, of 500 weeks in that of Virginia, and until four years' earnings are paid in that of South Dakota.

The basis of compensation in Delaware is 50 per cent of the employee's wages in cases of disability, and may reach 60 per cent in cases of death. The same provision is found in the law of New Mexico. In Virginia a 50 per cent basis, and in Idaho and Utah a 55 per cent basis, is used in both death and disability; in South Dakota disability is compensated on a 50 per cent basis, death benefits being fixed at amounts equal to four times the average annual earnings of the deceased person, payable in installments equal to one-half the wages.

Insurance of the employer's obligation is required in each of these States, unless adequate proof of financial ability is furnished; State funds are provided for in Idaho, Utah, and Virginia. Administration of the act is in the hands of special officials in all the States except New Mexico, where the district court is charged with special duties in connection with the act.

Special interest attaches to the mode of administration and the fact that the employer's obligation must be insured. Each of the laws also contains a schedule of partial disability awards for specified injuries.

The amending acts vary widely in their importance, the laws of California, Porto Rico, and Texas being practically rewritten throughout, while in some States the changes are of slight significance. The law of Illinois is made compulsory in its application instead of election being presumed, while on the other hand the method of a presumed election is abolished in Nevada, and active election is required. Occupational diseases are definitely included in the laws of California and Hawaii. A general tendency is apparent as regards the reduction of the waiting time which must intervene between the receipt of the injury and the beginning of compensation payments. Thus in Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Nebraska, and in Vermont after July 1, 1918, a waiting time of two weeks or 14 days is reduced one-half; while in California the period is reduced from 2 weeks to 10 days, and in Connecticut from 10 days to 7 days. On the other hand, Washington increased the

waiting period of 13 days to 7 days, not counting the day of the injury. Colorado stood alone in requiring a 3-weeks waiting time, which was reduced to 2 weeks in 1917; while the new law of New Mexico took up the position of the Colorado statute in establishing a 3-weeks waiting time. There is also some inclination shown to make payment for this period of waiting in cases where disability continues beyond a definite time, the periods specified by the several States varying from 4 to 7 weeks.

The New York law was in its original form limited in application to employments termed hazardous, the employments so considered being named and classified. An amendment of 1918 adds a new group that includes "all other employments not hereinbefore enumerated" in which four or more workmen or operatives are regularly employed, thus practically eliminating all distinctions based on hazard. Question was immediately raised as to the meaning of the terms used, and the attorney general of the State gave it as his opinion that the phrase "workmen or operatives" is less broad than if the word "employees" had been used and applies only to persons engaged in manual labor as mechanics, laborers, or artisans, and not to clerks or those engaged in professional work. In this view, the act would not apply to an establishment employing, say, two laborers and two bookkeepers, but it is admitted that this construction is not authoritative, and until the courts pass upon it the safest course would be to elect to bring all employees under the act. As emphasizing this, it may be noted that the industrial commission of the State, charged with the administration of the law, is said to regard the amendment as bringing all employees under the act, excluding only farm laborers and domestic servants; while the counsel to the commission regards the distinction made by the attorney general as correct, except that if the law is applicable at all, as where there are four or more mechanics, etc., the law would then apply to all employees in the establishment, regardless of the nature of their employment; but it would not apply where there is strictly a clerical force and no manual labor is done.

Other amendments relate to medical service, providing that it shall be such as the nature of the injury requires, and not such as is required or requested by the employee; also that it may be extended beyond 60 days in cases approved by the commission. The matter of notice is acted upon, notice of injury being required within 30 days of the accident causing the injury, instead of 10 days after disability, as formerly; the effect of failure to give notice within the time set is also regulated. The bar of limitation of one year against claims must be pleaded by the employer or insurance carrier at the hearing, or it will be deemed to have been waived.

The law of Kentucky is made applicable to employers of three or more employees, instead of only to those employing five or more. Many changes were made with regard to the benefits to be paid, generally in the direction of enlargement, though the Colorado law reduced its allowance for burial expenses from $100 to $75; while in several States the funeral benefit was made general instead of being payable only where there were no dependents. The Idaho law incorporates a provision requiring the employer to pay into the State insurance fund the sum of $1,000 in cases in which there are no dependents of an employee dying as a result of an industrial accidenta provision that was held by the Kentucky courts to be unconstitutional. In Massachusetts the minimum weekly payment in cases of total disability is fixed at $5 instead of $4. In Louisiana, 55 per cent of the wages is made the basis of awards, instead of 50 per cent; and the weekly maximum benefit becomes $16 instead of $10.

Each of the new laws enacted in 1917 and 1918 contains provisions requiring medical and surgical treatment, although, with the exception of Idaho, not with the liberality that experience has shown to be most profitable. The laws of Kansas and Washington for the first time make provision for such treatment, while in other States some enlargements in this field are made. Thus such aid is to be furnished under the California and Porto Rico statutes in any amount necessary, while in Wisconsin it is to be continued as long as in the judgment of the commission the treatment will shorten the compensation period. The Washington statute, in providing for medical treatment, adopts a novel system so far as this country is concerned. A medical and hospital fund is to be maintained by equal contributions of employers and employees, from which necessary aid is to be furnished during temporary disability, and in cases of permanent disability until the compensation award is made. This fund is to be administered by local boards representing employers and employees, such boards to be distributed throughout the State with reference to the localities and industries in accordance with determinations of the State medical aid board. The selection of these boards by the persons interested locally, and their supervision of the injury cases in their localities, administering a fund maintained by the joint contribution of employers and employees, is clearly an effort to enlist the interest and the services of the two principal parties affected in a manner not hitherto attempted.

Interstate commerce by railroad affords one of the difficult problems in the compensation field. A solution has been attempted in Indiana by excluding all railroad train service from the provisions of the law a method already adopted in a few States, and found in the new law of Virginia, the object apparently being to avoid the wide difference of treatment that results from the application of both com

pensation and liability laws to an identical form of employment. The same action was taken in Washington, railroad labor being made subject to liability or other provisions of law, such as exist or may be enacted by reason of congressional legislation. While many of the States have adopted with more or less exactness the provisions of the Federal liability law relating to railroads, this is the first instance in which a blanket provision, anticipatory of future legislation, has been made use of. This makes identical the status of interstate and intrastate employees, but removes the nature of the remedy from State determination. On the other hand may be noted an act of Congress amending the law relating to maritime and admiralty rights so as to save to employees engaged in maritime pursuits their rights under the compensation law of any State in which they may reside or in which by the terms of their contract they have rights of recovery.

The taking over of the railroads by the Federal Government raised the question of the status of the railroad employees and the application to them of the act providing compensation for injured employees of the Government. Such application was seriously considered, but in the enactment of the law the employees were left to the rights and remedies available under private ownership. Practically the same solution was made of a similar problem in the case of the taking over of Canadian railways by the Dominion Government, provincial laws being declared applicable in cases of accidental injury or death.

An analysis of the principal features of the laws of all the States, including the laws newly enacted and the amendments made to existing laws, is presented on the following pages. A detailed comparison of the laws as they existed at the end of the year 1917 has been published in textual and tabular form as Bulletin No. 240.