Part 6

I just offer these as suggestions, if we are going at this subject from a practical standpoint, and if we can I am perfectly willing to go to the extent of saying that we will work along all three lines and then determine which is the more likely to stand up and effect the purpose that we are trying to accomplish.

SAMUEL R. HARPER (Illinois): On the question presented by the first section of the tentative bill presented this afternoon, the rule, as I understand it, is that the declaration by the Legislature that a certain trade is hazardous is merely an indication of the legislative judgment on that proposition and nothing more; and that that judgment is revocable by the courts and is not conclusive unless the declaration is based in some way on some reasonable classification of hazardous trades and industries. If the classification is based on some reasonable ground arising from the hazards of the business then the courts will say that is a reasonable classification, that the legislative classification is conclusive.

On the points suggested by Senator Sanborn, I agree with him that the fundamental to adopt at the outset is whether or not we shall adopt a compulsory system or whether it shall be elective. If it is compulsory it must rest entirely within the police power of the State. If it is an elective system then it is a matter of contract and option with both parties. We ought to determine first what we are going to do about that because if we have an elective system we need not worry at all about the constitutional problem or the question of police power.

I agree with the Senator on the proposition that a State under its police power may establish a compulsory system of compensation so far as the employer is concerned. It seems to me, however, when we attempt to shift the basis of our present system from that of tort to compensation we are simply reading into the oral contract of employment between the employer and employe a guarantee on the part of the employer that up to a certain limit he will protect and insure the employe against the hazards of that trade. We all of us, of course, are familiar with the doctrine of _respondeat superior_, and that doctrine arose in exactly the same way over two hundred years ago and it has never been questioned as yet. That arose not out of any theory of natural justice, but upon the theory exclusively that it was a proposition of safety, and that if the employer wished to delegate his business or that part of it conducted by servants, to those servants, he certainly should be responsible for their acts as long as they were in the discharge of their duties.

Now, why isn't it, Mr. Chairman, just as reasonable to assume and why is it in conflict with any theory of natural justice to say that if an employer seeks to employ a man in a hazardous trade or in any trade, he shall compensate him to a reasonable extent; he shall guarantee to him a limited compensation and that he shall guarantee him against the consequences of an injury while he is engaged in that employment? Will not the courts read into that bill practically that contract of guaranty?

We are talking about judge-made law on this proposition. The Legislature has never attacked this proposition at all. The courts have established this doctrine of respondeat superior and as to the safety appliances, etc., is the form of a Workmen's Compensation Law.

PROF. SEAGER: The suggestion contained in this first clause seems to me a very valuable and helpful one; that is, that judicial opinion in this country may be ripe for taking this view other doctrines of that kind, and we do not know what the courts would do if the proposition were presented to them. I believe we lack courage a little bit on that subject. I should think that the courts would welcome the co-operation of the Legislature in changing this system. I believe they are in hearty sympathy with the movement, as indicated by recent decisions of the courts throughout the country. I believe that they are themselves out of sympathy entirely with the worn out doctrines which they are obliged to follow because of the precedents before them; and if the Legislature would step in and give them a chance I believe that they would be with them.

CHAIRMAN MERCER: In making this draft of a bill we fully appreciated that the outlines which Senator Sanborn has given substantially represents the different theories; but this bill was drafted on the theory of bringing up for discussion the whole subject as to whether or not you wanted to define your dangerous employments and make them compulsory against the employer; to say that the employe should not have any common law liability; that he should comply with this law before he had any remedy; that he should be compelled to go before a committee of awards and that the award when given should be conclusive as to questions of fact, leaving the legal liability and the jurisdictional questions open to the courts on appeal. That was the scheme on which this was drawn.

PROF. SEAGER: The suggestion contained in this first clause seems to me a very valuable and helpful one; that is, that judicial opinion in this country may be ripe for taking this view that a few years ago would have seemed rather revolutionary; the view that any industry in which an accident occurs is to that extent a hazardous industry, and therefore subject to special regulation under the police powers of the States, and that the form of regulation that should be adopted along with the regulations as to the safety appliances, etc., is the form of a Workmen's Compensation Law.

The New York Commission, while some of us perhaps were inclined to agree with the optimistic views that Mr. Harper has just expressed, was not able, as a body, to believe that the courts would go quite so far as this first clause contemplates. It was for that reason mainly that we contented ourselves with enumerating extra-hazardous occupations which came clearly under the police power of the State, and limited the compensation in those employments to risks of those employments as distinguished from accidents that merely happen in connection with the employment or that might have happened in any employment. I hope very much myself that the other States which are working on this problem will be more courageous than we were, and that they will place the matter before the courts in this extreme form and determine what the courts will do with it. I think perhaps there is more reason to expect a favorable decision from some of the courts in the Western States than from the New York Court of Appeals. Looking at the matter as a national problem, I think it would perhaps be better to have the question come up first in some of the middle Western States before the courts there rather than to come up in some of our Eastern States.

At the same time I agree with the suggestion that Senator Sanborn raised as to the necessity of protecting the rights of the employes. I do not see how, on the basis of the whole scheme of property rights, we can take away from the employe his right to sue for damages when the injury is due directly and clearly to the negligence of the employer, without a constitutional amendment. But that difficulty can be met by a saving clause that in practice need not interfere very much with the efficiency of the system. That is the plan we adopted in our New York bill, merely putting in a clause to the effect that except where the accident was due to the personal negligence of the employer the compensation bill should apply, leaving it to the courts to decide just how far that would go. A safety clause of that kind in practice, in my opinion, would be largely disregarded. After this system came into operation, the advantage of getting a certain compensation would appeal to a great majority of injured workmen as preferable to the gamble of a law suit. So that from the point of view of the expense to the employer such a provision need not impose a serious additional burden along with the burden of the compensation law.

MR. PARKS (Massachusetts): In our State there is a bill before the Committee on Labor in the Legislature, of which I am a member, prohibiting the employment of minors under eighteen in trades which are dangerous to health. The committee decided to refer the bill to the State Board of Health, and an investigation by the State Board showed that continuous employment in such industries as the manufacture of cuff buttons and collar buttons, and so forth, was deleterious to the health on account of the small pieces of bone and other substances which had an injurious effect upon the health of the operatives. One factory in particular was alluded to at a hearing which we had on the matter, and after we passed the bill, and it became a law, I understand that that factory changed over their whole system, so that that particular industry instead of being as before this act was passed a dangerous industry to health, it became a safe industry to the health of minors. That was one effect of the naming of a particular industry as a dangerous trade, so far as health is concerned.

PROF. ERNST FREUND (Illinois): It seems to me there are two things to be sought for in this matter, and that is, first, to find some principle of classification and then to see what portion of that principle we can reasonably hope to cover by legislation. When I look at this section it does not seem to me that the principle is what I could call a sound one, and I mean by that, one that appeals to our sense of justice. It is true that the English act is very comprehensive, but it has never appeared to me that the rule of the English law by which the head of a household is liable to a domestic servant for that domestic servant's carelessness is really a reasonable and just principle of law. Therefore we ought to have some particular reason for putting the liability upon the employer, and that reason might well be some particular element of danger. By calling an employment dangerous, I think, we do not make it dangerous even if now and then accidents occur in it. I think there are certain elements of danger which we could all point out, and that there are some elements of danger which we could all agree upon as making an occupation extremely hazardous.

We should also consider whether it would not be wise for the present to confine the liability to concerns of some magnitude. I know that it is very much questioned whether you can confine this extraordinary liability to large concerns, because it is open to the criticism that you simply make those pay who can afford to guard themselves through liability insurance. However, I think there is a real difference of principle based upon difference of size, because the relation of the small concern to the employe is totally different from that of the large concern, and it is only in the large concerns that these conditions prevail which, under modern conditions, seem to demand a shifting of the responsibility from the employe to the employer.

If you wish to be conservative, and not cover all the industries that have some element of hazard, you have to decide the very difficult question where to draw the line. When I read over the list of employments singled out in the compulsory bill recommended by the New York Commission, I was very much puzzled by the obvious fact that certain obviously hazardous employments were excluded, until I was informed that the principle was that of the non-competitive industry. Now, if you say that these industries are selected because they cannot get away from the law by moving across the state line, the discrimination looks objectionable; if, however, you say they are selected because they are not exposed to competition from industries operating under laws more favorable to the employer, the discrimination looks much more plausible. Even so, it is doubtful whether the principle of selection would approve itself to the Supreme Court of this State.

DR. W. H. ALLPORT (Illinois): It is evident we have in contemplation here two methods of arriving at a tentative solution of this question. (1) One method suggested by Professor Freund, which looked to me like a modification of the German method; that is, the method by which certain occupations have been gradually selected as being more and more hazardous, and gradually including the less hazardous occupations, until, I believe, in Germany the law covers all occupations and almost all employments. That is, it now covers farm employes, agricultural employes and the employes of our small establishments. (2) The other method suggested by Senator Sanborn, as a tentative law, follows more or less the English method, where the law was made right away to cover practically all employments; that is, the farming industry, domestic industry and other industries.

In considering this first clause of the tentative code, it would seem to me as though it would be possible to arrive at some definite definition. The English law has a section devoted entirely to the matter of definition, and defines employer, employe, dependent, and so forth, and some interesting questions have come up recently as to what are dependents under the English law. But the English law omits altogether to express what are hazardous employments. I will read the first section of Chapter LVIII of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1906, which is now the law of England:

"If in any employment personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman, his employer shall, subject as hereinafter mentioned, be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the first schedule to this act."

That covers all forms of employment, but it does not define any employment as being hazardous or non-hazardous.

I suppose the basis of our effort in this tentative "workers' code" is to arrive at something which will go behind our present courts and bring us in line with the state and federal constitutions, which will give the power to a State to enact a law which under ordinary circumstances it would not have, and so, therefore, the effort is made here to define dangerous employments. It is interesting to note the ingenuity with which that point is reached; _i. e._, that any employment becomes dangerous after an accident happens. In the Wisconsin law the effort is made directly; there is no definition, so far as I can see, in the Wisconsin law nor in the New York law. There are certain employments which are defined as extra-hazardous and, therefore, subject to state regulation.

There is another point in Section 1 and that is this: "An employment in which there hereafter occurs bodily injuries to any of the employes arising out of." To again recur to the English law, and also the German law, the English law covers other points besides bodily injuries; it covers in certain schedules dangerous diseases and trades accompanied by dangerous diseases. The question, therefore, which would arise in my mind is whether or not we should not in this tentative law embody a consideration of certain dangerous diseases. I happen to be a member of the Illinois Commission on Occupational Diseases, and, therefore, perhaps would be expected to see that in the bill, but aside from that fact it does seem to me that that is a matter for careful consideration. That the bill should cover diseases arising from mining work, diseases from deposits in the lungs where men are engaged in the woolen industry and the lead industry and in the match industry, and certain other dangerous occupations which are dangerous not on account of the personal injuries sustained by the employes, but on account of the danger to the health.

CHAIRMAN MERCER: Section 12 says. "Provision defining the words and phrases, and covering all tenses, pronouns and both sexes," should be put into the bill when it is finally drawn.

FRANK BUCHANAN (Illinois): I am a structural iron worker by trade and have worked at it for many years, and I guess there would not be much trouble in defining it as an extra-hazardous trade. We have a large number of men injured and killed at that trade, and because of that fact I have given this question of employers' liability much thought and study. For that reason I am here as an interested party to-day.

I am not in harmony with that part of the law as drawn up here which takes away the rights of a workman to bring an action in the courts. I take that view, first, because I believe it is the constitutional right of every worker to have action in the courts if he sees fit to do so. Secondly, I believe that when we do have that right of action, due to the negligence of an employer, that it is going to cause the employer to be more careful of how he conducts that particular kind of work, and the most important thing about this whole matter is to secure something that will act as a preventive of accidents.

PROF. JOHN H. GRAY (Minnesota): Would you be in favor, Mr. Buchanan, of a bill which gave the choice to the workmen?

MR. BUCHANAN: No; I favor the English law that gives him the right to bring suit if he sees fit and then take the compensation if he fails in his suit.

I had hoped, in view of the fact that they have brought this law about in European countries, that some of our States might take it up in the same manner. We have a problem here to confront and overcome that they do not have in European countries, in that we are largely governed by the laws of the various States, which, of course, differ widely. In the manufacturing industry, that gives ground for an argument against one State creating a law that does not apply to another State, the claim being made that the competition is not equal, and, of course, there is some ground for that argument. I believe, however, it is going to take a long time and be a very difficult thing to bring about the necessary uniform legislation throughout the States. For that reason I had hoped that we might be able to find some way to create a law affecting only those industries that may not be in competition with the industries of other States, such industries as have been referred to, as the building industry and construction work, and so forth. There are more men killed and injured in that industry than any other two, but due to the fact that there is no competition in that industry it is possible to make a law affecting that and let it be tried out. It might be a starting place to find a way to cover the other industries without affecting those industries in each State which are competitive or obstructing them in any way.

I find, however, in reading the history of the British labor legislation that the secretary of the Building Employers' Association in one of the large cities there has stated that that law has not obstructed the business, decreased the wages or decreased the profits, and that the building employers are not justified in any way in finding any fault with that law. It seems to me, therefore, there ought to be some way in which to pass a measure that would apply to that industry. Of course, it may be said that I am a structural iron worker, and interested in that craft which is a building trade, and am, therefore, more selfish about this matter. I feel, however, a great interest in securing better protection for workers in all industries. I know the dissatisfaction that is caused under present conditions; I know the women that are condemned to the washtub and the orphans to poverty, and, therefore, I am always willing to exercise my best efforts to secure better protection for those workers. In my opinion the present condition is the biggest blot that we have on our civilization.

Take my own trade, for instance, I have some figures here which I secured from our local secretary which may be of use to you. In 1906, out of a membership of about 1200, we had 29 deaths from accidents and 114 injuries. In 1907, when the work was very much reduced and our membership was greatly reduced, due to the panic brought on at that time, we had 132 injured and 12 deaths. In 1908, while still suffering from the effects of the panic, and not so many men working, probably seven hundred or eight hundred, we had 113 accidents and 7 deaths. In 1909, after we had recovered from the panic in our industry, we had 175 injured and 8 deaths out of a membership of about 1200.

In 1906, from the best information I could get, we paid out $12,060 in benefits to those who were injured or killed, and the average length of time of disability of those who were disabled was six weeks.

In conclusion, I believe I am expressing the sentiments of the trade-union people in the city of Chicago when I say that we are opposed to any law that will waive the right of action now in the hands of a workman. We think it should be as it is in Great Britain at the present time. Personally, I am in favor of going even further than that. I believe when a workman suffers an injury due to the carelessness of an employer or a superintendent, that that employer or superintendent should be sentenced to prison for that negligence. I mean by that those who are in charge of that work and who are responsible for that work. I claim that there should be a penal offense attached to that negligent act, and I believe that the majority of employers would have no objection to it; that is, those who are willing to use the necessary care for preventing these accidents. I hope that in the very near future the people in this country will become awakened to the need of these measures, and I believe the present facts obtainable will show that there can be fair protective measures created without any hardship whatever on the employer, although it may be necessary for them to add a small price on the product or on the contract price when he is bidding on construction work.

C. B. CULBERTSON (Wisconsin): I will assume a case in order that I may ask the last speaker a question. Say that in Wisconsin last year there was a loss, including the expense of court proceedings and obtaining judgments and everything that you could put under that head, of $460,000; that during that time the laboring men to whom this money should have gone got only from 18 to 25 per cent. of it; would he not prefer a law, if he could not get a better one, that would give 90 per cent. of that $460,000 to the sufferers, even if occasional large judgments should have to be waived?

MR. BUCHANAN: I always prefer getting the best we possibly can. We must consider the conditions under which we are laboring. I do not believe that the laboring people are willing to waive their right of action in the courts for something that they do not consider especially good. Of course, I am not here representing any laboring body, but from my association with them I am led to believe that I can speak as to their sentiments in the city of Chicago. I am a delegate to the Chicago Federation of Labor, one of the largest bodies of its kind in the country, if not the largest, and have heard those matters discussed there, and I would say that we are willing to accept nothing less than the best we can get, and we are willing always to accept that.