THE 
 
 MARTIN P. CATHERWOOD 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL 
 
 OF 
 
 INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR 
 
 RELATIONS 
 
 AT 
 
 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924000607543 
 
Report of Missouri Commission 
 
 ON 
 
 Employers' Liability and Workmen's 
 Compensation 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Governor and 47th General 
 ' Assembly 
 
 JANUARY 1913 
 
 -SiaS 
 
 THE HUGH STEPHENS PRINTING COMPANY 
 
 JEFFERSON OITT, MO. 
 
mi 
 
 300 copies ordered printed by the Eenate January 16, 1913. 
 
 B. L. DANIELS, Secretary. 
 
Letter of Transmittal Accompanying Report 
 
 OF 
 
 MISSOURI COMMISSION 
 
 ON 
 
 Employers' Liability and Workmen's 
 Compensation 
 
 To the Governor and the Forty-seventh General Assembly of the 
 
 State of Missouri: 
 
 The "Missouri Commission on Employers' Liability and Work- 
 men's Compensation" begs leave to transmit herewith a bill pre- 
 pared by it and to make the following report in connection there- 
 with: 
 
 This Commission was created in response to recommendations 
 made by the Commission appointed by Governor Hadley in 1910, 
 and also in compliance with a resolution of the Senate passed dur- 
 ing the session of the Forty-sixth General Assembly. The Commis- 
 sion consisted of fifteen members, appointed as follows : 
 
 By the President pro tem of the Senate, Forty-sixth General 
 Assembly : 
 
 Senator Arthur L. Oliver of Pemiscot county. 
 
 Senator W. Wallace Greene of Jackson county. 
 
 Senator Benjamin L. White of Linn county. 
 
 Senator A. L. E. Gardner of St. Louis county. 
 
 Senator Holmes Hall of Pettis county. 
 
 By the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Forty-sixth 
 General Assembly: 
 
 Hon. Jas. H. Hull of Platte county. Property of 
 
 Hon. Thos. J. Honey of Jasper cMWipsi p. CATHERWOOD LIBRARY 
 
 Hon. Joshua F. Barbee of Sahne couJ|f||lK yfljjjf Jj^jj-f ^^^^qq^ 
 
 Hon. McLain Jones of Greene couWD{|S7U|^^ AND tABOR RELATIONS 
 
 Cornell University 
 
[34c 
 
 Hon. Roy F. Britton of St. Louis county. 
 
 By Governor Herbert S. Hadley: 
 
 Mr. Chas. F. Keith, President Central Coal and Coke Company, 
 Kansas City, to represent the employers. 
 
 Mr. Ferd. C. Schwedtman, Chairman, Committee for Accident 
 Prevention and Workmen's Compensation, National Association of 
 Manufacturers; President Citizens Industrial Association, St. 
 Louis, to represent the employers. 
 
 Mr. Chas. G. Brittingham of Eldon, Chairman and Legislative 
 Representative, State Legislative Board Brotherhood of Locomo- 
 tive Engineers, to represent the employes. 
 
 Mr. George Manuel of Moberly, President District No. 25, 
 United Mine Workers of America, and representative of the Mis- 
 souri State Federation of Labor, to represent the employes. 
 
 Mr. John C. Barrows, St. Louis, General Agent Aetna Acci- 
 dent and Liability Co., to represent the insurance Interests. 
 
 The Commission organized by electing Senator Oliver chair- 
 man, and Senator Greene secretary. . 
 
 Copies of the compensation laws of other staites and a vast 
 amount of literature on the subject were furnished to the mem- 
 bers, and each member made an individual study of the various 
 phases of the matter. Public hearings were then held in St. Louis 
 and Kansas City, which were attended by a large number of em- 
 ployers, employes and other interested persons who gave the Com- 
 mission the benefit of their views and advice. At these hearings 
 testimony relating to industrial conditions in this state was given, 
 and the liability and compensation laws of foreign countries and 
 other states were explained by those who have observed their oper- 
 ation or have had actual experience with them. 
 
 The preliminary study of the Commission led to the same con- 
 clusion reached by all students of the subject — ^that the legal rem- 
 edy which a workman has against his employer for injuries re- 
 ceived in the course of his employment is inadequate. The present 
 legal principles in force in this state are based on fault. An em- 
 ploye injured in the course of his employment can recover damages 
 from his employer only when the jury finds that the employer 
 was guilty of negligence. He has no remedy for injuries caused 
 by the natural or inherent risks of the employment or by inevitable 
 and unavoidable accidents. It is contended that this principle 
 of the common law is unfitted to modern industrial conditions and 
 unjust to workmen injured in trade risks. It has been abandoned 
 
34o] 
 
 in almost every other industrial country and in fourteen states of 
 this counti-y. 
 
 How to remedy the situation is a question full of complex 
 problems and minor difficulties. There is a wide distinction be- 
 tween what are comnaonly termed "Employers' liability laws," and 
 "Workmen's compensation laws." A recovery under the former is 
 based on the actual or imputed negligence of the employer, and 
 some or all of the common law defenses are removed. Compensa- 
 tion laws, however, proceed upon the theory that the industry and 
 not the individual workman should bear the burden of industrisil 
 accidents, and such laws requil-ethe employer to pay certain sums 
 to his employes for all injuries received in the course of employ- 
 ment, excepting only those which are self-inflicted or directly caused 
 by intoxication. The chief objections to liability laws are that they 
 are uncertain in operation and unequal in administration ; that they 
 involve a large economic waste; that they give opportunity to un- 
 scrupulous persons to take advanta!ge of the unfortunate workman's 
 or his dependants' necessities; that they cause friction and ill- 
 feeling between employer and employe ; and that recovery of even 
 just sums is frequently attended with vexatious delays. 
 
 Of a number of men receiving injuries of the same nature in 
 the same manner, some now recover large amounts as damages, 
 some small amounts, and some nothings at all, the outcome largely 
 depending upon the relative ability and acumen of opposing coun- 
 sel, or the make-up of the jury. The doctrine of chance should 
 have no place in procedure designated to compensate for the 
 physical suffering and loss of time resulting from injuries received 
 in industrial accidents. It has been authoritatively stated that 
 only from forty to sixty per cent of the amounts paid by em- 
 ployers as damages actually reach the hands of injured work- 
 men or their dependants. A class of lawyers known as ambu- 
 lance chasers prey upon the injured parties and their families, 
 sometimes preventing a reasonable adjustment even when that 
 course would be to th? advantage of those affected by the disability; 
 and frequently receiving exorbitant fees for their services. Long 
 drawn put litigation wastes the means, time and energy of both 
 employer and employe. 
 
 It seems that the only way to eradicate the greatest defects 
 of our present system is to discard the theory that the employer 
 shall pay only when the accident is due to his negligence or fault. 
 These considerations naturally impelled the Commission to turn 
 
[34c 
 
 to compensation laws rather than liability laws as the best means 
 of correcting the evils which have caused the dissatisfaction. 
 
 Francis H, Bohlen, secretary of the Pennsylvania Inaustrial 
 Accidents Commission, says: 
 
 "The object of all compensation acts is (1), the 
 equalization of sums paid on account of similar injuries, so 
 that every man injured in a particular way will receive the 
 same sum; (2) the elimination of all possible waste, so 
 that as large a proportion as may be of that which the em- 
 ployer pays shall reach the hands of the person harmed 
 by the resulting disalaihty, and (3) the prevention of 
 accidents by supplying the incentive of self-interest to 
 secure adequate safety conditions of work." 
 
 The first compensation act was passed in Germany in 1884, and 
 in 1897 Great Britain changed its laws from liability to a com- 
 pensation system. In this country the first compensation law was 
 passed by New York in 1910, and was declared unconstitutional 
 by the court of last rfesort of that state. During the last two years 
 such laws have been passed by Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, 
 Massachussetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jer- 
 sey, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin, and about 
 twelve other states have such legislation under way. 
 
 There are three general types of compensation laws. (1) 
 What may be termed "State insurance" or "Quasi state insurance," 
 which contemplates the creation of a fund made up by contribu- 
 tions from employers and employes, and sometimes by the state, 
 and which is administered by the state; (2) "Compulsory insur- 
 ance," which compels the employer to insure against injuries 
 caused to his workmen, either in stock companies or mutual as- 
 sociations; and (3) "Simple compensation laws," which place lia- 
 bility solely on the individual employed, but permits him to in- 
 sure against the risk of accident. There are two forms of this 
 latter type of law, namely: First — "Compulsory acts," which 
 require payment of certain sums for injuries, and leave to the 
 workman no alternative means of recovery ; and second — "Elective 
 laws," which give both employer and employe the option of coming 
 under the compensations provisioned by agreement, or remain- 
 ing under a liability law, in which some or all of the common law 
 defenses are removed. 
 
S4e3 
 
 The first plan — the insurance scheme — such as is in effect in 
 Germany, seems to be designed to include old age and sick pensions, 
 as well as compensation for injuries received in work accidents, 
 and may be well adapted for such all-embracing purposes, although 
 recently the system has been severely arraigned by eminent Ger- 
 man students of the subject. Most of these plans require contribu- 
 tions from employes as well as employers, and this would be op- 
 posed by many of the workers of Missouri. It is extremely doubt- 
 ful if such a law could be constitutionally enacted in this state. 
 The Ohio and Washington laws, were drawn along the lines of the 
 German system, but they are now undergoing radical changes. 
 
 The second plan — compulsory insurance — is subject to many 
 of the same objections. The principal argument in favor of these 
 two plans is that they guarantee or secure compensation. This, 
 however, is not a consideration of first importance in preparing an 
 initial law on the subject which is intended to establish the prin- 
 ciple of compensation and yet leave opportunity for fair experi- 
 ment under it by- both classes affected- But whatever merit there 
 may be in the contention is largely offset by the objection that these 
 schemes tend to take away the incentive for the employer to make 
 his work as safe as possible, and the prevention of accidents is 
 one of the fundamental purposes of all, compensation laws. The 
 Commission felt, therefore, that it would be unwise to recommend 
 to the legislature a law embodying either of these two schemes,, 
 and so took up the study of the third plan, or the so-called "Sim- 
 ple compensation laws." 
 
 A compulsory . law was held unconstitutional in New York 
 for reasons that might be applied to such a law in this state. (Ives 
 v. South Buffalo Ey. Co., 94 Northwestern Reporter 431). Fur- 
 thermore, it was stated at the public hearings that a large number 
 of the workmen and the employers in this state did not wish to be 
 absolutely deprived of their right to go before a court and jury 
 and have their liability for damages for personal injuries deter- 
 mined. Elective laws, which leave with both the employer and 
 employe the option to accept or, reject the compensation provisions, 
 were designed to avoid both the constitutional difficulties and the 
 objection of depriving the parties of their right to resort to the 
 courts have been passed and are now in effect in Cahfornia, Illi- 
 nois, Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Is- 
 land and Wisconsin. The success of an optional or elective law 
 necessarily depends upon its fairness to both parties. If it im- 
 
[340 
 
 ,8 
 
 poses too great a burden upon the employer — one that cannot 
 be merged into the cost of production or places him at a disad- 
 vantage with his competitors I'n other states — he will not accept it ; 
 and if it does not reasonably compensate the employe for injuries 
 received in the course of his employment, he will not accept it. 
 The converse of this proposition necessarily follows, and the de- 
 gree of success attending the operation of any elective law novv 
 in force is chiefly manifested by the proportion of employers and 
 employes that have accepted it. The Commission found that the 
 New Jersey lay was probably proving more satisfactory than any 
 other law now in force in this country. This act was passed during 
 the administration of Governor Woodrow Wilson, was approved 
 by him April 4, 1911, and has, therefore, been in effect for nearly 
 two years. It has been accepted by all the employers of labor in 
 the state, excepting three, who have compensation and pension 
 schemes of their own which they did not wish to adanbon, and it 
 was reported to the Commission that no employe had rejected it. 
 
 Therefore, after the public hearings, the Commission appoint- 
 ed a sub-committee of five of its members — one senator, one rep- 
 resentative, one employer, one employe and one insurance man — 
 and this committee was instructed to draft a tentative bill along the 
 general lines of the New Jersey law. The committee sat for five 
 days, carefully constructing a bill, section by section, giving full 
 consideration to each part, and departing from the New Jersey 
 law only for the purpose of supplying obvious omissions or clari- 
 fying ambiguous provisions. Each member attended every session 
 of the sub-committee, giving careful and painstaking attention to 
 the work before it. As all the interests affected were represented 
 on the. Committee, a number of compromises were necessary; each 
 ■member yielded on unimportant details without doing violence 
 to principle, and a bill was unanimously reported to the whole 
 Commission by the sub-committee. The Commission gave full 
 consideration to this report, and, after due deliberation and mak- 
 ing some changes, approved the bill which is herewith submitted. 
 
 The bill does not purport to embody an ideal law to bring 
 :about Utopian conditions. The Commission presents what it be- 
 lieves to be a fair and just law, adapted to the actual industrial 
 .conditions of this state — one that reasonably compensates work- 
 men for their injuries and yet can be applied without unduly bur- 
 dening our industries ; one that deprives no man of his right to 
 
34c 
 
 resort to the courts, and one that ^ives ample opportunity to try 
 put the principle of workmen's compensation. 
 
 The bill, of course, speaks for itself, but a brief explanation 
 of its main provisions and the considerations which govern the 
 Commission in its preparation may be useful to those who have 
 not given much thought to the subject. The bill is in three parts: 
 Part I is a liability law and has no relation to the compensation 
 scheme, excepting the influence it may have on employers to in- 
 duce them to accept the compensation provisions contained in 
 part II. It applies only to those employers and ehiployes who do 
 not accept the compensation provisions, and damages may be re- 
 covered by the ordinary legal procedure for injuries caused by 
 the actual or imputed negligence of the employer, except that the 
 defenses of "assumed risk" and "fellow-servant" are abolished, 
 and the defense of "contributory negligence" is changed to that 
 of "willful negligence," the latter being made a question for the 
 jury. 
 
 Part II is the compensation law proper. It applies to all 
 cases where the employer and employe agree to accept it, and 
 both are presumed to have accepted it unless either serves writ- 
 ten notice on the other that part II is not accepted, and a copy 
 of such notice is filed with the Bureau of Labor Statistics at Jeffer- 
 son City. 
 
 Some of the optional laws have been failures because accept- 
 ance was made more difficult than rejection. One of the things 
 which has contributed to the relative failure of the optional laws 
 of California and Wisconsin is that it was necessary for employ- 
 ers to take affirmative action to bring themselves under the com- 
 pensation provisions. This bill is drawn so as to include all em- 
 ployers and employes (except farm laborers and domestic serv- 
 ants) under the compensating system, unless either elect to go 
 under the liability system. The Commission believes the com- 
 pensation scheme to be a good one, and has, therefore, made its re- 
 jection more difl[icult than its acceptance. 
 
 Part III contains definitions and provisions relating to both 
 former parts. 
 
 Farm laborers and domestic servants are not included in the 
 bill. The Commission may be criticized for apparently yielding 
 to political expediency in excluding these classes of employments, 
 but there is a justification founded on reason for this course. The 
 
[J34c 
 
 10 
 
 conditions of employment surrounding farm laborers and doines- 
 tic servants are quite different from those in other employments. 
 ' The relation between employer and employe is more intimate, and 
 the injured farm laborer or domestic servant is now usually cared 
 for during disability by the employer. The dissatisfaction with our 
 laws has not grown out of conditions existing in these employ- 
 ments. Some members of the Commission contended that the 
 principle of workmen's compensation of necessity embraces all 
 employments, and there is much merit in this contention, but in 
 excluding farm laborers and domestic servants from an initial 
 compensation law, precedent is furnished by Germany, England 
 and many of the states in this country. They have been ulti- 
 mately included in the laws of most foreign countries by sub- 
 sequent amendments, and New Jersey's first law included them, 
 but the Commission is of the opinion that they should not be in- 
 cluded in the first law on the subject in this State. 
 
 In connection with an optional law, a matter of supreme 
 importance is that the cost of workmen's compensation benefits 
 should bear a proper relation to the cost of employers' liability 
 settlements. This involves a consideration of the schedule of pay- 
 ments which are found in section 10 of the bill. It is funda- 
 mental that the compensation should be adequate but the standard 
 or measure should not be based upon the amounts recovered in 
 isolated cases in the past. It should be remembered that under 
 compensation laws practically all injuries will be compensated 
 and the injured party or his dependents will promptly receive the 
 entire amount named in the schedule, while under liability laws 
 they must divide with their attorneys the amount received as 
 damages, frequently after long delays. Furthermore, many suits 
 to recover damages for personal injuries have been defeated, and 
 for a majority of injuries there are no grounds for recovery under 
 liability laws. 
 
 In fixing the schedule of payments the various causes of acci- 
 dents should also be considered, as this bears on the question of 
 what proportion of the burden the industry should properly as- 
 sume. 
 
 The following table, taken from the official reports of Ger- 
 many, sums up the results of inquiry as to questions of fault of 
 81,248 accidents compensated for the first time in 1907. 
 
34c] 
 
 11 
 
 Accidents due to Per cent 
 
 1. Famt of employer 12.06 
 
 2. Fault of the workman , 41.26 
 
 3. Fault of both employer and workman 91 
 
 4. Fault of fellow workman or third party 5.94 
 
 5. General hazard of the industry ' 37.65 
 
 6. Other causes (chance, act of God, etc.) 2.18 
 
 The schedule of payments embodied in the bill is the same 
 as that provided by the New Jersey law. 
 
 Attention was called to the fact that this schedule was some- 
 what lower than those of the Illinois and Kansas acts, but the 
 Commission was informed that these acts have not been accepted 
 by one-third of the employers in either of those states. 
 
 It is also lower 'than the schedule of the Wisconsin and Cali- 
 fornia laws. In these states more employers are operating under 
 the common law than under the compensating law, and largely 
 because the cost of insurance there under the compensation laws 
 is naturally higher than under the common law, while in New 
 Jersey the difference in cost is slight. Therefore, the schedule 
 in' these laws could not be followed as proper standards for a suc- 
 cessful act. The schedule used compares favorably with the sched- 
 ule in the bill recommended by the executive council of the Ameri- 
 can federation of labor and the national civic federation. 
 
 In preparing the bill, the Commission has been actuated by 
 an earnest desire to establish the principle of workmen's com- 
 pensation in this State. It should be understood that any law 
 on the subject will revolutionize our entire liability system. To 
 realize the ideal of workmen's compensation is immediately im- 
 possible. There must be a certain process of evolution. Both the 
 employer and the employe must understand that the underlying 
 principle is to place the burden of industrial accidents primarily 
 upon the industry, but ultimately upon society at large. A writer 
 on the subject recently said : 
 
 "It has been found by careful study and observation 
 that practically all piodern industries are subject to acci- 
 dents causing injury and death to the workman; that 
 the number of accidents in any given industry over a 
 series of years is more or less stable ; that the degree of 
 accidental injury in any one group of industries remains 
 fairly constant; that accidents are governed by the law 
 
[34c 
 
 12 
 
 of probability; and that they are to a certain degree in- 
 evitable. 
 
 "The fact being established that there is a certain 
 accident risk attaching to industrial employment — prin- 
 ciples of justice and humanity demand that the loss shall 
 in no event fall w^holly on the workman. Statistics show 
 that a large percentage of accidents are not due to the 
 negligence or fault of the employer, or of the emploj^e, 
 but are due to inevitable accidents connected with employ- 
 ment." 
 
 The cost of compensation for these accidents can in time be 
 merged into the cost of production; safety of operation will then 
 become an element in that cost, and so competition in the preven- 
 tion of accidents should naturally become as "keen as competition 
 in the quality of the products, or any other element in the econo- 
 my of production. The great social and industrial advantage of 
 this situation is self-evident. But it cannot be attained under an 
 elective compensation law unless the law is fair and just to the em- 
 ployer and employe alike and is generally accepted by both. Judg- 
 ing from the experience of other states, the Commission is of 
 the opinion that the law it recommends would be so generally ac- 
 cepted. By direction of the Commission, this report was prepared 
 by the undersigned committee. 
 
 A copy, of the proceedings of the Commission and copy of the 
 bill is transmitted herewith. , 
 
 Respectfully submitted for the Commission. 
 
 W. WALLACE GREENE, 
 THOS. J. RONEY, 
 ROY F. BRITTON. 
 
 Subcommittee. 
 
PROCEEDINGS 
 
 Of the Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation 
 Commission, which convened in Parlor B, Planters Hotel, in St. 
 Louis., Mo. September 25, 1912. 
 
 The Commission was called to order by Chairman Oliver. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: In calling this meeting together, I wish 
 to thank the gentlemen of the Commission for the honor which 
 they conferred upon me in electing me chairman. What is the 
 pleasure of the Commission? 
 
 Mr. Britton: I have a resolution which I wish to offer. My 
 purpose in drafting this was to submit to the Commission a sug- 
 gestion or plan for work. As I understand it, we have been ap- 
 pointed from three different sources, and without any statement 
 of our position, individually or as a Commission. Therefore, . 
 when we meet to hear argument on this subject, we may have to 
 listen to a great deal on the advisability and need of such a law. 
 It seems to me that that is practically conceded at this day, the 
 question really before us .is what form of a law we should propose 
 to the Legislature, and that we should confine our attention to an 
 investigation of the different laws and determine what sort of a law 
 we should have, if any. Then we ought to have some plan of pro- 
 ceeding after this meeting today, therefore I put this before the 
 Commission. I have drafted this resolution so that our position 
 may be known, and so that the chairman may conduct hearings 
 along the proper line. 
 
 "Whereas, This Commission concedes the wisdom and need of 
 a fair and equitable law in this State providing for the compen- 
 sation of workmen injured in industrial accidents; therefore, be it 
 
 Kesolved, That the Commission shall confine itself to de- 
 termiiie the character of the proposed law, the industries to be 
 covered, the means by which compensation shall be paid, and the 
 amount thereof, and that meetings shall be held in St.' Louis, Kan- 
 sas City, and such other places as shall be hereafter decided upon 
 for the purpose of hearing recommendations and arguments of 
 all concerned on these matters only, and be it furthet 
 
[34e 
 
 14 
 
 Resolved, That the whole Commission shall then decid^' (1) 
 what form the law shall take and the means by which compen- 
 sation shall be paid, and (2) the industries to which it shall 
 apply, and (3) the general scale of compensation; and the chair- 
 man shall then appoint three members of the Commission to pre- 
 pare a bill, which, when completed, shall be referred to the whole 
 Commission for its final consideration." 
 
 That simply means that this commission shall hear the sug- 
 gestions offered and determine these general subjects and then 
 appoint a small working committee for the purpose of drafting 
 a bill. 
 
 Chairman Oliver : Let the record show the submission of this 
 resolution, and it will be considered, I take it, at the adjourned 
 meeting at two o'clock, or soon thereafter. 
 
 Mr. Barbee: I move we adjourn until two o'clock. 
 
 The motion was duly seconded. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: Mr. Schweidtman, in your absence, it was 
 suggested a while ago that in view of the fact that quite a num- 
 ber of the members are absent, and the secretary has letters say- 
 ing they will be here, we thought it best to adjourn until two o'clock 
 this afternoon. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : I want to apologize for being a few min- 
 utes late, I just came to town a few minutes ago. 
 
 Chairman Oliver. It has been regularly moved and seconded 
 that we now stand adjourned until two o'clock this afternoon. All in 
 favor of the motion make it known by saying aye ; opposed, no. 
 
 The ayes seem to have it. The ayes have it and we now will 
 stand adjourned until two o'clock this afternoon. 
 
 WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, 2:00 O'CLOCK, P. M., 
 SEPTEMBER 25, 1912. 
 
 The Commission was called to order by Chairman Oliver. 
 
 Chairman Oliver : Before the recess, or adjournment, we had 
 submitted the resolution by Mr. Britton, which I will ask the sec- 
 retary to read for your information, if there are any of you who 
 were not supplied with a copy. 
 
 Secretary Greene: "Whereas, this Commission concedes the 
 wisdom of a fair and equitable law in this State providing for 
 the compensation of workmen injured in industrial accidents; 
 therefore, be it 
 
 Resolved, That the Commission shall confine itself to deter- 
 
34c] 
 
 15 
 
 mining the character of the proposed law, the industries to be cov- 
 ered, the means by which compensation shall be paid, and the 
 amount thereof, and that, meetings shall be held in St. Louis, Kan- 
 sas City, and such other places as shall hereafter be decided upon 
 for the purpose of hearing recommendations and arguments of all 
 concerned on these matters only; and be.it further 
 
 Resolved, That the whole Commission shall then decide (1) 
 what form the law shall take and the means by which compen- 
 sation shall be paid, and (2) the industries to which it shall ap- 
 ^ply, and (3) the general scale of conipensation ; and the chairman 
 shall then appoint three members of the Commission to prepare 
 a bill, which, when completed, shall be referred to the whole 
 Commission for its final consideration." 
 
 Chairman 'Oliver: Under the usual proceeding, gentlemen, 
 the discussion comes upon this resolution by the author, who re- 
 serves the right, of course, to conclude the argument, if he so 
 desires. 
 
 Mr. Britton: I would suggest that I would like to amend 
 that resolution to provide, instead of a committee of three,' a 
 committee of five. My purpose in providing for a small commit- 
 tee was to get one that would be workable, and one that could 
 easily get together and thresh out the details of any proposition 
 which was agreed upon in general by the Commission, but it 
 seems to me that the Commission should be made up of one rep- 
 resentative of each of the interests represented on the commis- 
 sion, therefore, I would like to amend this to provide a committee 
 of three members — that that should be changed to a committee of 
 five members, one to be a member of the Senate, one a member 
 of the House of Representatives, one a representative of the employ- 
 ers, one a representative of the employes, and one a representa- 
 tive of the insurance companies. I believe I have nothing to add 
 except that. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: Will you wi-ite that amendment out? 
 
 Mr. Keith: I second the amendment. 
 
 Secretary Greene: I would suggest that Mr. Britton write 
 his amendment, or the resolution, in its final form. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: Gentlemen, Mr. Britton, the author of 
 this resolution, will submit in writing his amendment, which will 
 provide for a committee of five members instead of three, to be 
 appointed, and that this committee shall be composed of one rep- 
 resentative of the Missouri State Senate, one from the Missouri 
 
t34c 
 
 16 
 
 House of Representatives, one from the employers, one froni the 
 organization representing the employes, and one representative 
 of the insurance companies. Is there any discussion upon this 
 amendment? 
 
 Mr. Barbee : I see that this amendment provides for a workr 
 ingmen's compensation law, would that include the employers' lia- 
 bility as well as the workingmen's compensation? I take it that 
 it does. 
 
 Chairman Oliver : I take it that the inquiry is not pertinent 
 to the amendment just now. If there is no further argument, as 
 many as are in favor of the amendment let it be known by saying 
 aye ; opposed, no. The ayes, seem to have it. The ayes have it. 
 That amendment will be submitted in writing. 
 
 The questions now recur upon the general discussion of the 
 entire resolution. 
 
 Mr. Barbee : Now,. I wish to ask that question : I presume that 
 it does include that, but 1 am not certain. 
 
 Chairman Oliver : The chair in answer to that states that the 
 resolution itself provides that a commission shall confine itself 
 (1) to determining what the character of the bill to be proposed 
 will be. That is one of the things to be determined. 
 
 Mr. Britton: I think that Mr. Barbee's question relates to 
 the first part of the resolution. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: If so, it is conceded that there will be 
 some sort of a bill proposed. The next question then recurs upon 
 the character of that bill. Gentlemen, is there any discussion 
 upon this resolution? 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: Is thjs the discussion of the resolution 
 offered this morning? 
 
 Chairman Oliver : Yes, sir. , 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: There is some suggestion made by Mr. 
 Manuel, we thought that perhaps this committee should be com- 
 posed of at least one more mehiber. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: That has been amended to provide for 
 five on the committee. 
 
 Do you care to discuss the resolution, Mr. Britton? 
 
 Mr. Britton : I don't believe I have anything to add to what 
 I said this morning, except for the benefit of those that came 
 in late. My purpose in submitting this ' resolution was to pro- 
 vide a starting point and a simple plan of action for the Com- 
 mission. This is a very big subject, and there are, a great many 
 
34o] 
 
 17. 
 
 thipgs to be considered, but the first is what kind of a law, what 
 character of workingmen's compensation or employers' liabili- 
 ty law we should have. As all the members of the Commission 
 know, there are several kinds, and it seems to me that that question 
 is one to be determined by the Commission as a whole, and when 
 we have heard the arguments and suggestions of anyone inter- 
 ested in the subject the Commissioners will then determine what 
 sort of a law we shall have, and appoint a sub-committee for the 
 purpose of drafting a bill to be submitted to the whole Commission 
 afterwards, and for the Commission to take it up then section by 
 section and decide whether or not this law should be introduced, 
 or whether or not any changes should be made. The resolution 
 constitutes only a working plan. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: Any further discussion, gentlemen? The 
 purpose of this resolution, as the chair ruled, is that it is up 
 to this committee to determine first, under this resolution, if 
 adopted, the character of the law that we shall have, the indus- 
 tries to be covered, etc. Do you, before its adoption, desire to 
 settle those matters by amendment, or do you desire to adopt the 
 resolution as it is amended and then use it as a basis for work- 
 ing out the proposed plan ? There are two methods to get at it, one 
 is to adopt it as it stands, and then use that as a basis for deter- 
 mining other questions. 
 
 Mr. Hall: It seems to me it would be proper to adopt the 
 resolution, and then follow out what it says. 
 
 Chairman Oliver : If there are no objections we will vote upon 
 it in that manner, and then proceed to use this resolution, if 
 adopted, as- a plan for arriving at some definite conclusion. Are 
 you ready for the question? As many as favor the adoption of 
 the resolution as amended, let it be known by saying aye; opposed, 
 no. The ayes seem to have it. The ayes have it. 
 
 By the adoption of this resolution it is first to be determined, 
 it says, that this Commission concedes the wisdom and need of 
 a fair and equitable law in this State providing for the com- 
 pensation of workmen injured in industrial accidents. Its next 
 requirement is that we shall determine what character of a bill 
 is to be proposed. Has any one any resolution? 
 
 Mr. Barrow: Would this not be the proper point at which 
 to begin the public hearing, and let our minds be influenced by 
 that before proceeding any further? It seems to me that the hear- 
 
 340—2 
 
C34c 
 
 18 
 
 ings should come in first, and after the hearings we could t|ien 
 act more intelligently. 
 
 Chairman Oliver : The suggestion is a good one, if we want 
 to consider it all as a whole. I take it that there are people here 
 present that want to be heard and who . would like to discuss the 
 entire feature of the bill. 
 
 Mr. Barrow: Then, I think, we can go into executive ses- 
 sion on the entire bill. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: Are there any gentlemen that would like 
 to be heard on the proposed legislation provided for in this reso- 
 lution ? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling. I am here, but if there is anybody else that 
 wants to be heard before me, I am perfectly willing to give way. 
 I don't know that I want to break the ice. 
 
 Mr. Barrow: Would it not be well to have these gentlemen 
 introduced, that come before the Commission, so that we will all be 
 better acquainted with them? 
 
 Mr. Wheehng: My name is Wheeling, and I live in St. 
 Louis and am a member of the Brotherhood of Railroad Train- 
 men. 
 
 Before I take up this argument, I would^like to qualify that 
 statement. I am a member of the Railroad Trainmen, and, as a 
 great many of the senators and representatives know, at the last 
 two sessions of the Legislature I represented the Trainmen of 
 the State of Missouri, but today I am representing Pacific Lodge 
 No. 64, Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, consisting of 238 mem- 
 bers employed in the train service in and aronnd St. Louis. I 
 don't want it to be understood that I am now acting under the 
 direction of the entire lodge of Missouri. We have 29 lodges 
 in this State, and our organization in this State has not spoken 
 officially on this proposition, but my organization, the Brother- 
 hood of Trainmen, with 122,000 members in the United States 
 and Canada, at several of their conventions have gone on rec- 
 ord in favor of a compensation law, but they stand for the prin- 
 ciple, but when this national law was introduced and the men 
 learned something of its purport, there was a great deal of op- 
 position arose in regard to it. Now, the men in my lodge, last 
 Monday night, instructed me to come here and represent them in 
 opposition to the compensation act, basing their position upon the 
 proposed federal law. Now, when the law was introduced in 
 the United States Senate — . . 
 
34o] 
 
 19 
 
 A member of the Commission : You mean you are opposed to 
 any compensation law? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling : I have been instructed to come here in oppo- 
 sition to any compensation law. The men said that they were 
 willing to have their cases handled under this employees liability 
 act, which has been declared constitutional by the United States 
 Supreme Court. Now, when this federal law was proposed, the 
 editor of this magazine, Mr. Seitz, one of our members, was ap- 
 pointed by the president as one of the Commission to prepare this 
 bill. After the bill was submitted to the Senate, the lodge which 
 I represent today, wired Senator Stone and Senator Reed to sup- 
 port the measure. After receiving a message from Mr. Reed 
 and further information on the subject, they wired Senator Reed 
 and Senator Stone to withdraw their support — that they were 
 opposed to the measure, and Senator Reed, if you are not aware 
 of it, is opposed to this federal compensation law. He is not op- 
 posed to the principle, but to the details. 
 
 Now, I have here a magazine containing a resolution that was 
 adopted at Spokane, Washington, and this was held under the 
 auspices of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Firemen, 
 Trainmen and Conductors, the convention that adopted this reso- 
 lution. They protest loudly and strongly against this law. Now, 
 I believe you gentlemen want to draft a bill that will meet with 
 as little opposition as possible, so we have made a note of some 
 of the objections of the members I represent. The members hold 
 that it is an inherent right for a man to sue, and they don't want 
 any law enacted that will take away the right of a man to sue for 
 damages. 
 
 Mr. Britton: May I interrupt you a minute? For the bene- 
 fit of the members that are not familiar with the federal act, it 
 is a fact that the federal act now applies only to persons engaged 
 or employed in interstate commerce and that that act is a lia- 
 bility act which takes away contributory negligence and assumed 
 risk and establishes in lieu thereof comparative negligence. Now, 
 the object is to draft a compensation act for Missouri. Now, is 
 it not a fact that every member of your lodge, every member of 
 the trainmen in Missouri are engaged in the interstate commerce, 
 so they would not be materially affected by this Missouri law? 
 
 Mr. WheeHng: They are engaged in what the court holds is 
 now interstate commerce. 
 
t34e 
 20 
 
 Mr. Britton: So then they would come under the federal act 
 and not under this act? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: Yes, sir. They don't want any law to take 
 away from them the right to sue. They want a law, if they elect 
 to have their case handled under that law, if it is a compensa- 
 tion law, that they will be privileged to do that, and then if they 
 think they can get better results under this liability law, they 
 want the privilege of working under the liability law. 
 
 Chairman Oliver : Now, you mean by that, they want' the 
 right to determine in the beginning of their employment which one 
 they would go under? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: Not necessarily at the beginning of their 
 employment. 
 
 Chairman Oliver : They want it to remain optional to be 
 determined after the accident occurs? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling : Yes, sir. Now, of course — 
 
 Chairman Oliver : Do you think that is fair ? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling : I am not here to discuss the fairness of it. I 
 am telling you that the men instructed me to come here. I am 
 working under their instructions. I am not here representing 
 myself, if I was, I would not be here today. Now, you must con- 
 cede that the only basis we have to argue on is the proposed fed- 
 eral law that passed the Senate, and I understand that you want 
 to frame a bill that would be equitable. Now, there is another 
 proposition that comes upon that federal law. Here is a man 
 working upon a passenger train and he was injured, we will say. 
 After two weeks had elapsed, then he was paid 50% of his wages, 
 and we figured it out that he would draw $14.00 for the first month. 
 Now, those, men hold that his compensation should date from the 
 day of the injury, and not two weeks after the date of the injury. 
 They make that as another point. 
 
 Now, there is another point that they make. That they are not 
 in favor of any law whatever that they would have to contribute 
 to any fund to help maintain or help pay the expenses of the 
 operation of the law. Now, you are no doubt aware that on the' 
 Missouri Pacific Railroad, that the men are maintaining a hos- 
 pital, and they are assessed every month, and it is taken out of 
 their wages, they never see the money, and it is put into the hos- 
 pital fund, and even if they never go in there, they have to pay for 
 it just the same. In addition to that they pay their dues into the 
 local organizations, and at the meeting I attended Monday night 
 
34c] 
 
 21 
 
 there was a member reported who was being operated on for 
 cancer. They were taking up a collection, and many of them 
 were contributing a dollar or two dollars, and they feel that they 
 are under enough expense without being required to contribute 
 to any fund of this kind. 
 
 I worked on the Burlington Railroad, and they have a relief, 
 which they say is voluntary, but it is compulsory. They are re- 
 quired to contribute, and they think they are carrying enough 
 of a burden without any further expense. 
 
 Now, there is another point that is very vital to these men. 
 In this Federal law it states that when a man is injured and 
 is not permanently incapacitated, so that he is in a position to do 
 some employment, the railroad company will give him a position in 
 lieu of the compensation, and they have to pay 90% of his former 
 wages. Now, the question arises, in case a strike comes up oh that 
 railroad and this man who has been given a position with 90% 
 of his former wages is called upon by that company what we 
 term "scabbing" taking the place of strikers, and he refuses to 
 do it, what becomes of him? The company discharges him, and 
 does his compensation then come to an end ? So, that is a very 
 vital question that comes up with our men during the discussion 
 of tha employers' compulsory compensation act. 
 
 Now, another question that is very vital, and it is a very im- 
 portant question, they hold that this compensation derived by this 
 federal bill is too small. Now, it states in that law that if a man 
 loses both limbs, both arms, or total blindness, that they will pay 
 him for his entire life 60% of his wages. Now, if a man loses 
 his leg, probably you are not aware of it, but in the trainmen's 
 organization we have paid out very nearly $25,000,000.00 relief, 
 and if a man loses his hand or foot, we pay his insurance the same 
 as if he was killed, or lost both feet or both hands. Now, this 
 federal law provides, that in case a man loses a hand or limb, or 
 hearing in both ears, they give him, in case of the loss of one 
 arm, at or above the elbow joint, or the complete loss of one arm, 
 72 months. He is paid at the rate of 50% of his former wages. 
 If he gets $100.00 a month he would get $50.00 for 72 months, 
 which is $3600.00, but if you take that $3600.00 and put in the 
 bank, by the time they paid him the 72 months they would have 
 drawn in the neighborhood of $600.00 interest on that money, 
 so it would virtually be paying to this injured man $3000.00. A 
 good many of the men hold, I find in meeting them and discussing it 
 
[3fc 
 
 22 
 
 with them, they hold that this money ought to be paid to them in 
 a lump sum. They also think that for the loss of an arm or a 
 limb $3600.00 is not enough, and in the 72 months the fellow has 
 drawn his $50.00 a month, and as we all know, in this day, a man 
 trying to support a family on $50.00 a month, incapacitated by 
 the loss of his hand or leg or of his hearing or of both eyes, he 
 has to get out on the street and sell shoe strings or something 
 of that kind. They feel that under the federal liability act they 
 can get a greater amount than under this compensation law. Those 
 are the principal points that are raised in opposition to this 
 measure. I have here the resolution that was adopted at Spokane, 
 Washington, in ' opposition to it by those four organizations, and 
 if you gentlemen would like to hear it or have it read you are priv- 
 ileged to do so. 
 
 Mr. Hall: What do you pay in your organization for that 
 
 insurance? 
 
 "Mr. Wheeling: It is divided into three classes. Class A, 
 $500.00; Class B, $1000.00; and Class C, $1500.00. 
 
 Mr. Hall: Is that what they pay? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: No, that is what they get. There is an ar- 
 bitrary rate that the men have to pay every month $2.00 a month, 
 and the insurance was raised from $1350.00 to $1500.00 with the 
 understanding that if there was not enough money derived from 
 that assessment, that they were to levy special assessmen'^s, and 
 the first of August, these men holding their $1500.00 insurance' 
 policies, paid an assessment of $1.00, that would make $25.00 for 
 the year to carry a pohcy of $1500.00. Then, in addition to that, 
 they have to pay 75 cents a month dues to support the local 
 lodge, and the grand lodge, and frequently several dollars for 
 grievance committee assessments, as Mr. Brittingham, who is a 
 locomotive engineer, knows is great, and a man carrying a Class 
 C policy in the Trainmen, it is safe to say it costs him about $40.00 
 a year for his grievance committee and all of his assessments and 
 everything. A man carrying Class B has to pay $1.50, but he pays 
 as much toward the revenue of the lodge as the man that carries 
 Class C, and the Class A man pays 75 cents a month, but he has 
 to pay the same in assessments and for the grievance committee. 
 Now, this money is placed in a beneficiary fund of our organiza- 
 tion, and not a dollar is paid out for anything except insurance. 
 Now that averages over $200,000.00 a motith that we pay out, two 
 
34e] 
 
 23 
 
 and one-half millions of dollars a year on 122,000 members at the 
 present time. 
 
 Mr. Hall: Then the real idea is to get out of paying any- 
 thing? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: They are opposed to contributing anything 
 to a fund in conjunction with the employer to pay a compensation. 
 
 Mr. Barrow: Your lodge is under the impression that this 
 law will be an addition to this federal law? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: No, they don't think that. 
 
 Mr. Barrow : When the federal law takes effect they want 
 to be taken out of the state law, they want to come under the 
 federal law? 
 
 Mr. Britton: What lodge do you represent? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling : Pacific lodge No. 64. 
 
 Mr. Britton : Are the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen op- 
 posed to this law? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: They have gone on record several times in 
 favor of this compensation law, and the editor of our magazine 
 was one of the Commission to draft that law. But we have a 
 clause in our constitution, and when I represented them in Jef- 
 ferson City, it was to try to secure certain legislation. Mr. 
 Brittingham was a member of our organization, and if he tried 
 to oppose that legislation he would be subject to expulsion from 
 the organization. The same applied to this federal litigation, but 
 the president suspended the rule and said to the men all over the 
 country, you can use your own judgment, if you are opposed to it, 
 go ahead and fight it, and that was the reason that the bill failed 
 to pass Congress. 
 
 Mr. Britton: The Commission that drew this federal law 
 was made of Senators and Representatives and employers and 
 labor representatives? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: I think the same as your Commission here. 
 The editor of our magazine was the representative of the or- 
 ganized labor on that Commission. 
 
 Mr. Keith: I understand you are opposed to any form of 
 compensation that puts any burden on the men ? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: The men I represent are opposed to it. 
 
 Mr. Keith: I understand that ypu want a workmen's com- 
 pensation act that takes away the defenses from the employer 
 and gives you the option on your part to either take under the 
 
[Me 
 24 
 
 law or to turn aside under a liability feature law. You want to 
 exercise that after the accident? 
 
 Mr; Wheeling: The instructions that we have from these 
 men, that were given to me on Friday night was that the right 
 to sue was an inherent right, and they didn't want any law en- 
 acted that would take away that right. If they want to sue they 
 want to exercise that right, and have no law stand in their 
 way. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : Mr. Wheeling, in your estimate of $3600.00 
 compensation for the loss of a hand, how many injured brakemen 
 or trainmen, what per cent would you figure on that have lost a 
 hand? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling : I would not want to figure on that until I see 
 the present liability law working, and a case decided under that. 
 There have not been very many cases decided under that that 
 have been called to my attentioh, and I would not attempt to make 
 any estimate until I have more information. We worked very 
 hard to j^et that law through, you know that.' You may not 
 know it, but for years we have had a national representative at 
 Washington, and in fact it was our organization that secured the 
 enactment of this automatic coupler and air brake law, and in 
 conjunction with the engineers and other organizations, for years 
 we have maintained a man at Washington, and one of our great- 
 est fights was for this employers liability law. ' 
 
 (Mr. Schweidtman interrogated Mr. Wheeling, but the re- 
 porter at that time was sitting at Mr. Schweidtman's back and 
 was unable to hear.) 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: It would not make and difference to us how 
 many compensation acts you have, the members of the organiza- 
 tion must take some sort of other insurance. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: You would still keep your insurance? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: Yes, sir, there is no better insurance in the 
 world. Show me where you can get an insurance organization 
 to insure a brakeman for $1500.00 when he has tuberculosis, or 
 is incapicitated, they pay him that, and we give him $1500.00 for 
 $2.00 a month. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : Quite right, I am not discussing the value 
 of your insurance, although I am very heartily in favor of that 
 kind of insurance. Now, this would be over and above that, and 
 ■jvould that not give you a higher compensation for accidents? 
 Would it not be worth more money to you? 
 
34cJ 
 
 25 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: Here is the point I would like to make on 
 that very subject. You take a man and put an expense on him 
 for carrying this compensation. He is in some of these brother- 
 hoods, and is discharged after he reaches a certain age, and he 
 has carried this compensation along, and on account of that he 
 has not taken out other insurance, and he reaches a certain age, 
 an age that is almost prohibitive as far as taking insurance is 
 concerned, and his rights cease, where, will he get any more insur- 
 ance ? 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: You assume that it would cease? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling. Yes, sir, ust the same as if he is working for' 
 the Burlington and they require hi to corry the insurance they 
 have, and the brotherhood makes it so that he cannot carry other 
 insurance. 
 
 Mi". Wood: Do I understand you to sa;y that. the members 
 of your lodge desire to retain in the right to sue for damages ? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Wood: Or to fix the compensation? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Wood: Do they desire to make that at the time of 
 entering into the contract with the employer, or wait until the 
 injury occurs? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: They want to wait until the injury occurs, 
 so if they can get better results from the liability law they can 
 act under that, and if 'they thought they would get better results 
 from the compensation law they would choose that. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Do yoU consider that entirely fair? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling : I am here representing those men, and I 
 am not here to argue. This is against their wishes, but if it had 
 been by own ideas I would present, I would not have been here 
 today. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: Is that not the very point on which the 
 New York law was declared unconstitutional ? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: I know it was declared unconstitutional, but 
 I am not familiar with the point. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : Really, under this document; a ma,n draw- 
 ing $90.00 a month under the federal compensation law, — 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: 90% of his former wages, it is. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: Now, is it not a fact that Mr. Seitz,'who 
 was a member of that Commission, and representing the laboring 
 men, had a hard fight- to' get .that m\ m there ? 
 
[34c 
 
 26 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: I don't know what his efforts were along 
 that line. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : He is the man that had it put in, and there 
 is a great deal of misunderstanding among the railroad men, that 
 by accepting employment under that clause they are compelled to 
 accept it. That is a misunderstanding; they are not compelled 
 to accept that at all. If, after receiving their settlement with 
 the company, say $50.00 per month, the company offers them 
 employment, and that employment has got to pay $90.00 a month, 
 if it pays $80.00 they have to make that other $10.00 a month 
 good. The object that Mr. Seitz had in that matter was this, a 
 great many railroad men, for instance, that have grown to 45 or 
 50 years of age, and have become incapacitated in their work, it is 
 a hard time to start out for anything else, and the object was to 
 take care of that injured employe and give him something to do 
 instead of throwing him out on the world, and instead of giving 
 him $50.00 a month they could give him some other employment, 
 but it must not be less than $90.00 a month, and that was Mr. 
 Seitz' own work. There may a little misunderstanding among 
 the railroad men as to the object of that section, but the article 
 before that states that a man partially disabled, a man that can- 
 not follow his usual vocation could possibly be placed at some 
 other work for a while, and until he fully recovered from the in- 
 jury, and there is a provision in there that some of them misunder- 
 stand, and it conflicts with the other section, but as I stated, there 
 is a great misunderstanding about section 22. It was put there 
 through the efforts and influence of Mr. Seitz. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: Any further questions to ask, Mr. Wheel- 
 ing? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling : There was another thing that arose in regard 
 to this bill. It was rumored that a claim agent of the railroad had 
 gotten this bill up and the railroads were very much in favor of it, 
 and that it passed the Senate first, and some of them kind of classed 
 the United States Senate along with the State Senate, and they 
 thought that the fact that it passed the Senate first that the trans- 
 action didn't look good to them, and it made them a little suspi- 
 cious. 
 
 Mr. Britton: How about the claim agent, their reference to 
 that? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: I don't know about that. There is another 
 suggestion : I have been a member of labor organizations for 25 
 
34o3 
 
 27 
 
 1 
 
 years continuously, and I believe that if you have a bill that you 
 should have that bill printed and placed in the hands of the secre- 
 taries of as many organizations as the bill affects prior to the time 
 ' that the General Assembly convenes, that it would be then very 
 helpful to them in discussing the bill. That was one trouble about 
 this federal bill, the men didn't see enough of It before it was in- 
 troduced, and then after tihese rumors .were circulated in many 
 instances they took a great many things for granted, and using 
 this magazine, which all of the men use, and our National President 
 going in favor of it, and the editor of our magazine being on the 
 Commission, you would be surprised at the strength of the objec- 
 tion that was raised against that federal compensation bill. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: It was suggested by one or two of your 
 progressive leaders in Washington. 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: I believe that if the employers had come up 
 there to assist me that the men would have been suspicious of the 
 law. I 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: Now, the rumor that you speak of, re- 
 garding the Claim Agents Association as to the federal law, the 
 fact of the case is that that law originated through the passage of 
 a resolution of June 20, 1910, from a joint resolution in Congress, 
 and that was secured through the influence of the representatives 
 of the railroads, and they requested that that resolution be passed, 
 and so the rumor. I have also seen the fact that is referred to in 
 this agitation that the so-called bill had been drawn up by a Claim 
 Agents Association, and that this bill followed that bill drawn up 
 by the Claim Agents Association. I guess it is a fact that a Claim 
 Agents Association did draw a bill in the hope of influencing the 
 formation of that particular bill, but it came out further on in the, 
 hearing before the Judiciary Committee of Congress and the House 
 of Representatives that there was not a single clause, with per- 
 haps one exception, in the bill drawn up by the Claim Agents Asso- 
 ciation and the National bill that compared in any way, shape or 
 form. I know these rumors have been circulated, and lots of our 
 men don't understand it. It is because they did not get to see the 
 bill soon enough, and there have been other influences. There was 
 a gentleman who started a good deal of the contention over that 
 bill and the agitation against it who, when he appeared in opposi- 
 tion to the bill, proved to have been a member of a conductors' or- 
 ganization, but for 13 years had been a claim agent on the Seaboard 
 & Air Line Railroad, and last Maych ejitered the practice of law, 
 
tSte 
 
 28 
 
 and he stated that he was opposed to any compensation afct what- 
 ever, and he was the originator, it seems, of a good deal of the op- 
 position. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Is all organized labor opposed to the fed-- 
 
 eral act? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling :• I don't speak for all organized labor. I know 
 among our members there are a large jiumber that are opposed to 
 the present federal compensation act, and I know that Senator Reed 
 from Missouri made a very hard fight against it in the Senate, and 
 I met him here today, and he said it was a piece of robbery. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : Do you think one-half of organized labor 
 are against it? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: I am not speaking now for organized labor, 
 but for our own lodge. I don't suppose they would be opposed to 
 what would be considered a fair act, that is the reason I made the 
 suggestion that you have a bill printed and placed in their hands 
 before it is introduced, if such a thing is possible, and then they 
 would be able to study the matter. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : Is it not a fact that the leaders of organ- 
 ized labor, such as Mr. Gompers, are for it? 
 
 Mr. Wheehng: Mr. Gompers and President Lee of our or- 
 ganization advocated it, but I might go to them and advocate a bill, 
 and when it was passed it might be so changed that the principles 
 would be there, but the details lacking. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: I am speaking of these particular gen- 
 tlemen. 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: Mr. Gompers is in favor of a compensation 
 act, and our president is in favor of a compensation act, and ad- 
 vocating the passage of a bill, but the rank and file said no, and he 
 has to listen to the rank and file. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : You have not answered my question yet. 
 Are the majority of organized labor in favor of this particular 
 act? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: Those that are not in railroad service might 
 be, because they are not affected by this. 
 
 Mr. Keith: Who does it affect? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: This federal law only applied to railroads, 
 but I believe they have made an amendment extending it' to the 
 mines. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : It has not been decided to what extent it 
 will go. The question will arise later on as tp whether, it .will ex- 
 
29 
 
 tend to the man that runs the locomotive, the man that works on 
 the tracks and bridges, etc. 
 
 Mr. Oliver: Any further questions of Mr. Wheeling? Any- 
 one desire to interrogate him further? 
 
 Is there anyone else present who desires to discuss this propo- 
 sition further? 
 
 Mr. Wheeling: I am very much obliged to you gentlemen for 
 your time and attention. 
 
 Chairman Oliver : If there is no discussion further, what is 
 the pleasure of the Committee? 
 
 Mr. L. H. Proske: Is it contemplated to extend this bill to 
 other occupations besides railroads? 
 
 Chairman Oliver: That is one of the questions to be deter- 
 mined under the resolution. The plan of work is to determine the 
 character of the proposed law, and the next proposition is to de- 
 termine the industries to Which it shall apply. 
 
 Mr. Proske : I believe from personal observation that the car- 
 penters ought to be included. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: Do you desire to discuss that as a repre- 
 sentative of the carpenters? 
 
 Mr. Proske : I have been sent here by the District Council of 
 St. Louis, representing all the carpenters. As I stated, their per- 
 sonal observations are that every carpenter should be included in 
 the act; that would be fair and equitable. 
 
 I will say that I have really not had enough time to prepare 
 myself on this question, but I believe that it is the general sense of 
 opinion of our members that we should be provided for, with, the 
 understanding, of course, that it is fair and equitable. Our occu- 
 pation is a very hazardous one, and we have to contend with quite 
 a bit of unemployed time, and we lose quite a good deal of time, and 
 we think you should take that into consideration. 
 
 Mr. Barrow : The carpenters have been included in every law 
 that has ever been passed, and I don't think thei-e will be any ques- 
 tion about it. 
 
 Mr. Proske : In regard to the act itself, as to the details and 
 terms, I would say that we will agree with the previous speaker that 
 any burden for maintaining the act should not be placed upon the 
 men. The cost of production and distribution of any article that 
 is made by labor is usually added to the selling price. I believe that 
 is the case, and for that reason, aild further, the employe, or the 
 carpenter especially, purchasing^ anything he naturally pays his 
 
[34b 
 
 30 
 
 portion of the cost, and for that reason I don't believe he should 
 be subjected or burdened with any part of this cost. I understand 
 from the papers that it contemplated a measure something 
 similar to the one in Germany, and I believe that includes that 
 feature, that the employe carries a certain share of the burden, and 
 I am not in favor of that particular part. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : Would you be in favor of a law that would 
 provide for such a thing as, for instance, that if a certain rate was 
 established that the employer had to pay, and they left it to the 
 election of the employe to pay as much as the employer, with the 
 understanding that he be doubly compensated in case of injury. 
 In other words, giving him an opportunity to take insurance as 
 long as it was optional with him? 
 
 Mr. Proske : As to whether he take his compensation or get 
 insurance ? 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: No; the employer would have to pay a 
 stipulated rate to insure that workmen being compensated a certain 
 amount. Now, suppose that the employe will say, I am industri- 
 ous, and am able to provide well and save a little, and suppose he 
 would say, I will pay in as much as the employer and get doubly 
 compensated in case I get injured. In other words, he practically 
 takes accident insurance, although it is less optional with him. He 
 can double up his compensation at his own expense, but the first 
 compensation is all provided, by the employer. 
 
 Mr. Proske : I don't believe I would be in favor of that, because 
 it really changes the act from a compensation act to a State insur- 
 ance act, and I don't think we have arrived at that point yet where 
 we want a State insurance act, and that is what it amounts to, be- 
 cause the employe would be paying part of the additional premium 
 to get that insurance, and it would change the feature of the com- 
 pensation act, where the employer is liable for all injury. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: Not necessarily, it is optional with the 
 employe. If he finds he can get that insurance as reasonable as 
 any other place, and he wish to take it out. 
 
 Mr. Proske: Would that not be insurance in place of com- 
 pensation ? 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: That is further insurance. The compen-, 
 sation act, you understand, the employer necessarily has to insure 
 or guarantee that every employe injured shall receive compensa- 
 tion. If you were working with a carpenter that employs four or 
 five men, he might go out of business or go bankrupt, and he is 
 
Sic]' 
 
 31 
 
 owing compensation to one of your injured workmen, and there is 
 no provision made, in case he goes bankrupt, the workman would 
 sustain the loss. The Workmen's Compensation Act is to guaran- 
 tee that that man, or those men, shall be paid the full insurance, 
 and it is necessary for the contractor to take out insurance that 
 these men will be provided for, no matter what happens to the con- 
 tractor. It is an indirect insurance. 
 
 Mr. Proske: But you place the liability upon the employer 
 and require him to pay the members. I think that would be com- 
 pensation, and all .above that would be State insurance. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : It is optional with the employe whether he 
 takes it or not. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Mr. Proske, I believe here is the feature 
 that Mr. Brittingham wishes to bring out. It is a fact, I believe, 
 well established now, that all accidents are due either to the negli- 
 gence of the employer or due to the fault of the employe. Now, is 
 it right that the employe shall be compensated for accidents due 
 to the negligence of the employe ? Is it not equitable that the em- 
 ploye, if he wants to be paid full compensation, ought to contribute 
 to the compensation fund in proportion, in total to the number of 
 accidents caused by the negligence of the employe to the total num- 
 ber of accidents? There is no question, I believe, in the minds of 
 most sensible men, that the workmen ought to be compensated ac- 
 cording^ to the hazard of the industry, but beyond that he has no 
 right to ask for compensation. He ought to be compensated for 
 accidents due to the fault of the employer, but he ought not to ask 
 for compensation for acts due to his own negligence. Is there any- 
 thing equitable in demanding compensation for injuries due to his 
 own negligence? 
 
 Mr. Proske: Certainly not; I would not think it would be 
 fair. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Therefore, Mr. Brittingham brings out 
 the fact, might it not be desirable to contribute to the insurance 
 premium to the extent that the injury caused by the employe's 
 negligence bears to the total injuries. You mean that an employe 
 might, in some case, be cut out entirely, the accident being due to 
 the employe's negligence, and never compensated for it at all, but 
 say we start on a basis of 50 per cent, and make it 65 per cent or 
 75 per cent of the wages, and what Mr. Brittingham wants to bring 
 out, supposing under the act that the employer pays the 50 per cent. 
 
t34o 
 
 32 
 
 and the employe pays the difference that he puts in, 15 or 25 per 
 cent of the total, and he draws that much more. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : My idea is this — 
 
 Chairman Oliver : The chair will have to rule that discussion 
 between the Committee memlbers will be eliminated until later. 
 That ruling, I take it, will save time. 
 
 Mr. Britton : Mr. Proske, are you familiar with the operation 
 of any of the laws of the other states? 
 
 Mr. Proske : No, sir ; I have not had time to study them. 
 
 Mr. Britton: How do your people feel about the elective 
 feature of the act? 
 
 Mr. Proske : I really cannot say as to. that. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: Any further questions? 
 
 Mr. Proske: I feel that the percentage ought to be placed a 
 little higher than 50 per cent, or 60 or 75 per cent compensation. 
 The cost of living, and the condition that the employes are in ought 
 to have some consideration. In case of injury, it is harder for a 
 man to take care of himself, to take care of his family, and the per- 
 centage ought to be higher. 
 
 Mr. Barrow : How could a manufacturer compete with manu- 
 facturers in other states, with 50 per cent in the surrounding states 
 and 90 per cent, or a figure like you suggest here? Would any of 
 the industries come here? 
 
 Mr. Proske : Of course, as I stated awhile ago, any additional 
 cost is added to the selling price. 
 
 Mr. Barrow : But you are in competition with men across the 
 river. 
 
 Mr. Proske : It might reduce the profit somewhat. It would 
 require a practical test to demonstrate that part of it. I don't think 
 it hardly would, because I think it would show that it is very 
 small. 
 
 Mr. Barrow : Do you think that a man would establish a fac- 
 tory here if he had to pay 90 per cent to injured employes, and 50 
 per cent across the river; wouldn't he go across the river? . 
 
 Mr. Proske : He might. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: Any further questions, gentlemen? If not, 
 is there anyone else present who desires to be heard in this dis- 
 cussion ? 
 
 . Mr. Woods : I would like to ask if there is any provision made 
 as to who shall be appointed on this subcommittee? 
 
 Chairman Oliver : It will be composed of five, one from the 
 
34o] 
 
 33 
 
 Senate, one from the House of Representatives, one representing 
 the employers, one representing the insurance companies, and one 
 the employes. 
 
 Mr. Woods: Just one thing; there is just one feature of that 
 Workingmen's Compensation that the gentlemen here were talking 
 about, and that is in case fhe workman is responsible or gets in- 
 jured from carelessness or from drunkenness, it seems to be the 
 point of some of the gentlemen that that should not be compen.- 
 sated. Now, I hold that an employer that is employing men have 
 their foremen and men to manage their institutions, and I think 
 that they should be able to discover any employe that would go to 
 work drunk, that come to work in an intoxicated condition, and 
 that they should fire them. I believe that that part should be con- 
 sidered negligence of the employer as well as the employe. 
 
 Mr. Britton: You would make the employer his brother's 
 keeper? 
 
 Mr. Woods : Not exactly ; but if you were running an estab- 
 lishment, a hazardous industry, and an employe of yours would 
 come to work in an intoxicated condition it would be as much to 
 your detriment as to the man that was working, would it not ? 
 
 Mr. Britton : How are you going to discover that in a large 
 factory? 
 
 Mr. Barrow: Are all employers free to discharge a man for 
 drinking? 
 
 Mr. Woods : There is another phase, who is going -to determine 
 where drunkenness starts in? Those are things that are men- 
 tioned, and should be thoroughly threshed out before any action 
 is taken. The question is, who is going to determine where drunk- 
 enness starts in ? 
 
 Mr. Keith : Is it not a case that in a great many cases of that 
 kind, discharge cases, that you have post-mortems, afterwards ? 
 
 Chairman Oliver: Are there any others present who desire 
 to be heard ? 
 
 Mr. George Mangold : I am a director of the St. Louis School 
 of Social Economy. Last year at the beginning of the school year 
 an investigation of some of the things that might be done this fall 
 and this winter were made, and I made a little study of the number 
 of industrial accidents in the city of St. Louis, nothing about com- 
 pensation. We found that during the two years, February 1, 1910, 
 to February 1, 1912, there were 948 fatal accidents, of which 220 
 were industrial accidents ; the 700 and some odd, of course, would 
 
 34c— 3 
 
I C3«o 
 
 34 
 
 be eliminated, the 220 would be subject to your consideration, I 
 would like, in view of that, to read you these statistics to show how 
 the fatal accidents are classified. Of the 220 fatal accidents, 49 
 were railroad employes; working on- buildings, etc., 39; teamsters,- 
 34; factory workers and machinists, 42; conductors, elevator boys 
 and men, 6; city employes, 13; miscellaneous, 35. That gives us 
 the classification or grouping of industrial accidents in the city of 
 St. Louis, and no doubt the other large cities would show a pro- 
 portion somewhat similar to this. It shows that out of 220 acci- 
 dents less than one-fourth are railroad accidents, so we are getting 
 at not much more than one-fourth of the problem, and we must 
 consider whether there is a possibility of the extension of the com- 
 pensation act. 
 
 Mr. Barrow: Don't street car accidents comprise most of 
 that? 
 
 Mr. Mangold : They are included in the 700. 
 
 Mr. Britton: We have not been taking up the railroad em- 
 ployes, this bill is not confined to that. . ' 
 
 Mr. Mangold : All I am saying is that this table shows the in- 
 dustrial accidents in the city of St. Louis, and the question of what 
 you are going to do is to remain with you. 
 
 Mr. Britton : Does this table include accidents to passengers 
 or just the employes? 
 
 Mr. Mangold: No; -942 fatal accidents; the injury to passen- 
 gers was included among the 700. The 220 are industrial acci- 
 dents. 
 
 Mr. Barrow: They are accidents of employment? 
 
 Mr. Mangold: Yes, sir; in connection with the employment. 
 That was the principal thing I wanted to present to you, although 
 you might be interested in this, chart, which shows that a .major 
 portion of those accidents occur in the second hour of the forenoon 
 and afternoon. 
 
 Mr. Barrow: Most of them occur on Monday, too, don't they? 
 
 Mr. Mangold : No ; I don't think you will find that is true. 
 
 Mr. Britton": The second hour of the forenoon and the second 
 hour of the afternoon? 
 
 Mr. Mangold: Yes, sir; and the culpability hei'e should be 
 taken into consideration with the culpability elsewhere. In mak- 
 ing a recent investigation in Pittsburg, it was discovered that about 
 one-half of the accidents were due to the negligence of the employe, 
 but statistics gathered by the Minnesota Bureau of Labor show 
 
S4o] 
 
 35 
 
 that a greater portion were due to the hazard, and that should be 
 given very serious consideration in putting the charge upon the 
 employer or employe in working out a compensation bill of this 
 kind. In our own figures it seems to show that out of 220 cases 47 
 were purely accidental. That is only ata'out one-fifth. In about 
 one-third of the cases the culpability was quite clear that of the em- 
 ploye, but that means that in about two-thirds of the cases the em- 
 ploye himself is not to be blamed for the accident, because it is due 
 to other sources, and in considering the proposition both ways, in 
 connection with what was said by the gentleman before the last 
 , one, I think this ought to be considered, in taking up a bill of thjs 
 kind. 
 
 Mr. Barrow: Your argument from those figures is that the 
 workman would derive a great benefit by being paid for a great 
 many accidents which under present conditions they have no re- 
 course for? 
 
 Mr. Mangold: Today there is very little compensation paid 
 for these accidents. Out of 104 accidents for which we have the 
 facts, there was paid through insurance companies and trade-union 
 benefits and compensation from employers $70,000.00. About two- 
 thirds of that came from these outside sources and only something 
 like $22,000.00 out of the $70,000.00 coming from the employers, 
 all of which would come from them in case a compensation bill was 
 passed. That would mean about $250.00 per . individual death 
 coming to every person in St. Louis at the present time, which is 
 very small compared with the present proposed act. These are 
 only the vital accidents ; I have not made any study of the nonvital 
 accidents, which are many times more numerous. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : I know you have given this a great deal 
 of .study. Have you observed in any way as to the Minnesota act, 
 or any other act, the accidents on the farm? 
 
 Mr. Mangold: Only slightly. I know that the accidents on 
 the farm are extremely numerous, and even in Minnesota I think 
 they bring that out. , 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : Is there any reason in the world why the 
 farms should not be covered? 
 
 Mr. Mangold : From a point of fact, or equity, I don't think 
 there, is any reason why it should not be covered. It is not entirely 
 a question of equity, it is a question of how we can prevent much 
 of this poverty and distress that comes from these fatal accidents. 
 
[34o , 
 
 36 
 
 Mr. Britton: Have you made any study as to how much, or 
 what per cent of the payment reaches the family? 
 
 Mr. Mangold : No ; I have not gone into that as extensively 
 as I had hoped. There are some facts that we can get that indicate 
 that a small proportion actually gets into the hands of the widow. 
 
 Mr. Barrow : Your figures then would demonstrate that these 
 people covered by your statistics would have been better off and re- 
 ceived more money under compensation bill than they actually got, 
 according to your investigation? 
 
 Mr. Mangold : There is no question about that, and my only 
 idea in submitting this information is to show that these accidents 
 are widely distributed. There are certain facts about the culpa- 
 bility and the amount of the compensation secured, and the amount 
 is very small, and many of these families, women and children 
 have sunk into poverty, and it becomes a serious proposition from 
 a philanthropical standpoint. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: What per cent of them are on public ex- 
 pense now, of the number you have estimated? 
 
 Mr. Mangold : I don't know, and I don't know whether I can 
 give you that information. I don't know that we have anything 
 prepared on that. The Pittsburg statistics show that 85 out of 220 
 were receiving aid. 
 
 Mr. White: Mr. Mangold, have you any reason to offer or 
 suggest why so large a number of these accidents occur in the sec- 
 ond hour of the morning or afternoon? 
 
 Mr. Mangold : I have not. It is suggested that the accidents 
 occurred largely at the end of a large day, but the recent investi- 
 gation by the Federal Government shows that the accidents do not 
 occur at the end of the day, but they are likely to occur at any time. 
 The accidents in cotton mills, in the south, occur about the third 
 hour in the forenoon and afternoon, about from ten to eleven in the 
 forenoon and from three to four in the afternoon. Our own figures 
 push that forward about an hour, and while this is based on only 
 220 cases theirs was based on a great many more cases, which 
 show that more accidents occur in" the middle of the day when they 
 are hardest at work. 
 
 Mr. Barrow : Is it not a fact that a great many more accidents 
 occur in the first hour, and this average brings- it to the second 
 ■hour? 
 
 Mr. Mangold : No ; this is not an average. It shows compara- 
 
S4c] 
 
 37 
 
 tive numbers occurring at the different hours. The first hour be- 
 ing a certain number, and the second hour a certain number, show- 
 ing the highest point in the second hour, so it is no average. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: Are there any further questions? Is there 
 anyone else present that desires to be heard in this discussion? If 
 not, what is the further pleasure of the Committee? 
 
 Mr. Barrow: Mr. President, I see Mr. McCollough in the 
 room, and he is a large employer, and I would like to hear from him. 
 
 Mr. McCollough : Mr. President, I am too good a listener, but 
 I wondered if any of the features of this act would apply to the 
 settlement of injuries, and if so, would it be confined directly be- 
 tween the employer and the injured party, whether it 'would be 
 settled directly. 
 
 Mr. Barrow: You mean whether there would be any contri- 
 bution to a fund on the part of the employe? 
 
 Mr. McCollough: No; in case of injury, does the act provide 
 that in a settlement for that injury that every effort must be ex- 
 hausted between the injured party and the employer before anyone 
 else can come in? 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman ; You are talking about it going to the in- 
 jured party and not to any third party? 
 
 Mr. McCollough: Would there be any third party? 
 
 Chairman Oliver : The plan is now to have the Cominittee pre- 
 pare and submit to the whole committee a plan along these lines, 
 and that will ultimately be passed upon by the whole committee. 
 
 Mr. Barrow : Which do you think would be the better ? 
 
 Mr. McCollough: I think that all effort between the injured 
 party and the employer should be exhausted before anybody else is 
 permitted to come in. 
 
 Mr. Britton: That the whole proceeds should go to the in- 
 jured party? 
 
 Mr. McCollough : Yes, sir ; there would be a better disposition 
 on the part of the employer to make a settlement when he knows 
 that the money is going to the injured party, than someone who is 
 not connected with it. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: Any further suggestions, or anyone else 
 who desires to be heard further ? 
 
 Mr. R. L. Dutton : I have made a living out of the insurance 
 business for a good many years, and have had the pleasure of study- 
 ing this compensation law, and I am very much interested in this 
 subject, and I know that the rest of us are interested in it, and for 
 
[34o 
 
 38 
 
 the benefit of the Commi'ttee th3,t is going to be empowered with the 
 drafting of this bill we have a little information that I just re- 
 ceived by wire regarding the New Jersey law, which I thought 
 would be of some value to them. It says here that only four em- 
 ployers have at the present time not agreed to come m under the 
 New Jersey compensation law, namely, the Standard Oil Com- 
 pany, the Singer Sewing Machine Company and the Victor Talking 
 Machine Company, and the school board at Montclaire, New Jersey. 
 Those are the only four employers in the entire state of New Jersey, 
 according to this telegram, which is official, that have not 
 agreed to come in under this New Jersey compensation law, and 
 further than that, there is no employe that has thus far given 
 notice of a rejection of the provisions of the law. The law has been 
 in force since July 4, 1911, and the New Jersey Employers' Lia- 
 bility Commission found the law working so well that they made 
 no recommendation to the last Legislature, last winter, for a change 
 in the law. More than that, the Pennsylvania Industrial Accident 
 Committee have adopted the New Jersey plan in their tentative 
 draft of a bill to submit to the Legislature. My remarks are simply 
 for the benefit of the Committee that are going to prepare this bill, 
 on the ground that New Jersey has had far greater experience on 
 this law in their state, and it has been found satisfactory to the 
 employe and the employer, and it is a model bill, in my opinion, 
 and I have had the pleasure of studying all of them, and I beheve 
 that the State of Missouri should prepare some bill along identi- 
 cal or similar lines with the New Jersey law, and that the employes 
 would all gladly contribute. 
 
 Mr. Britton : You are familiar with the other laws ? 
 
 Mr. Button : Somewhat. 
 
 Mr. Britton : Do you know of any state that has an act similar 
 to New Jersey? Do you know in what other states the employers 
 have come in the same as New Jersey? 
 
 Mr. Dutton: There is no other state that they, have come in 
 anywhere near as generally as in New Jersey. 
 
 Mr, Britton: Where have they stayed out? 
 
 Mr. Dutton : In, California, and in Wisconsin, and in Kansas 
 to a far greater extent. 
 
 Mr. Barrow: How'about Ohio? 
 
 Mr. Dutton : In Ohio there are very few in. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman,: Have these other states that you have 
 mentioned, have they the particular clause to wliich most of them, 
 
34C] 
 
 39 
 
 who have studied compensation laws, believe that it is due that so 
 many have come in under New Jersey. 
 
 Mr. Dutton : That is probably the reason they have not come 
 in. In Illinois the law compels them to come in on the 1st day of 
 May. But at the same time the benefit under the New Jersey law 
 is that the compensation is reasonable and not exorbitant, and the 
 result is that the employe can buy his protection for a very low 
 premium. I would bitterly oppose any attempt to pass a bill in this 
 State putting a penalty on the employer that was exorbitant. 
 
 Mr. Britton : Do you know of any State where the employe 
 stayed out? 
 
 Mr. Dutton : Not to any great extent. 
 
 Mr. Greene: Do you know what per "cent of the pay roll in 
 New Jersey is paid for insurance ? 
 
 Mr. Dutton: What do you mean? 
 
 Mr. Greene: I understand that they carry insurance based 
 on the amount of their pay roll? 
 
 Mr. Dutton: Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Greene : What per cent of their pay roll is paid for insur- 
 ance ? 
 
 Mr. Dutton : That vaHes according to the hazard. 
 
 Mr. Greene : I mean the total for the State. 
 
 Mr. Dutton : I don't believe I haye that; but in a great many 
 states the rate they are paying is a very trifle more that they paid 
 under the old common law liability, which is all due to the fact that 
 their compensation was reasonable. 
 
 Mr. Barrow : But at the same time a very small per cent only 
 gets into the pocket of the injured party? 
 
 Mr. Dutton: There is no reason why, if it is handled by a 
 stock company or insurance company, that it would not get into 
 the hands of the injured party. This is all different from the old 
 common law liability, when we were oftentimes compelled to de- 
 fend suits when we didn't want to. There are employers here in 
 this State that oppose compromise settlements, because they thought 
 it set a bad precedent for an insurance company to hand an injured 
 party a certain sum of money, which is oftentimes true, and I can 
 cite a great many cases here in this State. We realize that under 
 a compensation law we have to pay them all, and that is what we 
 prefer to do, and want to do, and there will be little difference be- 
 tween what the injured party Tvill receive and the total amount 
 paid in. 
 
[34c 
 
 40 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : Did I understand you to say that the New 
 Jersey law gave a larger per cent to the injured than other laws? 
 
 Mr. Button? I said that the New Jersey law gave less com- 
 pensation than most other states ; that the maxium under the New 
 Jersey law is less than in a good many other states, and that is one 
 thing that makes it attractive for the employer to come in. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : I understand that, but nevertheless those 
 figures are somewhat deceiving. I understand that if the employes- ', 
 of those four large employers were to come in that it would cut 
 down the per cent. 
 
 Mr. Dutton: As I understand it, those employers are very 
 large employers? 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : ' They cover about 15 per cent of labor. 
 
 Mr. Barrow: In New Jersey, unlike the laws in some other 
 states, the expense of medical attendance and hospital facilities, if 
 necessary, during the first two weeks, is borne by the employer, is 
 it not? 
 
 Mr. Dutton : That is my understanding of it. 
 
 Mr. Barrow : That is a matter to be taken into consideration, 
 which is very vital, as affecting the total benefit of the employe. ' 
 If in some, other states the per cent is higher, but first aid is not 
 paid, they might get more and be better off than in New Jersey. 
 
 Mr. Dutton : I feel that the New Jersey law is the most fair 
 bill that has been prepared thus far, and I have studied them all. 
 
 Mr. Barrow : It has that much benefit to the employes, of pay- 
 ing first medical ?iid. 
 
 Mr. Dutton : I am not here to discuss the merits or demerits 
 of any of these bills, but I want to point out the fact that in New 
 Jersey their law is working satisfactory, and there was no occasion 
 to change it at the last Legislature, and why would not New Jersey 
 be a good law to follow: 
 
 Mr. Hull : I would like to have you tell the Committee some of 
 the points in favor of the New Jersey law. 
 
 Mr. Dutton : One of the strong points is that the compensa- 
 tion is reasonable, small compensation. It is limited. It don't give 
 the working man 60 or 70 or 80 per cent of his income, but a max- 
 ium of $10.00 a week when he is disabled, and the result is there is 
 no incentive to a working man or anyone to get injured in ordfer to 
 go fishing, and laying off on his employer's time. Do you understand 
 me? There is no incentive to create friction and trouble, I want 
 to say this much on the part of the insurance companies, that I am 
 
34c] 
 
 , ; , 41- 
 
 not here to represent the insurance companies, but for myself, and 
 I want to say that in the state of Wisconsin, for instance, where 
 they passed a compensation law and made the death benefit and the 
 weekly indemnity benefit out of proportion, it was necessary to 
 charge more money for compensation protection than it was for 
 common law protection. The result is that a large proportion 'of 
 tthe employers in the state decided to carry state liability insurance 
 because it cost less money. 
 
 Mr. Barrow : The benefit of the New Jersey law, as you look 
 at it, as I understand it, is that it is so well balanced that it is an 
 incentive to the employer to come in and the employe to come in, 
 and that 100 per cent of the employes have come in and a very large 
 per cent of the employers have come in under the law? 
 
 Mr. Button: It is a well-balanced law, yes, sir; and so well 
 balanced that the insurance companies can handle the compensation 
 feature of it with no greater expense than the common law liability. 
 . They charge the same money. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : Well balanced is not so well understood by 
 -some of us; as some expert said it was because the law is very 
 definite on every point, and therefore insurance experts can figure 
 the rate, while some of these other laws have very indefinite pro- 
 visions. 
 
 Mr. Button : That is one of the features, and I have copies of 
 it which show that every conceivable injury is enumeraited in the 
 law; the loss of an eye, a big toe, or a little toe ; it is all enumerated,^ 
 just what the employe is to receive. , 
 
 Mr. Britton: How does this operate in New Jersey with re- 
 spect to the small employer? 
 
 Mr. Button: Just as satisfactory as in the case of large em- 
 ployers. 
 
 Mr. Britton : I mean does it apply to all industries ? ' 
 
 Mr. Button : Yes, sir ; all manufacturing concerns. 
 
 Mr. Britton: And farmers and household servants? 
 
 Mr. Britton : I think so. I don't know of any reason why it 
 should not, because my experience is that a farmer is a greater 
 hazard than a railroad man. 
 
 Mr, Schweidtman : What is the per cent of premium differ- 
 ence between machinists and a farmer? 
 
 Mr. Button : The farmer is 50 per cent higher, because where 
 the machinist pays $5.00 the farmer pays fl5.00 for the same 
 benefit. 
 
[34g 
 
 42 
 
 Mr, Barrow : Speaking of the three largest employing concerns 
 in New Jersey having stayed out, is that On account of any dissatis- 
 faction with the law, or is it because that their operation is on such 
 a large scale that they can employ attorneys, doctors and adjusters 
 and inspectors cheaper than even the small expense that the in- 
 surance company charges for liability in the State ? 
 
 Mr. Button? I dare say that in the first place you could not 
 get an insurance company that would want to insure either one of 
 those three big concerns. If you have a minute's time, I will ex- 
 plain to you why. There is a man operating a street railway com- 
 pany, and I would go to see him and say, "I want to write your 
 liabihty insurance," and he would say, "How much does it cost?" 
 And I would say, "$200,000.00," and he would call up the claim 
 adjuster, and ask him to bring up his tables as to what it cost to 
 handle their liability on the railroad, and he would say, "It cost 
 us $400,000.00," and he would say, "Here is a sucker of an insur- 
 ance company that will take it for $200,000.00." On the other hand, 
 I might say it would cost them $375,000.00, and they would say, 
 "We cannot afford to disorganize our organization to save $25,- 
 000.00, the insurance company will get stuck sooner or later any- 
 way ;" and again, if I said it was $410,000.00 he would say, that is 
 more than it is costing us now. No insurance company can afford 
 to insure the Standard Oil Company or the Victor Talking Machine 
 Company because they can carry it as cheap as we can. 
 
 Mr. Barrow: It is no reflection on the law? 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: -It is no reflection, because from my per- 
 s,onal knowledge a great many of these large employers want to 
 deal directly with their own men, believing that it is better that no 
 one come in between employer and employe. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : You have compared the rate there ; now we 
 will suppose for instance there were some of the western states that 
 have more liberal liability laws, that provide more to the injured 
 workmen that the New Jersey liability law does. If we would 
 adopt the New Jersey law then the injured workman is going to 
 have to give up something? 
 
 Mr. Button : Sure ; and it is to the benefit of this great west- 
 ern State of Missouri that he should. There is no reason why you 
 should discriminate against your employer that owns a factory in 
 this State. Let him buy his insurance as cheap as he can so he can 
 compete with his neighbor. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : You think it is more equitable to frame this 
 
34c]- 
 
 43 
 
 law on the cost to the employer instead of compensatipn to the em- 
 ploye? 
 
 Mr. Button: No, sir; I want to frame it in favor of both, so 
 that the employer, when he is in competition with his neighbor, has 
 not got to charge up any more to his expense of operation for com- 
 pensation than the factories on the other side of the river, 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: Then you think it would be entirely equit- 
 able for the State that is going to pay a minimum to pull the other 
 states down to that minimum? 
 
 Mr. Button : Sure. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: I am afraid you won't find the workers 
 satisfied with that. 
 
 Mr. Button: Why not? 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: That is. human nature. Your employers 
 are looking for the cheapness in the cost of insurance, and on the 
 other side the employe has the right to have a little selfishness in 
 that matter, and he will look for a Uttle bit more. If you pull it 
 down to the minimum you won't satisfy the employe. 
 
 Mr. Button: My object is, and I believe, that you will get 
 more employes in under a reasonable than you will under any other 
 form of compensation law that you can possibly draft. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : You want the compensation to be as low, 
 or lower, than any other, for employers liability, because otherwise 
 they will not come in, and you believe in the long run the worker, 
 as well as the employer, and the State will benefit by having a 
 larger number of employers and employes come in under an efficient 
 act? 
 
 Mr. Barrow : I would not agree that' we ought to follow a 
 minimum. Is it not more your idea that in drafting a law of this 
 kind it should be fair ? That is, that Missouri can afford to pay as 
 good average compensation as ite competitors, but we should not. 
 ask them to pay more? Is it not a matter of average compensa- 
 tion? 
 
 Mr. Button : I am not asking that you make it any less, but I 
 don't want to see it made too much more, because I don't want to 
 see you penalize the employers of this State and drive them into 
 other states. 
 
 Mr. Barrow: I think we misunderstood you, that you advo- 
 cated that we should adopt the very lowest as a basis. 
 
 Mr. Button : Not at all, but on the contrary.- I mentioned New 
 Jersey because it is working satisfactorily. I don't know that it is 
 
[Sic 
 
 44 
 
 the minimum, but is a reasonable bill, and your Committee would 
 do well to study the New Jersey act, and study it thoroughly, and 
 I don't believe you will find any other act that has been passed thus 
 far that will compare favorably with that one. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: Anyone else who desires to be heard? 
 
 Mr. Keith : I see Mr. Gorman in the room ; I would like to hear 
 from him? 
 
 Mr. Gorman : I have nothing to say ; we have hot gone into 
 that matter to any extent, but we will be prepared at the next 
 meeting, but at this stage we have nothing to say. 
 
 Chairman Oliver : What is the further pleasure of the Com- 
 mittee? 
 ' Mr. Barbee: I move that we go into executive sessiG;». 
 
 The motion was duly se^conded. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: It has been regularly moved and seconded 
 that we now go into executive session. All favoring the motion 
 make it known by saying aye ; opposed, no. The ayes seem to have 
 it. The ayes have it, and we will now go into executive session. 
 
 EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
 
 Chairman Oliver : What is the further pleasure of the Com- 
 mittee? Under the method of procedure I take it that this Com- 
 mittee ought to determine, under this resolution, first, the character 
 of the proposed law that this Committee, which shall be appointed, 
 is to prepare. 
 
 Mr. Britton : Mr. Chairman, if we are going to have ^ny more 
 hearings should we try to determine that question before we have 
 those hearings? 
 
 Chairman Oliver: I think not. Are we to have more hear- 
 ings^ 
 
 Mr. Britton : Should we decide here now whether we will have 
 hearings in Kansas City or other parts of the State? 
 
 Mr. Barrow: That naturally comes up first. 
 
 Mr. Greene : I have had inquiries from employers in the State, 
 and I said that there would be a hearing in Kansas City before it 
 was finally determined. It was understood at Jefferson City that 
 we would have hearings in Kansas City. 
 
 Mr. Barrow: If there is any discussion, I move you that we 
 have a hearing in Kansas City, and have notices put in the news- 
 papers in Joplin and St. Joe and the other towns, that we, will only 
 
340] . 
 
 have a hearing in Kansas City. I think if the employers don't 
 come there any more than here that it is cheaper for them to come 
 to Kansas City. 
 
 I move that we have one hearing in Kansas City and no other, 
 by the whole Commission, and that there be notice put in the news- 
 papers in the surrounding cities. 
 The motion was duly seconded. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: It has been moved and seconded that the 
 whole Commission hold another meeting in Kansas City, after giv- 
 ing due notice thereof, for the purpose of further hearings upon 
 this resolution, before the Committee is appointed to draft the pro- 
 posed law. Are you ready for the question ? 
 
 Mr. Greene : Now, I don't know that a meeting of the whole 
 Cornmittee in Kansas City is necessary. If we had a hearing it 
 might be that we could appoint these five members and let them 
 hold a meeting in Kansas City and let the other members attend if 
 they wish. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : It seems to me that every member of this 
 Committee should be thoroughly informed before the five members 
 are appointed, and it seems to me it would be far better to have the 
 whole Commission in Kansas City. 
 
 Chairman Oliver : Unless that is offered as a substitute, there 
 is nothing before the body but the original inotion. Any further 
 suggestions? Are you ready for the question? As many as favor 
 the motion as made and seconded, let it be known by saying aye ; 
 opposed, no. The ayes seem to have it. What is the further pleas- 
 ure of the Commission? 
 
 Mr. Britton : Would it be possible to set the date for the time 
 of that meeting in Kansas City now? 
 
 Mr. Keith : I would suggest that it be set two or three weeks 
 ahead so as to have plenty of notice. 
 
 Mr. Barrow: We have not very much time considering the 
 labor we have before us, and they have had this matter before them 
 all summer, and I would think that a week's notice would be ample 
 time, because we must close the hearing and get down to business. 
 . ■ Mr. Greene : It won't be any trouble to get into communica- 
 tion with the newspapers. 
 
 - Mr. Schweidtman: I move you that we have the meeting on 
 the 9th of October, which is two weeks from today. 
 >:: Mr. Keith : I unfortunately have an engagement on the 9th in 
 Chicago. 
 
t346 
 
 46 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : I move that we make it on the 10th. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: The 10th is far more satisfactory to me 
 than the 9th. 
 
 Mr. Keith: I second the motion. 
 
 Mr. White : I believe we had better hear from all the members 
 of the Commission. 
 
 Mr. Keith : You gentlemen set the date of the meeting, and I 
 will break any other engagements I have. 
 
 Mr. Greene : There are ten members on the Commission that 
 will take a hand in politics, and you will find there will be a great 
 many of them that will not be there. 
 
 Mr. White : I desire to suggest the second Monday in October, 
 I think that would be the 14th. That would be the earliest date 
 that I could attend. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : If you want it real early, how would the 
 30th, next Monday, do? 
 
 Mr. White : I have to take some depositions on that day. 
 
 Mr. Hull : That would riot give us time. 
 
 Mr. Keith : I was greatly disappointed in not hearing from the 
 employers today.' 
 
 Mr. Barrow: I know of ten or a dozen prominent employers 
 who have inquired in regard to this hearing, and were very par- 
 ticular about wanting to come, and some of them sat here in the 
 room and never peeped, and some never showed up., 
 
 Chairman Oliver: It is moved and seconded that this Com- 
 mittee meet in Kansas City on the 10th of October. 
 
 Mr. White : I move, or suggest, the 4th of October instead of 
 the 10th. 
 
 The motion was duly seconded. 
 
 Chairman Oliver : The question recurs upon the substitute of 
 the 4th for the 10th. Are you ready for the question on the sub- 
 stitute? As many as favor the motion make it known by saying 
 aye; opposed, no. The ayes seem to have it. The substitute is 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Manuel : I have a letter from Ohio that should the Com- 
 mission desire it that the state of Ohio would send one of their men, 
 that is, a man who has had charge of their commission, that they 
 would be pleased to send one of those men out to explain the work- 
 ing of the Ohio law up' to date, and I believe it would be advisable 
 for the Secretary of this Commission to get in touch with the 
 Bureau of Labor in Ohio and see if they will send a man out here. 
 
S4c] 
 
 47 
 
 Mr. Barrow: Did he say the working of it or the failure to 
 work? 
 
 Mr. Manuel : From the waj*- this man has explained it to me, 
 and he is a member of the Ohio Senate, and I believe is the Senator 
 that introduced it into the Senate, from his story it is working 
 successfully. 
 
 Mr. Keith: I would like to amend Mr. Manuel's motion by 
 requesting the Secretary to notify anybody from any source who 
 can give us any assistance in our deliberations to be present. That 
 will give them an opportunity to bring in any state, including Ohio. 
 
 The motion was duly seconded. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: If there is no objection to the suggestion 
 as made, the chair will state that the Secretary will endeavor to 
 have present as many representatives from other states as he can 
 ' procure at the meeting to be held in Kansas City on the 4th. If 
 there are no objections, the Secretary will observe your wishes in 
 that rega,rd. 
 
 Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I just simply want — is there any 
 other business before the Commission? I just want to ask the 
 question, if you will allow me to — when we were down at Jefferson 
 City during the last session of the Legislature, I noticed they would 
 ask the right to interrogate the speaker on the floor. I came down 
 here to attend this meeting and to meet all my old acquaintances, 
 but there is one thing that took place here that I would like to in- 
 quire about. We have arrived at the exact time when these acci- 
 dents take place. They take place, most of the accidents in the city 
 of St. Louis, take place at a certain time. When that gentleman 
 was before the Commission he was asked by my friend on the left 
 the question as to whether most of these accidents didn't take place 
 on Monday.. I want to know why they take place on Monday. I 
 want to stand on my rights. 
 
 Mr. Barrow: If the chairman does not object, I will say that 
 it is a well-known fact, and has been brought out very conclusively 
 in Germany and other foreign countries, and that it is a matter that 
 has come to the attention of the liability companies and accident 
 companies in that country, that there are more industrial acci- 
 dents happen during the first hour of work on Monday morning 
 than in any other hour of work in the week, and more on Monday 
 morning than any other half day's work in the week. You can all 
 draw your own conclusions from that. The statistics show that" 
 accidents are much more frequent on Monday morning. Some peo- 
 
[34c 
 
 48 
 
 pie think it is because the employes have been dissipating, and 
 some people think it is because they have had too long a rest. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: Anything further before the Commission? 
 
 Mr. Britton: It is understood that the papers in Joplin, 
 Springfield and Sedalia and other places are to be notified of this 
 meeting in Kansas City, and it is understood that there will be no 
 other meeting held, and if there is any one interested on either side 
 that desires to be heard, they can come to Kansas City. 
 
 Mr. Keith: I would suggest that in holding the meeting in 
 Kansas City I will get for you the Commercial Club rooms there. 
 It is a large room with plenty of air. 
 
 Mr. Britton : In selecting the place down here, we were Very 
 kindly offered by Mr. Schweidtman the use of the headquarters of 
 the Citizen's Industrial Association, and we thought it was inad- 
 visable to hold a meeting there because it might be misunderstood 
 by some of the representatives of the labor classes. Then we were 
 offered the Mercantile Club, and the suggestion was made that some 
 people might hesitate to come to a club ; that they might feel some 
 hesitancy in coming to a club, and that we ought to meet on neutrkl" 
 ground. Whether or not that same objection would apply to Kan- 
 sas City, I don't know, but we would like to have you consider that. 
 We discussed that here in St. Louis at the time we were fixing on a 
 place of meeting. 
 
 Mr. Keith: Then I would suggest, after Mr. Britton's ex- 
 planation, that possibly the Baltimore Hotel would be the best place. 
 I will make arrangements when I get home tomorrow. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: I want to inquire whether or not these 
 notes will be transcribed before then, and what arrangements, if 
 any, have been made for a copy to be put in the hands of each mem- 
 ber because I think the notes would be very helpful at the next 
 meeting. 
 
 Chairman Oliver : Senator Greene arranged for the taking of 
 the notes. 
 
 Secretary Greene : I did not arrange for the copies, because I 
 didn't know how many you wanted. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: I move you, Mr. Chairman, that a copy 
 be sent to every member, and if necessary, on account of the lack 
 of funds, which I appreciate, that each member who receives one 
 pay for it. 
 
 Secretary Greene : I think the funds are sufficient. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: The motion might read that if the funds 
 
34o] 
 
 49 
 
 are not sufficient, each member desiring a copy will procure them 
 at their own expense. I think the funds are available for furnish- 
 ing a copy. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : Having been in touch with the work on the 
 Federal Compensation Bill, and knowing the spirit of dissatisfac- 
 tion, as Mr. Wheeling explained it, among the railroad organiza- 
 tions, and knowing. the source of a great deal of that dissatisfac- 
 tion is misrepresentation, as I explained about the claim agent 
 proposition, I was wondering if it would not be advisable to arrange 
 in Kansas City a meeting, and invite employers and employes, and 
 have some man to make an address on workmen's compensation 
 the night before the Commission meets. As we notice here, Mr. 
 Proske, a carpenter, who is an average intelligent man in his class, 
 ' or Mr. Wheeling, they know very little about the real principles of 
 workmen's compensation, and from my observation there is a wide- 
 spread ignorance existing among the working classes of people. 
 Whatever bill, we draw, of course we understand in getting the 
 employers and empjoyes herein before this Commission, is to obvi- 
 ate as much as possible any opposition on the part of the Legisla- 
 ture. The representatives of the employes are going to have the most 
 to fight, because the men they represent are greater in number, and 
 men perhaps not of the intelligence of the employers, I will have to 
 admit, and for that reason I was thinking if we could establish 
 some means of a little education it would be a good thing, and I 
 suggested to Mr. Williams, the Chief Factory Inspector of this 
 State, that he arrange to have some one that is competent to ad- 
 dress a meeting of the laboring men, and that we include the em- 
 ployers also, to explain the principles of workmen's compensation, 
 because when this begins to be agitated and we bring it up before 
 the Legislature convenes, there is no knowing what misunder- 
 standings will go out over the State. 
 
 Chairman Oliver : - 1 think it is a very good suggestion. It 
 might be left to the local members of the Commission in Kansas' 
 City, and see if they can be arranged. Why not appoint them a 
 committee to look after that? 
 
 Mr. Keith: There is one thing in connection with that that 
 has come to my observation. You take for instance anybody rep- 
 resenting the employers, who would make that talk, it would be 
 met with a great deal of suspicion, although it might not, but gen- 
 erally it would work to the disadvantage of the act, and I believe 
 that if Mr Manuel or Mr. Brittingham could arrange to make a 
 
 34c— 4 
 
[34o 
 
 50 
 
 talk of that kind, it would be the best thing to do. They can ex- 
 plain it, and if anybody from our side would make a talk about it, 
 there might be some question about it. 
 
 Mr. Barrow: The ignorance and dissatisfaction of the em- 
 ployer is about as bad as the employe. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : The employer looks on it with suspicion be- 
 cause the employe is in favor of it, and the employe the same be- 
 cause the employer is in favor of it. ' 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I thoroughly 
 agree with Mr. Brittingham's suggestion, but I am only wondering 
 whether that is the psychological moment, because it cannot all be 
 done at one meeting. It seems to me that after the comniittee of 
 five have drafted a law, then to have a campaign throughout the 
 whole State, and have speakers and members of this Commission " 
 to explain the working of the act that they have drafted. It would 
 help us more than to discuss the workmen's compensation in a 
 very general way now, which is all we can do at the present. time. 
 I believe we should have meetings held all over the State, but I am 
 not sure whether this is the time. 
 
 Mr. Keith: I think we ought to have the bill to speak on, 
 rather than the abstract question. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: You would have to give them some point- 
 ers as to why you want a compensation law rather than a liability 
 law. That would take you a whole evening. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: Anything further to come before this 
 Commission ? 
 
 Mr. Keith: I move we adjourn to meet in Kansas City on 
 October 4th, at ten o'clock, at the Baltimore Hotel. 
 
 The motion was duly seconded. 
 
 Chairman Oliver: It has been regularly moved and seconded 
 that we adjourn to meet in Kansas City on October 4, 1912, at 10 
 o'clock a. m., at the Baltimore Hotel. All in favor of the motion 
 'make it known by saying aye; opposed, no. The ayes seem to 
 have it, and we now stand adjourned to meet in Kansas City on 
 October 4th. 
 
34c] 
 
 51 
 
 PROCEEDINGS 
 
 Of second session of Employers' Liability and Workingmen's Com- 
 pensation Commission, which convened in the White Room, 
 at the Baltimore Hotel, in Kansas City, Mo., on Friday, Oc- 
 ber 4, 1912, at 10 o'clock a", m., pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 • Present: Messrs. Barbee, Barrows, Brittingham, Britton, 
 Greene, Hall, Hull, Keith, Manuel, Roney, Schweidtman and White. 
 
 The meeting was called to order by Secretary Greene. 
 
 Mr. Greene: The Commission will please come to order. I 
 have a telegram from IVJr. Oliver, the chairman, that he cannot be 
 here this morning, and it seems that there are some other members 
 who are not -here. I don't see any reason why we should wait any 
 longer for any others. If they come in, very well; if they don't, 
 unless some of you think otherwise, we might as well proceed with 
 the hearing, and give these people who want to be heard an 
 opportunity. 
 
 It was thereupon moved and seconded that Senator Greene act 
 as chairman of the meeting. The motion was put by a member of 
 the Commission, whose name was not given, and was declared 
 carried. 
 
 Chairman Greene : I thank you for the compliment. What is 
 
 4 
 
 the wish of the Commission? Do you want to proceed with the 
 hearing? 
 
 It was thereupon moved and seconded by members of the Com- 
 mission, whose names were not given, that the Commission pro- 
 ceed with the hearing. 
 
 Senator Greene : You have heard the motion that we proceed 
 with the hearing. All in favor will signify the same by saying 
 aye; contrary no. The ayes seem to have it, and we will proceed 
 with the hearing. 
 
 Is there anybody here that wants to be heard on this question 
 of workingmen's compensation? No^V, ,at the meeting held in St. 
 Louis last week, on the 25th of September, the Commission adopted 
 a resolution that they were of the opinion that a workingmen's 
 compensation law was desirable, in preference to an employers' 
 liability law, and the investigation will be along that line, and we 
 will ask the speakers to give us such light as they may be able to 
 
t34c 
 
 52 
 
 along that line. If there is anyone that wants to be heard, we will 
 be glad to listen to them now. 
 
 Mr. J. P. Raffey : Mr. Chairman, some time at the convenience 
 of the Commission I would like to be heard. I represent the E. I. 
 Dupont Powder Company. We have two factories in the State, / 
 employing seven or eight hundred men. 
 
 Chairman Greene: We will be glad to hear you now. It is 
 convenient right now. You may proceed. 
 
 Mr. Raffey : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Commission : 
 In view of the remarks of your Chairman, I will proceed with what 
 observations I see fit to make on this subject to the question to the 
 type of law which it is desirable to adopt in your State, considering 
 the environment and conditions, with your mixed population, the, 
 same as we have in other states. 
 
 Now, I take it that the question that confronts ^ Commission 
 of this kind, with a law of this kind, would suggest the following 
 divisions : The questions that are yet open are with reference to 
 an optional or compulsory compensation law. That njight be called 
 the first division. Then there is the question of whether the com- 
 pensation law shall include all industries or only those determined 
 to be especially hazardous. That might be the second question to 
 present. Then the question of whether it is to be an all-embracing 
 law, including domestic servants, farm laborers and casual em- 
 ployment as well, or whether it should be confined only to the in- 
 dustries that may be classed as hazardous. And the next question 
 after passing that might be whether or not you are to have in your 
 State the simple or direct compensation, or a simple compensation 
 type of law, as against insurance of some form. Now, insurance, 
 again, could be divided into the question of State insurance, of 
 casualty companies against State insurance, or quasi State insur- 
 ance through State lines of regulation of companies against real 
 insurance, through a system created by the Legislature. 
 
 Now, I want to take these up briefly in their order. I think 
 that it would be very unwise for the State of Missouri at the pres- 
 ent time to adopt a compulsory compensation law. Not that I am 
 against a compulsory law.. I think a compulsory compensation law 
 is desirable, if we could be sure at this time that it would amount 
 to a law at all. The difficulty with a compulsory compensation law 
 is that, since that is a question which brings in the provision of 
 law, which brings in a constitutional question, is that everybody has 
 to proceed at their peril pending the ultimate determination as to 
 
34c] 
 
 53 
 
 whether or not it is a constitutional exercise of legislative author- 
 ity. Now, it is no doubt common knowledge that the courts are at 
 odds on this question, as you all know, probably, and if you should 
 adopt a compulsory compensation law the employers would not 
 have any assurance that in operating under it that their liability 
 under the law was obviated, and until the question was determined 
 by your State Supreme Court, as well as by the Supreme Court of 
 the United States, the law would very likely be a dead letter, and 
 compensation would be postponed until it was finally determined. 
 
 Now, in the event that it is held to be unconstitutional, the same 
 as the New York state law was in the Ives case — and that decision is 
 a decision of the highest coijrt of one of the first states in the 
 Union, and it is very likely to be followed. I think possibly it has 
 been followed in Montana and Maryland. On the contrary, the 
 Supreme Court of Washington has held it is a constitutional exer- 
 cise of the police power to adopt a compulsory compensation law. 
 
 Now, that is an open question and a mooted question. It seems 
 to me there is no necesssity for resorting to a compulsory com- ■ 
 pensation law at this time, when practically the same result can be 
 obtained by the enactment of an elective- law which has already 
 been adopted in New Jersey, Wisconsin, California, Illinois, Ohio, 
 Kansas and a number of other states with which you are probably 
 all familiar. 
 
 The experience with these laws to date has been, I believe, as 
 follows : In New Jersey, which was the first state to adopt the 
 simple compensation type of law, over 90 per cent of the einployers 
 and all the employes in that state are operating under that l^w, 
 and I know from our own experience that that law is operating 
 fairly well. 
 
 On the other hand, the California law, which is substantially 
 . the same type of law, the difference being only in minor particu- 
 lars, such as the difference in the schedule, the New Jersey law, as 
 you are probably well aware, eriibracing all classes, domestics, 
 farmers and casual employment as well, and the California law 
 does not. But the California law has not operated as successfully 
 as the New Jersey law. And the sole reason for that is that under 
 the New Jersey law all of the employers and employes are in, un- 
 less they get themselves out ; under the California law it takes some 
 affirmative action upon the part of the employers to come under the 
 law, and the practical result of that is that they simply neglect to 
 take any action in the matter, and as you know, either by inad-. 
 
t34o 
 
 54 
 
 vertence or by carelessness, men don't always do that which i is 
 best for them to do. 
 
 Now, on the question of the kind of law you should adopt, if 
 the State of Missouri should adopt the elective compensation type 
 of law, I suggest that you so frame the law, the same as they have 
 in New Jersey, and the same as the Pennsylvania commission that 
 is just about closing its labors have framed their law, to include 
 everybody; in other words, to go upon implied assumption that 
 everybody is in, until they see fit to get themselves out. The same 
 decision which sustained the elective compensation law as consti- 
 tutional will sustain. that type of law, because there, is the implied 
 assent as against the expressed assent, where you have to have 
 even under those laws in the cases of Wisconsin and California 
 some affirmative action taken upon the part of the employer, but 
 no affirmative action upon the part of the employe, his assent being 
 implied. 
 
 Now, I want to impress upon the Commission the importance 
 of this feature in your law. It marks the difference between the 
 successful operation and unsuccessful operation, and it has shown 
 by the workings of that law in New Jersey that everybody is in, 
 everybody is operating under the law and compensation is paid; 
 and in those states where it requires some affirmative action on the 
 part of the employers the law is not operating in the full measure 
 of compensation. 
 
 Mr. Britton: We were informed in St. Louis that under the 
 New Jersey law there were only four employers who had not ac- 
 cepted it, and none of the employes had refused to come under it. 
 
 Mr. Laff ey : That is true, and I will say that it is my under- 
 standing that the four concerns that have not accepted that law, 
 who were some of the very largest employers of labor, have their 
 own compensation plan, and their own compensation plan is more 
 favorable to the employes than the New Jersey plan. 
 
 Mr. Britton : The Standard Oil Company, the Singer Sewing 
 Machine Company, the Victor Talking Machine Company and the 
 School Board of Montclair. 
 
 Mr. Laffey: Those are the names I have heard. Our com- 
 pany operates six of its largest plants in New Jersey. The Dupont 
 Powder Company employs over 3,000 employes in the state of New 
 Jersey. I will say that prior to the adoption of that law the Du- 
 pont Company, following the line of a number of other companies,!; 
 had their own compensation plan. That compensation plan was" 
 
34c] 
 
 55 
 
 put in effect a little over five years ago. I had something to do 
 with the framing up of that plan, -and since that plan has been in 
 existence it has been administered by a board of five, and for the 
 last five years I have been chairman of that board. We have had 
 five years' experience in the operation of the simple compensation 
 type of compensation ; that is, the relation is entirely between the 
 employers and employe, and we have found it to work very satis- 
 factorily. We have had scarcely any lawsuits since we put the 
 plan in operation, and I will say that our plan is a little more lib- 
 eral to our employes than the New Jersey plan. Our maximum is 
 $2,500.00 in a death case. 
 
 I will say this, that since the New Jersey law has gone into 
 operation, in the administration of our plan we have in many in- 
 stances given more than the law of New Jersey requires. Three 
 or four weeks ago I had a case before my board of a young car- 
 penter who had just been married, and by some inadvertence that 
 it seems could not have been foreseen, by reason of a freshet, a 
 board saturated with nitroglycerine had floated away, and he, in 
 doing some repair work along the ditch, got that plank and com- 
 menced to drive" nails in it. He lost the sight of both eyes and his 
 hearing, and is a complete cripple, totally incapacitated. In an 
 instance of that kind we have simply disregarded the New Jersey 
 law and have given the young man a pension of $60.00 a month 
 for life. 
 
 Mr, Barrow: You told us about the experience in New 
 Jersey ; have you found out the experience in Washington under 
 the compensation law there? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: Yes; I expect to come to that later, if you will 
 pardon me. Speaking of the New Jersey law, that law is the 
 pioneer in the simple compensation type of law in this country. The 
 New Jersey law has developed certain shortcomings and certain 
 weaknesses, but they do not go to the fundamentals of the law. 
 There are things in that law that need amending, and I will not 
 take the time now to specify in what particular, because I think 
 they have been cured by the third tentative bill prepared by the 
 Pennsylvania Commission. 
 
 Now, the question of whether a compensation law should in- 
 clude all industries, or only those determined to be specially haz- 
 ardous. In New Jersey all are included ; in Calif ornit I, think the 
 farm laborers and domestic servants are left out; in Wisconsin I 
 think there must be five or more, an employer must have five or 
 
[340 
 
 56 
 
 more employes ; in Kansas I believe there must be as many as 
 fifteen. That, I think, is a question largely in the sound discretion 
 of the Legislature of this State. I think it would be much easier 
 to pass a law with the farm laborers and domestic servant left out. 
 My opinion is that a law that is all-embracing, the same as the New 
 Jersey law is, would not be nearly so easy to adopt as a law which 
 classifies them. I see no constitutional objection to a classification 
 which would leave out the farm laborers and the domestic servants, 
 but my personal feeling is that the compensation law should em- 
 brace all employes. I see no reason, and there is certainly no reason 
 in theory, why the farm laborer who is injured should not receive 
 compensation just as much as the employe in some of the manu- 
 facturing establishments. But when you do that you get into a 
 close question, and it seems to me it is a question largely of expedi- 
 ency whether or not the law should embrace all or only those in 
 the so-called hazardous occupations. There is an erroneous notion 
 that farming is a safe occupation. I think the statistics show to 
 the contrary. I have had a little ^experience myself on the farm, 
 and I think I could testify that it is not as safe as it is generally 
 supposed io be, neither is there absolute immunity. I know of no 
 occupation that is immune from accidents. 
 
 I will not take up any more time on that question. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : This question of exempting farm laborers 
 and domestics — of course, I am not a lawyer and I don't understand 
 those points, but those questions will come up in the Constitution, 
 and don't you think they depend a good deal on our State Consti- 
 tution ? 
 
 Mr. Laff ey : Yes ; I think they do depend a great deal on your 
 State Constitution) but there are men who can give you closer in- 
 formation on that subject than I can. As a general proposition, 
 the courts recognize the right to classify, and that there is a suffi- 
 cient difference between the hazard of laboring on a farm_ and the 
 hazard of laboring in those institutions where powerful machinery 
 is used, so that I would feel safe in saying, as an offhand proposi- 
 tion, that some classification could be brought about without in- 
 vading the Constitution or bringing in the constitutional question. 
 I think there is proper ground for classification, or that the prin- 
 ciple of classification could properly be applied there, and that a 
 law which will simply embrace only those that are engaged in speci- 
 fied occupations, as is done in Wisconsin and a number of other 
 
, 34c] 
 
 57 
 
 states, that that law is ftee from constitutional objection, unless 
 there is something peculiar in your State Constitution. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : The reason I asked that question was that 
 two years ago in Illinois the Legislature enacted a liability law 
 there, and Governor Deneen vetoed the bill because it exempted 
 farm laborers, claiming that it was class legislation. There has 
 been some dispute there as to whether he was right or wrong on 
 that question, and I wondered whether that hinged on the Constitu- 
 tion of the state of Illinois, or whether it would depend upon the 
 National Constitution. 
 
 Mr. S. D. Mitchell : Mr. Chairman, I think that question has 
 been raised in the case in the Supreme Court of the United States! 
 I think your objection would not be good under the Constitution. 
 In other words, if the Supreme Court has held it is not necessary 
 to include certain classes under the law, then the act is constitu- 
 tional. I beg your pardon, for interrupting you, Mr. Laflf ey. 
 
 Mr. Laflf ey : That is all right. I am not endeavoring to mak6 
 a set speech, more than to attempt to discuss this from the stand- 
 point of the people I represent. 
 
 Mr. Britton : You spoke a moment ago of the New Jersey law 
 needing amendments in some respect. Wouldn't it be well to briefly 
 call attention to those things ? If we use the New Jersey law as a 
 basis I would like to have you giye us the possible defects. 
 
 Mr. Barrow : You said you thought they would be remedied . 
 by the Pennsylvania law that is drawn. 
 
 Mr. Laffey : Yes ; I think; they have been cured in the Pennsyl- 
 vania law. I have a copy of the Pennsylvania tentative bill; I 
 presume your Secretary will get all those things. I will say in 
 passing that within the last two months we had a case of a young 
 mechanic who met with an accident in one of our works, and left a 
 mother. So, when that question came up, in the study of the New 
 Jersey law, I tried to find out what a mother of an unmarried man 
 was entitled to under that law. ,Two of the trial courts of New 
 Jersey and a number of attorneys around Newark held that a 
 mother under such circumstances would not be entitled to any 
 compensation, because a statute is not so flexible that you can read 
 things into it. It goes without saying that a young man support- 
 ing his mother, and who for that reason cannot get married, the 
 mother should receive compensation. 
 
 Another question under that law is the question of dependency, 
 whether or not actual dependency is the test, or whether the par- 
 
[34c 
 
 58 
 
 ties mentioned must be considered as dependent. That ought to be 
 cleared up. I think it is an open question in the New Jersey law 
 whether or not the persons named in that schedule must be actual 
 dependents, that is, whether the beneficiaries must be those like 
 father or mother or sister or brother. It is the question of the 
 right of compensation by dependent, or the fact that they have 
 sustained some pecuniary loss by reason of the death. I think 
 that should be the test. I think actual dependency should be the 
 test of compensation. There are instances even where it would 
 be a waste of money for a small struggling employer to have to pay 
 as much as $3,000 to, say, take the case of a daughte]f . Suppose she is , 
 married to a man who has an income of $10,000.00 a year, and is 
 in no sense, dependent upon the father. Yet under the New Jersey 
 law, as I read it, the employer of the father would have to pay the 
 daughter the stated compensation. I think that is cured in the 
 Pennsylvania law. And the Pennsylvania Commission, I want to 
 say that I appeared before that Commission about two weeks ago, 
 when they were engaged in the work they were doing, and we had 
 a very interesting discussion that lasted all day. As you no doubt 
 know, they were considering two bills. They had the simple com- 
 pensation type of law that we have in New Jersey, and also have a 
 state insurance, not state insurance per se, but a regulated state 
 insurance bill proposed by the so-called Manufacturers' Associar 
 tion. And that Commission has studied this subject, I think, very 
 carefully. They have a very able Commission, and they have gone 
 over the subject very thoroughly, and they are now ready to report 
 to the Legislature, and the bill that they are now ready to report to 
 the Legislature approximates as near to the last word on that type 
 of law as you could expect. I invite your careful consideration of 
 the last tentative bill of the Pennsylvania Commission. 
 
 Another feature of the New Jersey law that I believe is worthy 
 of your consideration is the question of what shall be done with the 
 man with only one eye. We all know a man with one eye can work 
 and perform a day's work. The question is whether or not the 
 law is that it brings about a total disability or whether or not it 
 is simply a question of one eye. There are other features in the 
 law that it seems to me needs straightening up, in the interest of 
 the employe. It is left open for the employers to drive as hard a 
 bargain as he sees fit with, the employe on the question of compen- 
 sation. I think that is also cured in the Pennsylvania act. What I 
 am driving at is that after the accident occurs, say a man is inca- 
 
34c] 
 
 59 
 
 pacitated, I think it is possible under the New Jersey law for the 
 employer to make a settlement, and in the absencle of fraud that 
 settlement is binding. There is a provision for opening up a set- 
 tlement, but only in case of accident after the settlement showing 
 that the injuries were greater than they were supposed to be at the 
 time. 
 
 I think the New Jersey law can be strengthened up with refer- 
 ence to the case of employes of insolvent or bankrupt employers. 
 That, in my opinion, is one feature, and the only feature of a 
 simple compensation law that is open to objection. It is the only 
 one that has appealed to me that has any particular force to it. 
 
 Senator Greene : What would yOu suggest to cure the defect 
 in the New Jersey law relative to insolvent employers? 
 
 Mr. Laffey : I will call your attention to a bill that was framed 
 by Senator Wainwright, a pioneer on this subject. Representative 
 Philips and ex-Superintendent Hotchkiss, in New York, a bill in- 
 troduced in the last Legislature of New York. I have a copy of the 
 bill before me. That is cured in this way. 
 
 Chairman Greene : I believe they provide there for an action 
 . direct against the insurance company ? 
 
 Mr. Laffey : They provide for an action against the insurance 
 company, in the event of the failure of the employer to pay. Are 
 you familiar with, that? 
 
 Chairman Greene: I have read it. 
 
 Mr. Laffey: That is the way it is cured there: "In case an 
 employer shall carry insurance against liability under this article, 
 and the said employer shall be or become insolvent, or in case ex- 
 ecution upon a judgment for compensation is returned unsatisfied, 
 the employe of such eniployer, or the representative of such em- 
 'ploye, who shall be entitled to come under this article, may enforce 
 the claim for compensation against th^ insurer of such employer 
 to the same extent that the employer could have enforced his claim 
 against such insurer had he paid such compensation." 
 
 Of course, you will have to keep in mind your local laws. These 
 compensations should be a first claim or preferred claim on the 
 assets, and a first lien, and there are various ways where you 
 could make that compensation have the force and effect of a judg- 
 ment. I would suggest that it be provided that a settlement made 
 would not be effective unless a copy thereof was filed in some 
 office, say in the office of a clerk of a court of record, and then the 
 settlement should have the force and effect of a judgment. It has 
 
[34c 
 
 60 
 
 been suggested there is some reason, whatever it is worth, that 
 when you have secured the compensation in as firm a way as you 
 have the wages, that the statute has gone far enough. .. But there 
 are various methods that have been resorted to to cure this claimed 
 weakness in the simple compensation type of law. 
 
 Mr. Barrow : What do you think of the New Hampshire law, 
 which provides that where the employer carries no insurance that 
 he may be required to give a bond for the payment of the compen- 
 sation ? 
 
 Mr. Laff ey : I am not familiar with that law, but I am familiar 
 with that suggestion to give a bond. That is one way. I was go- 
 ing to call your attention to the manner in which the Michigan law 
 treats this subject. I think that law has probably covered the 
 ground more thoroughly than any other law that has come to my 
 notice. That is an elective law, and is built largely on the New 
 Jersey law, but it provides for four methods for making compensa- 
 tion. The first is that the employer is permitted to carry it and 
 pay it himself, after submitting to the liability board of three 
 members created for that purpose a statement of his assets and 
 liabilities, showing that he is liable to carry his own risk. The 
 second is, he is given the option to insure it, and insure it in some 
 stock company that is doing business in the state under the au- 
 thority of the State Insurance Department. Another method is 
 of mutual insurance, a mutual insurance that has the authority of 
 the Insurance Department of the state. The fourth method is of 
 requiring the employer to deposit with the Insurance Commissioner 
 of the state the compensation required. 
 
 Now, those various methods are already in use in strengthen- 
 ing up the law in that particular. I don't know what percentage; 
 I have no data to show what percentage of the employes that will 
 affect. I think that you are largely seeing ghosts with reference 
 to the hardship and injustice that is going to result on account of 
 bankrupt employers, but it is a real weakness, it is a real danger. 
 I think the New Jersey law can be strengthened by the adoption 
 of the New York feature, and as I remember it, a Pennsylvania 
 tentative bill has cured that or strengthened that up in some 
 measure. 
 
 I, at this point, feel like saying that this weakness in a simple 
 compensation type of law does, not justify the adoption of state 
 insurance, or any state-regulated insurante scheme, because I 
 think you could set against that idea the economic weight of a state . 
 
34c] 
 
 61 
 
 insurance scheme, if it had to be paid out of the general taxation, 
 if those cases had to be provided for out of the general taxation in 
 some way, that it would be less expensive to the people of the state 
 as a whole, rather than adopting cumbersome, expensive ma- 
 chinery, with all that goes with it under our peculiar form of gov- 
 ernment, in order to do what? In order to insure and to make sure 
 the payment of compensation to the employe of employers who have 
 become insolvent or bankrupt. That is just the thought that occurs 
 to me. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : Has the state insurance proposition in any 
 of the states now in use in this country been in use long enough to 
 base any information upon it, as to whether it is possible or prac- 
 ticable? 
 
 Mr. Laff ey : Well, of course, as you probably know, they have 
 adopted in three states of the United States some type of insur- 
 ance. The Massachusetts type is elective in form, and that is con- 
 trolled largely by the employer. It is a sort of an association of 
 employers. It is a sort of law which, by reason of taking away the 
 common law defenses, force the employers, as a matter of self- 
 defense, to get into some form of mutual insurance. In Ohio they 
 have the elective insurance law, which I have investigated to some 
 extent, but it is a failure. They have an elective insurance law 
 there, the general principle of which is that they have an indus- 
 trial insurance board, and an actuary and machinery that goes 
 with that sort of a scheme, and they have the power and right to 
 fix rates. That board has the power to fix rates, which calls for 
 the highest kind of technical skill in the underwriting business- 
 They also have the power to make the adjustment. In fact, they 
 are given complete authority over this subject. They have only 
 one fund. They fix rates and collect semiannually, and put it into 
 a fund and pay the compensation out. [ So that companies, those 
 who go in, in that method in particular, those who join in that, 
 would pay the premiums and are released from liability. 
 
 .Mr. Brittingham: In cases of that kind, that would give a 
 certain clas^ of employers who are, we might say, of the progressive 
 type, who, by the use of improved machinery and safety devices 
 on the machinery, in that way would be enabled to reap the re- 
 sult, wouldn't they, of their foresight in providing those safety 
 devices, if they go into it as a class, if that class of people should 
 take up that class of insurance? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: Of course, the board in fixing these rates would 
 
[340 
 
 62 
 
 undertake to collect data as to the history of the institution with 
 which they were fixing a rate; I will recite my experience with 
 them. That is a law that I think is so good. It is -a beautiful 
 theory, but when it comes to practice I think it falls down. Now, 
 more as a matter of caution, because of some experience with 
 State insurance in other states, I submitted my proof as to how 
 much in all they would want included in the three years. They ask 
 you to submit data for three years prior to the time they fix rates. 
 At this plant we had had no accidents at all during those three years. 
 I think $117.00 was all we paid out for first aid or anything else. 
 We have an annual pay roll at that mill of $30,000.00. It is a 
 black powder mill. When I got my rate it was 21%. They wanted 
 $6400.00 to deposit. We hadn't in ten years paid out that much, 
 since I have been with the company, but that was the rate that was 
 fixed, 21%, and if we wanted to send in $6400.00 we would be im- 
 mune from losses for a year. 
 
 There are five companies, five explosive companies operating 
 in Ohio, and not one of those concerns has seen fit to adopt that 
 law, that is, they had not in July, and I feel safe in saying that no 
 one of the explosive industries has availed themselves of the bene- 
 fits of the Ohio law. It is so good that nobody will operate under 
 it. I feel certain that that law is not going to be an effective law 
 and bring about the purpose that it subserves. That purpose, I take 
 it, is that the time for compensation to employes has arrived. We 
 are the last nation on earth to adopt a law of that kind, that is^ 
 of our class, and the employes are entitled to compensation, and it 
 is due them. 
 
 Now, the Ohio law, I don't profess to know much about the 
 underwriting business, but I know that it is easily apparent that it 
 cannot work out without somebody getting the worst of it. I don't 
 believe there is an actuar^ on earth that is competent to fix rates 
 under that system, and it'brings up the question you suggested a 
 moment ago. Here is a large manufacturing plant, the management 
 of. which has spent all the money necessary for modern and up to 
 date and scientific equipment and machinery. They have all the 
 safeguards and all the appliances which make for the prevention 
 of accidents, which is of course one of the most vital things in this 
 question, the prevention of accidents. Now, here is an institution 
 that is scientifically equipped. In this institution the accidents 
 will be at the minimum. Here is another little concern with in- 
 sufficient capital and insufficient equipment. They have an acci- 
 
34c] 
 
 63 
 
 dent there with two or three of their people who are hurt. The 
 employer says, "Go to the insurance board. I have nothing to do 
 with it at all. Even go there for your medical attention and aid." 
 There is no incentive for the small operator, after he has paid his 
 premium into this fund, to safeguard, to equip his plant with 
 safety devices and the various appliances which make for the pre- 
 vention of accidents. There is absolutely no incentive whatever for 
 him to to this, aside from whatever pressure may be put upon 
 him by the factory department of the state; whereas, the large 
 manufacturer would, by reason of his large pay roll, have to keep 
 the pot filled up, and he is the one that carries the burden. So if 
 it were possible, if someone with the wisdom of Almighty God could 
 make. those rates, it might be that he could work out a system of that 
 kind without doing injijistice to somebody; but I don't believe it can 
 be worked out without somebody getting the worst of it. That is 
 what hurts in this country, feeling that we are not getting a square 
 deal and are carrying somebcfdy else's load. 
 
 Now, contrast, as against that situation, with no incentive for 
 safeguard, under the simple compensation type of law the incentive 
 to safeguard is there, because if you have accidents you must 
 foot the bill, you have got it to pay. 
 
 I don't think it is necessary to discuss those conditions be- 
 fore an intelligent commission, because they must be easily ap- 
 parent. How could an actuary, with no data and no experience 
 in that line, fix rates for one of the oldest industries we have? 
 When you come to life insurance and fire insurance, they have data 
 and the means of applying the doctrine of general average and 
 all that goes with the making up of rates ; but here we have some- 
 thing that is practically new. I regard the liability insurance as 
 the most difficult branch of insurance, requiring the highest kind 
 of skill, to fix rates and determine rates. But when you have in- 
 stituted a thing of that "kind, with the various classes that apply 
 with reference to the class of labor we liave in this country, 
 it is bound to be a difficult proposition. We have here probably 
 every nationality on earth. We have different conditions and all 
 kinds of employes. It may be, as some say, that the German in- 
 surance law is very satisfactory and is working out to the satis- 
 faction of everybody. in Germany, but I am not sufficiently famil- 
 iar with the "German system to undertake to discuss it. I have 
 heard two sides to that question. I have heard that it is not work- 
 ing satisfactorily at this time; that it is getting to the point where 
 
[340 
 
 64 
 
 the greatest strain is being put upon it. I think it must be easily 
 apparent, in. contrasting these two types of law, the simple com- 
 pensation type of law, such as they have in England, with the in- 
 surance type of law where the premiums are deferred, that in the 
 simple compensation type of law, when you put that kind of a law 
 into operation you subject that law to the maximum strain right 
 at that time, because each and every one of the employers know 
 just what they have got to pay under that law, and I think 
 that is of the very highest importance to the employers of labor 
 in this country. We regard it as of very vital importance to know 
 at the close of each year what we are to charge off for accidents 
 during the year. Under the, simple compensation type of law we 
 know exactly the amount we will have to charge off for accidents 
 during the year, and if a man buys his liability insurance he knows 
 just what his accidents will cost him for that year. Now, under 
 the State insurance feature or law you start in with the minimum 
 strain. Do I make myself clear on that? It is a question of the 
 maximum strain in one part and the minimum strain in the other. 
 It is just like the old mutual life insurance companies that so many 
 people put their money in, just like this mutual life business; you 
 start in on the minimum strain, and it takes some time before the 
 maximum strain comes, and no man knows what his accidents will 
 cost him under the type of law such as they ha,ve in Ohio. So in 
 Germany, it seems that they have now got to where they are feel- 
 ing the increased strain. And I believe that there are others who 
 could discuss that here more intelligently than I can. I think 
 probably you will get a better understanding of that by reading 
 some of the authorities on that subject, particularly Doctor Fre- 
 denburg, who is regarded as an authority of the highest type on 
 that subject. I think it is well worth reading. 
 
 I want in this connection to discuss the Washington type of 
 law. When I read that law, when it was going to the Legislature, 
 I though it sounded pretty well. It looked like a very plausible 
 thing. Well, they put that law in effect, and as you know, the 
 industries there are classified. In the little State of Washington 
 they have 47 classes. We are in the 46th class, the powder works. 
 And as you know. In that law, that is compulsory. That is a 
 compulsory insurance law. It is the only one of its kind in the 
 United States. It is fashioned, I understand, largely after the 
 law in Norway, where they have, I believe. State insurance per se, 
 where the State stands back of it and guarantees the compensation. 
 
84o] 
 
 65 
 
 In Washington they have not done that. The State does not 
 stand back of that law and guarantee the compensation. Under 
 the Norway law they do stand back of the law and guarantee the 
 compensation, but in Washington the State does not guarantee 
 the compensation. It undertook to enact a compensation law where 
 a certain rate was fixed by the legislature, different rates. Those 
 rates run all the way from about 2% to 10%. The powder rate 
 was 10% of the pay roll, annual, an annual premium of 10% of 
 the pay roll. But that rate, as I say, is fixed by the act itself, and 
 that is where the harm comes to it. It provides that if that is 
 insufficient at the end of the year that the Industrial Commission 
 which they have created to administer that act has the right to 
 levy an assessment. In other words, they can say to the boys, "Chip 
 in, now, and fill up this pot. It is exhaustfed. We want you to 
 replenish it." That is the principle of the thing. That ques- 
 tion, as to whether or not they have that power, is one of the 
 constitutional questions in the case, whether they can ask for more 
 than the 10%. I am speaking of the rate fixed by the legislature. 
 But they have undertaken in that law to authorize the insurance 
 board at any time a pot is empty, one of the funds is empty, to 
 assess all in that class for more _ money on the same basis; and 
 of course that provides for a relation between the employer, the 
 State and the employe. 
 
 Mr. Hall:, Under that law do they have just one fund, or one 
 for each class? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: One for each class. They have 47 funds. They 
 have classified the industries in that little State, and have 47 
 funds, taking only the hazardous. Each employer in his class is 
 required monthly to pay in his proportion. They start in requir- 
 ing on«-fourth, and then monthly thereafter, the theory being' 
 that here is a fund that the employers of labor in that class must 
 keep replenished, so that there will always be sufficient on hand 
 to pay the losses occurring in that class. And it provides for 
 first aid and sick benefits, and a small army of investigators, in- 
 spectors, auditors, doctors and examiners. The board of three 
 commissioners has a salary of $3,500.00 or $4,000.00 a year, and is 
 appointed by the governor, and they have the right to appoint 
 such assistants as they need, and all the employes are appoint- 
 ed by them. Of course, in a large State they would require almost 
 in every county a doctor or two and an inspector and all the ma- 
 
 34 c— 5 
 
[34c 
 
 66 
 
 chinery that goes with the administration of any gigantic affair 
 of that kind. 
 
 Well, there is a provision in the law which gives them the 
 authority and allows them to raise the rate of one of the statutory 
 classes. That is the question of the constitutionality of it. So far 
 as I know they have never done that. 
 
 Here is our experience with the Washington law. There are 
 only three manufacturers of explosives in the State of Washington. 
 Gur plant is located on a tract of land of 3500 acres. It is one 
 of our newest plants, and it is the last word in the explosive manu- 
 facturing plants, we think, with our 100 years of experience be- 
 hind us. We built this plant four or five years ago at an ex- 
 pense of somewhere between $700,000.00 and $1,000,000.00. 
 We employ there between two and three hundred employes. We 
 have an annual pay roll of $150,000.00 a year, and as I said, 
 this plant is everything that experience has taught us that makes 
 for safety ; everything is found in this plant. There are not more 
 than 25% of our 300 employes that are exposed to the powder 
 risk. They are engaged in the safer occupation, in the carpenter 
 shop, in the machine shop, electrical work, box makers, sulphuric 
 acid plant, nitric acid plant. 'VVe make the raw materials that 
 enter into the composition of powder there. Those workmen are 
 all safe from any accident, so far as the explosive part of it is 
 concerned. They can't get to any of the powder machinery at all. 
 There is only 25% of the employes who are exposed to the powder 
 risk. 
 
 There is another small plant in the State of Washington 
 manufacturing what we call legitimate, powder. It has got the 
 standard article. Then there is another plant in the State which 
 is manufacturing powder under a patent. There is this distinc- 
 tion in the explosive industry, and I think it applies more or less 
 to eyery other industry, the nature of the substance you are manu- 
 facturing, the composition itself. There are explosives and ex- 
 plosives, dynamite and black powder and gun powder and smoke- 
 less powder. Those are all standard products. But they have 
 their different characteristics. 
 
 There is a substance known as chloride of potash that has 
 been known for 100 years in the explosive industry, and if it could 
 be retained and brought down to a condition of explosive there 
 is nothing that is so conducive to the manufacture of powder 
 economically than the use of chloride of potash. But every two 
 
34c] 
 
 67 
 
 or three months there is some inventor who claims to have found 
 a way to tame this substance and make it so it can be properly 
 manufactured. One of the factories that are operating in Wash- 
 ington is manufacturing a chloride of potash mixture at Chehalis 
 under a patent. He has made his occupation between manufac- 
 turing powder and selling stock in his company there. He adver- 
 tised it as a safe powder, which I feel was a criminal thing to do, 
 to advertise that any powder is safe, because when it becomes safe 
 it is useless. That crowd of men organized the Imperial Powder 
 Company, and advertised that that was safe powder, and they 
 evidently made their employes, those that were working in the 
 works, thing that it was safe, because they had practically 100% 
 of their employes exposed to the explosive risk. They were pack- 
 ing the powder with women and girls. The result was that 
 one morning, before this law was a month old, they had a fire and 
 explosion and burned up nine of the women. We had not up to 
 that time paid our assessment, which was something like four or 
 five thousand dollars, our first assessment. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: For one quarter? 
 
 Mr. Laff ey : For the first quarter. The other two had paid 
 theirs in. The Imperial Powder Company had paid theirs, and 
 the other manufacturer had paid his. After they had paid their 
 part there was only $270.00 in the fund. That was the contri- 
 bution of that firm for the first quarter. Our contribution was 
 four or five thousand dollars. Our $15,000.00 would make it 
 about $4,000.00. Immediately the dependents claimed the funeral 
 expenses, which amounted to about $1,000.00. And the benefici- 
 aries under the law, of course, if they allowed to them the whole 
 thing, it would amount to about $9,000.00". That was the demahd 
 on class 46 at once. We had already received our demand, for the 
 $4,000.00 which we had not paid. We had been considering 
 whether we would test the constitutionality of the law, or whether 
 we would operate under it. That accident sort of discouraged us 
 in deciding to operate under it. They sent over a polite request 
 to send over $9,000.00, that they needed it in their business to 
 pay the dependents of the Imperial Powder Company. We didn't 
 do it, and I appeared before the board and had a very amicable 
 discussion of the matter, and explained our position to them, that 
 we could not see our way clear .to operate under a law of that 
 kind until it was determined by the highest court in the land 
 that it was a constitutional exercise of the police power. 
 
t34o 
 
 68 
 
 Now, of course, the law provides that in the event of the 
 default in payment of assessment, it is the Attorney-General's 
 duty to bring an action against the person in default and to col- 
 lect the unpaid assessment. We have not been sued yet. No at- 
 tempt has been made to collect that assessment. The dependents 
 have not been paid, either, because there is nothing in the fund.to 
 pay them with. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: State insurance didn't make the payments safe 
 in that case. 
 
 Mr. Laffey: No, not State insurance per se. No, that plan 
 does not guarantee the payment of the compensation to the' em- 
 ploye. They simply exhaust their remedies under the law to re- 
 plenish the fund. 
 
 A Voice: Is that plan compulsory? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: Yes. 
 
 The Voice: It is real compulsory mutual insurance? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: Yes, but the State does not stand back of the 
 fund, as I understand they do in countries where they have State 
 insurance per se. They don't undertake to pay it. They simply 
 use the machinery which they have to collect the money. That 
 is as far as they go, as I understand it. 
 
 Mr. Brittingharii: To enforce the collection? 
 
 Mr. Laffey : Yes. The Supreme Court of the State of Wash- 
 ington has held that law to be constitutional in the Clawson case, 
 and say that, notwithstanding the Supreme Court of the State 
 of New York in the Ide case has held to the contrary, they did 
 not agree. 
 
 Chairman Greene: That case in New York did not involve 
 double liability. 
 
 Mr. Laffey: No, it involved compulsory compensation. It 
 involved the compensation law. They undertake to pass a com- 
 pulsory compensation law, and the Supreme Court held it was 
 an interference in the police power of the State. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: That was the issue upon which it was de- 
 clared unconstitutional ? 
 
 Mr. Laffey : That was the issue upon which it was declared 
 unconstitutional. The Washington is alsp based on the police 
 power, the police power of the state, 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: Under the case you have just been speak- 
 ing about, if they had had a simple compensation act the depend- 
 
34c] 
 
 69 
 
 ents could have recovered direct from the Imperial Powder Com- 
 pany? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: Yes; if they had been operating under the New 
 Jersey law or the Illinois law or the California law or the Wis- 
 consin law, they could have brought an action direct against the 
 employer and recovered 'compensation. 
 
 Chairman Greene : If the employer had not been able to have 
 paid, they would have been in the same position they are now. 
 
 Mr. Laffey : Yes, • if the accident put the employer out of 
 business. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : The man's stock of goods and bills receivable, 
 etc., would have been assets against which their claim would 
 have been a first lien? 
 
 Mr. Laffey. Yes. In other words, in that case would have 
 been collected, because the Imperial towder Company is solvent. 
 They rebuilt their works and are operating today. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: As it is now the dependents are in the 
 position of trying to recover compensation from another company 
 that did not cause the accident? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: That is a result of it. They are by the very 
 law precluded from- recovering in an action against their em- 
 ployer, or a judgment for criminal negligence in putting them 
 all in one building and all exposed to this explosive risk. They 
 have no cause of action whatsoever against their own employer. 
 All they can do is to wait' until the Attorney-General of the state 
 sees fit to collect that money, if he can, from the Dupont Powder 
 Company. That is all there is to it. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Supposing that the compensation was as 
 it is under the Washington State law, but there had been an 
 option to carry that insurance in any one of three or four ways — 
 from stock companies or mutual companies undef that State fund, 
 do you think your objection would still hold? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: State that again, please? 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Suppose the insurance was compulsory, 
 but it rested with each employer to carry that insurance either 
 in a State fund, or in a stock company, or in a mutual company, 
 or self insurance, any one of those four, similar to the method 
 pursued in Michigan, except; that it is made compulsory, which 
 it is not in Michigan, do you think your objection would still hold? 
 Wouldn't you in that case have the right to use another kind of 
 insurance; in other words, carry your risk in a stock company. 
 
[3te 
 
 70 
 
 while the Imperial might not be able to" get risk in the stock com- 
 pany? In other words, wouldn't that carry the advantage of 
 making compensation absolutely sure and do away with the dis- 
 advantage which you have pointed out so truthfully under the 
 Washington State act? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: Under the illustration you give that would 
 simply put up to each employer the obligation to carry that risk, 
 either by showing his financial ability to do it himself? 
 
 Mr. Schweitman : That is correct. 
 
 Mr. Laffey: Or by insurance? 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: That is correct. 
 
 Mr. Laffey. Personally, I have no quarrel with that type 
 of law, because, as I said a moment ago, the question is whether 
 or not you can make a compulsory law that is any good in' this 
 country, until the Supreme Court of the United States says that 
 is a constitutional exercise of the lawmaking power. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : But aside entirely from the constitutional 
 question ? 
 
 Mr. Laffey : As I understand your proposition, assuming that 
 you can make a law . of that kind constitutional, if it is left, if 
 that type of law left it to the employer to either satisfy some 
 state tribunal that he is able to pay that specified compensation, 
 that leaves with him the obligation and also leaves with him the in- 
 centive to keep his establishment in such condition that accidents 
 will not occur. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Exactly. 
 
 Mr. Laffey: Also, if he cannot satisfy that tribunal that 
 he has got the financial ability to carry it, he can get some 
 stock insurance company to take it, or he can give it to some 
 mutual insurance company which is authorized to do business 
 in the State, and carry it in that way. And if he fails in either 
 of those, under the Michigan law, he can make a deposit or give 
 a bond to satisfy the insurance commissioner of the state that it 
 would be paid. I am not here advocating anything for the in- 
 solvent employer. I want to see something done that will bring 
 compensation to every employe, as near as may be, and make, 
 that compensation definite and certain, and eliminate law suits. 
 A compulsory compensation law that does not minimize litiga- 
 tion, does not bring the relief speedily, and does not give the 
 (employer the incentive to prevent accidents, is a failure in this 
 country. (Applause.) 
 
S4c] 
 
 71 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : You would be in favor of such a law if it 
 could be made constitutional? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: If a law of that kind can be made constitutional, 
 I say, yes; but I say it is a serious mistake to tinker or put a 
 law upon your books that, in view of the constitutional difficulties, 
 you are not required to, because an elective feature of the law 
 brings you. the same result. You pass a law like the New Jersey 
 law, or as amended by the Pennsylvania Commission, and put 
 that upon your statute books, and immediately over 90% of your 
 employers and employes will be operating under a compensa- 
 tion law. Why? Because they will not take the trouble to shut 
 themselves out. The employes will not take the trouble to shut 
 themselves out. Their interests do not lie in that direction. The 
 employer is not likely to get himself dut, because if he does, he 
 knows he will be in for practically an unlimited amount, because 
 he stands stripped of his coipmon law defenses. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : I would like to ask you one question regarding 
 the effect, which is working an injustice, under such a law as they 
 have in Washington. You speak of your company having the 
 largest plant or mill in that state. 
 
 Mr. Laffey: Yes. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: With an anual pay roll of $150,000.00? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: Yes. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: And in one case the rate was fixed at 20, and 
 in Washington at 10. Now, these figures I have here of this 
 $9,000.00 — they may be correct — and your rate advances to 
 the 20% advance that you met with in Ohio, wouldn't it be a serious 
 question for your company to debate whether or not it would re- 
 move that plant out of the State of Washington? Wouldn't the 
 load be increased to such an extent that the ordinary investor 
 would be forced out of the state? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: I don't believe our company would consider 
 moving out of the state, even if we were compelled to, even if 
 that law in Washington was declared to be a constitutional exer- 
 cise of the police power. But certain it is that any state that 
 puts that kind of a law upon its statute books need not expect 
 the investment of capital to, pour into that state, when the ad- 
 joining states like Illinois and Misspuri - have adopted a simple 
 compensation type of law. Now, the simple compensation type 
 of law has got too much foothold in this country at the present 
 time. In at least .10 states it has already been adopted, I think. 
 
mo 
 72 
 
 In New Jersey, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Kansas 
 and a few other states they already have the simple compensation 
 type, the fundamentals being the same. I don't like the Illinois 
 type, for a good many reasons. I think it will have to be amended. 
 I think it has a good many inconsistencies and a good many things 
 that don't work out. I don't like the idea of a flat amount of com- 
 pensation irrespective of the number of dependents. I think 
 New Jersey has the right theory, that the. number of depend- 
 ents shall control as to the amount to be paid ; that is, in admin- 
 istering our plan, if we find a widow in good health, $1,000.00 to 
 her is a good deal more help than $2,500.00 to a widow with four 
 or five small children. So I think that compensation that does as 
 the Illinois law does, gives as much to one child as it does to a 
 widow with five children, is not intelligent compensation. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Coming back once more to my point, 
 isn't it a fact that three International Congresses of insurance ex- 
 perts, who have under consideration this subject, put themselves 
 on record unanimously as saying that every optional or elective 
 law has proven a failure? Are you aware of that? 
 
 Mr. Laffey : I am aware there has been a good deal of theo- 
 retical talk of that kind. I am aware of the weaknesses of the op- 
 tional feature, which requires affirmative action to get in. I am 
 also aware that the state of New Jersey is a contradiction of 
 that statement. I am going to answer your question by reading 
 you something, because I think there is a man on the job that 
 can answer that a good deal better than I can answer it. I know 
 there are a lot df beautiful theories that are being promulgated, 
 and they seem to be unanswerable in theory, but when they are 
 subjected to the test of actual practice they fall down. Now, I 
 don't understand that the English law, wjiich is a simple com- 
 pensation type of law, is a failure. As I said a moment ago, the 
 English law, when it was put into operation, went into effect 
 with the maximum strain upon it. The German law and others 
 went into effect with a minimum strain upon it. You will have 
 to wait to find out how the German law works out, and I hear 
 all sorts of controversy as to its success. 
 
 The elective compensation type of law in New Jersey is a 
 success. I have no question but what it is a success in California 
 and Wisconsin and in Michigan. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: May I interrupt you just a minute? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: Yes. 
 
34e] 
 
 73 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : Are you aware that California is com- 
 pletely dissatisfied with it and going to attempt to make it com- 
 pulsory during the next legislative assembly? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: To make the law compulsory? 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Yes. 
 
 Mr. Laffey: Do you know that their law is left to the af- 
 firmative action of the employe to get in? There is no reason 
 for enacting a law with some vital defect in it. New Jersey is the 
 answer to that. I say the simple compensation type of law is en- 
 tirely practicable, and is a success; I don't agree with you. I would 
 like to say there — 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : You are aware in England, with the law 
 they have there, the compensation law they have "there, which 
 was prepared by Lloyd George, the compensation is compulsory, 
 because they don't believe in any other kind. Also I believe you 
 are mixing up two things. The deferred payments of the Ger- 
 man law, of course, I don't believe that argument is answerable. 
 We ought not to have that here. But that is not necessarily a fea- 
 ture of a compulsory compensation system. Deferred payments 
 need qiot enter into a compulsory compensation system. Am I cor- 
 rect, Mr. Barrows? 
 
 Mr. Barrows : I think you are correct in theory, but in prac- 
 tice I don't think you can find a single case where under a system 
 such as that they have ever made the rate adequate to start with. 
 • They don't do it, because political pressure is brought to bear on 
 the Commission at once, and they do a hand to mouth business. 
 Theoretically it could be done, but it never has been, and I don't 
 think ever will be. 
 
 Chairman Greene : I think the members should confine their 
 remarks to the speaker, and I will give you all an opportunity to 
 talk later on. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : Mr. Laffey, on that point, isn't the law in 
 foreign countries — doesn't the law in foreign countries cover 
 sickness and old age pensions and things of that sort? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: You are correct about that. I wa,nt to say that 
 the German law is very complicated. The first thirteen weeks 
 of. that law is covered by what is known as the sickness in- 
 surance. That is mixed up with sickness. The industrial acci- 
 dent insurance does not become operative until after thirteen 
 weeks. The first thirteen weeks is covered by what is kno-WTi as 
 the sickness insurance or disability insurance. Now, there are so 
 many conflicting statistics that is a good deal like listening to a 
 
[34c 
 74 
 
 political argument to listen "to a discussion about the operation 
 and effect of the German law. The English, law, I understand 
 there has been some dissatisfaction with it, and I think it is be- 
 cause necessarily the maximum strain comes upon it at first. 
 Under the German law, while it is possible they have so fixed the 
 premium that you will get enough to anticipate every accident — 
 and that I believe is the theory of the Ohio law, that they will collect 
 enough to have a reserve to take care of the payments — but that 
 is a matter of speculation. Nobody knows. No individual, no 
 employer can say how much he is going to have to pay on account 
 of accidents in his works that year. 
 
 Now, I want to answer Mr. Schweidtman's suggestion with 
 reference to these national conventions that meet and resolve and 
 consider. You have got to look at conditions as they are and as 
 you find thfem. Germany is an empire of some 65,000,000. The 
 principle of insurance might work out satisfactorily in an empire 
 of 65,000,000. It might be possible that there would be such an 
 extensive operation that you could apply the principle of insur- 
 ance and the doctrine of general average so that it would work 
 satisfactorily. But it does not necessarily follow that everything 
 can, that you can apply the principle of insurance to everything. 
 I am quite sure the principle in insurance will not apply to the 
 explosive industry in the state of Washington. Our company is 
 too large, the others too small. If we were the only people in 
 Washington, then we would not have to do anything more than to 
 keep that pot filled up, and instead of paying the compensation to 
 our employes they would have to go to the industrial insurance 
 people to get their insurance. All the criticism I have of that is 
 the Unnecessary economic wast^e in the appointment of a commis- 
 sion and all that goes with it. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: Your one concern could hand the money to 
 your employes, under the provisions of the law, cheaper than you 
 could do it through an intermediary? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: Certainly; the waste about it of transferring 
 the money from the company to the commission and from the 
 commission to the employe. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : And you would suggest self insurance to 
 cover that? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: Yes; I don't want to let this opportunity go by 
 to say something about a commission that has studied this ques- 
 tion in this country, I think, thoroughly, and a commission for 
 
Sicl 
 
 75 
 
 which I have a great deal of respect. This subject has been 
 studied by commissions in twenty states, and is being studied to- 
 day by commissions in ten or twelve states, and I know of none 
 that studied it like the Sutherland Commission, which was com- 
 posed of Senators and Representatives, and they gave this subject 
 as careful and close an analysis, with reference to the conditions 
 of the country, as any commission I know of anywhere. I think 
 they have given it very close and careful attention. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: It was also composed of representatives 
 of employer and employes? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: Yes. That Commission has been giving this 
 subject the most careful consideration, and they say as follows: 
 "Looking at the generic objections to such a scheme of compensa- 
 tion and those found in the Sutherland Commission's report, 
 which may be prefaced as follows: The Sutherland Commission 
 .says, in speaking of insurance: 
 
 'Such a scheme penalizes the employers who do their utmost 
 to protect their employes by the use of safety appliances, by mak- 
 ing them pay a proportion of all losses due to injuries of any 
 character. * * * Such a scheme does not pfoperly provide 
 for an adequate payment system during the life of the^ employe, 
 in that the aggregate of such payments must increase from 
 year to year and the charge upon those industries which come 
 under the law at later periods be thus larger than the charge upon 
 those who joined earlier. The administration of such a scheme 
 would involve the employment of a vast number of subordinate 
 agents, resulting in an expense . to the government which could 
 not even be estimated. Such a scheme would ultimately involve 
 the creation of extensive bureaucratic establishments, under more 
 or less political influence, * * * ^^j^j j^. jg gQ opposed to all 
 practicable conditions that this commission unhesitatingly re- 
 jects it.'" 
 
 (During the reading of the above a semi-audible conversation was in progress in ciose 
 proximity to the reporter's ear, which rendered an accurate reporting of the proceedings 
 impossible. Mr. Lafley promised to furnish the reporter a copy of what he read from, but 
 failed to do so, and he was unable to procure it elsewhere, and the above is submitted as the 
 best he could do, under the circumstances.) 
 
 That is the conclusion of the Sutherland Commission on that 
 subject. I will take a chance with the conclusion of this Commis- 
 sion a great deal quicker than I would on the theories and assump- 
 tions of the international congresses. 
 
 Nothing but the best and most approved methods will be 
 
[340 
 
 76 
 
 satisfactory in this country, because we want the best. I think 
 the same line of argument that applies to the Germans would not 
 be satisfactory in Missouri, because all Missourians are not 
 Germans, and those that are have all become pretty thoroughly 
 Americanized. I don't believe that the citizens of Missouri would 
 stand for 24 hours for the things they submit to in Germany. I 
 don't think they would last any longer in this country or be satis- 
 factory any longer than it would take the Legislature to get them 
 changed. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: I don't believe anybody would disagree 
 with you on that point, but the Sutherland Commission, their state- 
 ments in that connection have been made entirely in connection 
 with industrial compensation to railways, because no other did the 
 Sutherland Commission investigate. In fact, it later referred to 
 deferred payments, which, as I said, are entirely impossible to 
 think of in this country. And the third point you were speaking 
 of, the German system, no. German system whatsoever would be 
 satisfactory, and I don't differ with you there. But I am speaking 
 of a system which has been unanimously approved by the repre- 
 sentatives, not of one nation, but, of all civilized nations, including 
 England. I don't think there is any question but what you are 
 right about the German system, but don't you think it is our duty 
 to take here in the United States the very best features of all sys- 
 tems, and have right in beginning the advantage of systems which 
 are anywhere from 10 to 30 years old ? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: I certainly want the very best for this country. 
 The question always remains as to what that is. I certainly think 
 that state insurance — we seem to have choice between two — either 
 the simple compensation type, where you leave the relation be- 
 tween the employer and employe, and in that way you remove the 
 economic waste of administration. If you don't adopt that type of 
 law, either compulsory or elective, with its various safeguards 
 protecting the employer and employe, then you are driven to the 
 other alternative of going to some form of state insurance, either 
 per se or insurance regulated. Now, the danger in that is that it 
 has the germ of Socialism in it. In no state has it been tried ex- 
 cept in Washington. I don't believe Missouri is ready to put in 
 effect a law which has in it that germ of Socialism. When you put 
 the State in that line of business, it is only another step until it is 
 in other lines of business, and when the State is in business it is 
 generally in bad business. 
 
34c] 
 
 77 
 
 Mr. Keith: . Hasn't Montana a similar law to Washington? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: I think not. I think they have got a liabihty 
 law. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : A partial law. 
 
 Mr. Laffey: I understand that law has been declared uncon- 
 stitutional. I may have been taking too much of your time, but I 
 just want to say another thing. That is on the simple compensa- 
 tion type of law, because I cannot believe that the State of Mis- 
 souri, in view of the fact that Illinois and Michigan and Wisconsin 
 have adopted the elective type of simple compensation, that you 
 are going to any state insurance, or start in any socialistic enter- 
 prise. Assuming that 'you will be confined only to the simple com- 
 pensation type of law, there are features, even in the simple com- 
 pensation type of law, that will require careful consideration, from 
 the standpoint of its administration. Even in the Sutherland bill, 
 which is of the simple compensation type, they have resorted to 
 adjustments. They have also in Michigan, with the same type oi 
 law, resorted to alterations. As I say, any law of that kind will 
 require careful consideration from the standpoint of its adminis- 
 tration. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Is the Sutherland bill compulsory? 
 Mr. Laffey: Yes; the Sutherland bill is compulsory. It is 
 built on those lines. I want to say again that I have no quarrel 
 with the compulsory feature, if you think you can make it hold. I 
 know from personal experience, both by bringing damage suits and 
 being around the courts for 25 years, that a vast amount of the time 
 of our courts has been taken up by the determination of damage 
 suits. Now, it has shovm by the operation of this law in New 
 Jersey that the courts are going to be relieved of a -^ast amount of 
 work which they have heretofore done on account of the damage 
 suits that were brought. 
 
 Now, in view of the fact that we have got this machinery, that 
 it is not an experiment; in view of the fact that our judges are 
 trained in the consideration of evidence, I say let the courts, the 
 same as, they have in Pennsylvania, the judge of the court is the 
 one to apply to to settle disputes as to the amount of compensation, 
 .because then his determination becomes a matter of record and has 
 the force and effect of a judgment. It seems to me it would be un- 
 wise and uneconomical to resort to arbitration and the large ex- 
 pense of instituting that kind of machinery, when you have all the 
 
[34c; 
 
 78 
 
 machinery that you must carry anyway, and if the courts are good 
 enough to determine the controversy between the citizens them- 
 selves, they certainly ought to be good enough to determine the con- 
 troversy between employer and employe. And my notion about 
 that is that the New Jersey law and, the new Pennsylvania law 
 have the correct theory upon that. It involves no waste and it is 
 machinery that we have, thfit ife ready for use, and its determina- 
 tion will be of the same force and effect as a judgment, and will 
 become a lien. 
 
 Mr. Hall: Have you a copy of that Pennsylvania law? 
 
 Mr. Laffey: Yes. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : Have you a copy for each one of the Com- 
 mission ? 
 
 ' Mr. Laffey: No; but I can secure them for you. I can give 
 you one. Suppose I leave you the Philips New York law. That is 
 an improvement of the New Jersey law. There is a third tentative 
 draft of the Pennsylvania law. I assume you have the Michigan 
 law? 
 
 Chairman Greene : Yes ; I think we have all the laws, unless 
 it is the new Pennsylvania law. I also have a copy here of the pro- 
 posed workmen's compensation act prepared by Mr. Dawson, who 
 has made a study of that, and the proposition by the Pennsylvania 
 Manufacturers' Association. I don't know whether you care to look 
 that over or not? 
 
 Mr. Britton: Have you read the two bills drafted by the 
 committee of the American Bar Association? 
 
 Mr. Laffey : I am not sure that I have. Was it at the recent 
 session ? 
 
 Mr. Britton : Yes. 
 
 Mr. Laffey : I am not sure that I have. 
 
 Mr. Britton : Yes ; reported in August, 1912. 
 
 Mr. Laffey: What was it, the simple compensation type? 
 
 •Mr. Britton: They submitted two, a compulsory act and an 
 elective act, both of them simple compensation acts. 
 
 Mr. Laffey: I desire to thank you for the opportunity you 
 have given me to speak to you on this subject. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : Mr. Chairman, I move you that the thanks of 
 the Commission be extended to Mr. Laffey for this very interesting 
 discussion. 
 
 The motion was duly seconded. 
 
34c] 
 
 79 
 
 Chairman Greene : - Let the record show that a vote of thanks 
 were extended to Mr. Laffey. 
 
 Mr. Laffey : I am sure the pleasure is mine. 
 
 On motion, duly seconded, the Commission thereupon ad- 
 journed until two o'clock in the afternoon of said day. 
 
 AFTERNOON SESSION. 
 
 At two o'clock in the afternoon of said October 4, 1912, the 
 Commission resumed its deliberations, the same members being 
 present as at the forenoon session, and the following further pro- 
 ceedings were had: 
 
 Chairman Greene: Mr. Sumner is here and wants to be 
 heard. He has got to go away. I have a letter from the Board of 
 Awards in Ohio, who were not able to send a man out here today. 
 We will now hear from Mr. Sumner. 
 
 Mr. Charles A. Sumner: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: It 
 was not my purpose when I came up this morning to take up any 
 of your time. I thought I would like to hear what was said before 
 you and get my own ideas to work again. I have not given recent 
 thought to the subject, but some of our labor unions thought we 
 ought to have some representation at this meeting, and that per- 
 haps I was as good a one as they could select at this time. 
 
 I listened this morning to what was said by the gentlemen 
 addressing you with a good deal of interest. I agreed very largely 
 with him. Some things I didn't agree with, but I think that all I 
 need is to show a few differences. 
 
 Now, we started out with the idea, of course, that what we 
 wanted was employers' liability legislation, and we had trained our 
 people and educated them to the extent that they really demanded 
 that. And then this workingmen's compensation matter came .up, 
 and many of us have decided that is much better, and I don't know 
 that we are advocating employers' liability legislation any longer. 
 
 The chief difference among us now seems to be whether a 
 compensation act should be compulsory and be constitutional, or 
 should we have the elective. Personally, I feel as the gentleman 
 this morning expressed himself , that we really don't want to take 
 any chances, and unless we get sufficient authority from our best 
 legal minds that a compulsory bill would be constitutional, we had 
 better take the elective. I believe that is just as good to get re- 
 
[340 
 
 80 
 
 suits, and there, is no question in my judgment that the courts 
 would hold that constitutional. 
 
 I believe that the New Jersey law is in most of its essentials 
 satisfactory. I think the measure of compensation is wholly inad- 
 equate, and J believe the difference between the representatives of 
 the employers and the representatives of the employes is going to 
 be a difference very largely of the adequacy of the measure of com- 
 pensation. I think the details of the bill, so that we can really 
 prevent waste and get immediate results in the case of injuries, 
 are matters that there will not be very much dispute between us. 
 But if I recollect, and Mr. Schweidtman is here, and he can correct 
 me if I am wrong, in Jefferson City, at the last session of the Leg- 
 islature, he expressed a thought that perhaps 66 2-3 per cent would 
 be the proper measure, and he expressed it something like this: 
 That one-third of the accidents were the result of the negligence 
 of the employe, that one-third of the accidents were the result of 
 the inherent risk, and one-third of the accidents were the result 
 of the negligence of the employer ; and that it was not right to put 
 the one-half of the inherent risk upon the employes, but that 
 ought to be borne by the business, and the one-third that is the 
 result of the employers' negligence ought to be borne by the 
 business ; and, therefore, one-third might, in the matter of equali- 
 zation, be borne by the eriiploye, and we would make the measure 
 66 2-3, or about that. Now, I feel that 50 per cent of the earnings, 
 based upon perhaps 30 days or less time, is not sufficient. It has 
 been urged that we should have a maximum of ?10.00 a week, as 
 in New Jersey, with a minimum of $5.00 a week. Many of our 
 mechanics make as high as $30.00 a week, and it does seem to me 
 that $10.00 a week is wholly inadequate to compensate them, and 
 most of our building mechanics are more or less engaged in the dan- 
 gerous trades. 
 
 Mr. Britton : What do you think the maximum ought to be ? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Well, I would say it ought to be two-thirds of 
 the rate. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : Do you think that in addition to that the em- 
 ployer should stand the whole of the medical attention and hospi- 
 tal service, if any, during the first two weeks, or are you speaking 
 of it with that cut out? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : . No, I am speaking on the basis of that being in. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Mr. Sumner, while in a general way you 
 quote me correctly, you may remember that I based my idea of 
 
34c] 
 
 81 
 
 66 2-3 per cent of the wages upon the assumption that part of that 
 was paid by contribution ? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : I was not sure I understood you. 
 Mr. Schweidtman : In other words, don't you believe that a 
 man who is not at work, and whose medical attention is paid for, 
 do you think he is under the same expense as he would be at work? 
 Putting it the other way, it has been figured out by statisticians 
 that a man at home, where he does not have to pay car fare and' 
 meals away from home, and a good many have working clothes, if 
 you please, and tools and all that sort of thing, for any length of time, 
 that it would amount to 15 or 20 per cent of his wages? In other 
 words, if he was getting 80 per cent while at home, he would be 
 getting the full equivalent for 100 per cent while at work, and that 
 of the 80 per cent he ought to pay at least 15 on account of paying 
 for his injuries, even those due to his own carelessness. In other 
 words, the 15 per cent should be governed by his own contribution, 
 and that if he does not pay any part of that he should only receive 
 50 per cent of his wages. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I don't know whether I understand you cor- 
 rectly or not, but at any rate, as I have stated, I understood that 
 was your view about it. I don't believe that 15 or 20 per cent of a 
 man's darnings are saved by his remaining at home. I have hap- 
 pened to be a mechanic the most of my life, and I know that my 
 car fare and incidentals by reason of my lunching down town 
 rather than at home didn't anything approximate 15 or 20 per 
 cent of my earnings, and I don't believe that would be borne out 
 by an investigation. I believe that if we are correct on the theory 
 that one-third of the risks are inherent, and one-third are the 
 result of the negligence of the employer, that that wage of two- 
 thirds ought to be paid the employe at his home, and his doctor 
 bills, which are the result of the accident, ought to be borne by 
 the business, and I believe that I am correct in saying that two- 
 thirds of the wage ought to be the measure of compensation. 
 
 Mr. Britton: Without any maximum? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Yes; I don't see why, if I get $30.00 a week, 
 and I am in a hazardous business and I am injured, that I should 
 take $10.00 a week instead of $20.00. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: Would you be in favor of also abolishing the 
 minimum? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: No; I don't think that I would. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : Would that be fair? 
 
 34c— 6 
 
[340 
 
 82 
 
 Mr. Sumner : Now, we are getting at this as a social matter, 
 and no man can live on less than the minimum that has been made 
 by the various states, and if he has a family he can't i possibly live 
 on it. And we are trying to keep these dependents from being the 
 recipients of charity, and being taken care of by their neighbors, 
 and being a burden upon society, and forcing their children and 
 women out into industries in order to make up the loss sustained 
 by the bread winner through these industrial accidents. I think 
 that minimum ought to be sufficient, just the same as the minimum 
 wages for women in industries ought to be sufficient to maintain 
 that condition in the home during that period of unemployment. , 
 I know that burden is not going to be borne by the employer; it 
 is going to be shifted over on to the consumer, onto the trade. I 
 don't think there could be any question at all in the mind of any- 
 one about that. It will not come out of the profits. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: I was present at various discussions of 
 that point in various state commissions, and the same point came 
 out invariably. Of course, you must base it on equity, and then 
 the maximum and minimum are brought in. We have it based on 
 the average, and then you have both the minimum and maximum. 
 You can't possibly have it equitably vdthout the minimum and 
 maximum. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I don't know why we can't. I say there is 
 where we are feoing to differ. To my mind, and I am arguing 
 every day that even in the slave days the slaveholder had to take 
 care of his own chattels during that period of unemployment; he 
 had to take care of his chattels during their sickness, just as the 
 industries now take care of horses during the period of unem- 
 ployment if necessary to the business when the industry is grow- 
 ing. That is an overhead charge, and I don't see any reason why 
 that should not be borne by the industry, with reference to our 
 human beings, the first concern of our society. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: If we go beyond theory of compensation and 
 do away with that theory that the causes of accidents are ap- 
 proximately divided into three about equal parts, and pay more 
 than that, isn't that charity per se, pure and simple? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I don't see it. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Then why not also put unemployment 
 on the list? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : I am sure that is coming. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : Sure, but not under this law. , 
 
34ol 
 
 83 
 
 Mr. Sumner: In my mind, those reforms in Germany and 
 England are coming to the United States. And if you will par- 
 don me, that is part of the program I am advocating every night 
 now. I know that is coming, but we are not prepared to argue 
 that before this board, because this is a question simply of com- 
 pensation for industrial accidents. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Exactly. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : But the same theory holds good. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Therefore, no charitable project ought to 
 be introduced into this particular law, which is a compensation 
 law, pure and simple, and I can't for the life of me see where 
 it would be fair to the employer to have a minimum and have no 
 maximum. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : The maximum is set by the 66 2-3 per cent of 
 the earnings of the employe. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: And the minimum should be fixed on the 
 same basis. You must be fair to both sides, and only by being fair 
 to both sides can we have an equitable law. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : Unless we want to look after the social values 
 at the same time. I, see no objection to incorporating that sec- 
 tion into our bill, that the industry in which these men spent 
 their lives should take care of these men during this period of ac- 
 cidents. It is just the same as that they must take care of the other 
 expenses incident to the business. If we are paying our employes 
 now a wage which does not permit that employe to maintain him- 
 self and his family while he is working, then when he is injured, 
 two-thirds of the causes of which are the result of the employers 
 negligence and the inherent risk in the business, I don't see any 
 reason why those employes who are necessary to that business 
 should not be taken care of during that period of injury. I think 
 I am looking at it, of course, from a different point of view from 
 you gentlemen. I am looking at it from the point of view of the 
 employe, and that is my only concern in this. I think it is time 
 in this country when we should pay more attention to the welfare 
 of those engaged in those industries, and should not cast them in 
 the scrap heap and get new men just because they are tempo- 
 rarily useless to us, or that they are permanently disqualified from 
 holding their positions. After they have given all they have got, 
 they ought to be the first concern of our government and those 
 industries which has got the best that is in them out of them. 
 I feel that what New Jersey has done was m the way of a pio- 
 
[34o 
 
 84 
 
 neering project. I think that Missouri refused at the last session 
 ^f the" Legislature to even consider this matter, arguing that they 
 -Were going to get statistics and going to make this scientific inves- 
 -tigation in this State, a thing that was not done, and we were 
 going to base this law in Missouri on those statistics and that in- 
 vestigation. Now, in the meantime, other states have pioneered 
 and have done these things, and I believe our state is better pre- 
 pared now to profit by the experience of other states, and we 
 ought to get the benefit of the fact that they have really worked 
 out a system, but that the compensation is entirely inadequate. 
 And the sentiment of the community is much stronger on this 
 measure than it was two years ago, and we ought to demand a 
 better measure of compensation than we could possibly get our 
 legislature to give us two years ago. No one believes this law 
 "will be permanent. I feel sure that whatever we do now will 
 be amended and improved from general assembly to general as- 
 sembly; but I do believe that the people of this State, inasmuch 
 as we have been delayed until this time, ought to get the benefit 
 of the experience of other states, and our people ought to be bet- 
 ter served now by our Legislature than the Legislatures served 
 the people of the other states. That is my position with regard to 
 it. ' 
 
 Mr. Britton: Coming back to this maximum again, your 
 proposition is that they shall be paid two-thirds, say, of the wages, 
 without any maximum limit, because they are only responsible 
 for one-third of the accidents, based on the statistics. Now, aren't 
 those who are engaged in extra hazardous employments compen- 
 sated in the large wages they receive ? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: May I answer that? This gentleman here 
 this morning said that out of 47 trades the manufacture of explo- 
 sives was the most hazardous, and then he said their pay roll was 
 $150,000.00 a year, and it covered from 200 to 300 employes. 
 Now, simple arithmetic tells you that these are making from $500.00 
 to $750.00 a year, which shows you about what attention is paid 
 in wage schedules to the hazardous nature of employment. It 
 is not regulated at all by that. 
 
 Mr. Root: I would like to state in reply to that — 
 
 Chairman Greene: Please allow Mr. Sumner to conclude 
 his remarks, and then you will be given. an opportunity to make 
 any statement you desire. 
 
34cJ 
 
 85 
 
 Mr. Keith: Judge Laffey said 25 per cent were exposed to 
 the risk and 75 per cent were not. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : It is a matter of interest to know what the dif- 
 ference in wages is. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: That was in his words, where he said it 
 was most improved factory with the latest appliances known so 
 far in that industry, but in the other he stated there were 100 
 per cent exposed to the injury of the industry. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : You take for instance my trade, that of stereo- 
 typing, it is classed as a hazardous trade, and without exception 
 the printer, who works in adjoining rooms to the stereotyper, ex- 
 cept in Kansas City, gets from 50 cents to a dollar and a dollar 
 and a half a day more than the stereotyper gets, ' showing that 
 the question of the hazard of the trade has nothing to do with 
 the compensation. I think that without any question that could 
 easily be disproved, and it can be undoubtedly shown that the 
 nature of the trade does not regulate the amount of compensa- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Britton: That is not quite true, is it, in trades of 
 hazardous occupation like mining. How are those men employed? 
 How are they paid, compared with the man who uses the pick and 
 shovel above ground? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Where the union hasn't something to say 
 about it, I think they are treated the same way. 
 
 Mr. Britton: Do you know what they are paid? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I don't know that. Mr. Manuel can give you 
 the information you need on that subject, because he is quite fa- 
 miliar with it, being a miner. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : Down in the Joplin district, where they are not 
 organized, that would be a fair answer to that question. I don't 
 know what they are paid. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: The fact that there are about 300,000 miners 
 organized certainly has something to do with the schedule of 
 compensation of those who are not organized. 
 
 Mr. Britton: It is just a proposition I would like to get 
 your idea on. What do you think ought to be the basis for the 
 purpose of arriving at the average compensation? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I really have no judgment on that. I couldn't 
 answer that. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : Another question I would like to ask. There 
 seems to be a pretty general lack of understanding as to this 
 
[34tf 
 
 86 
 
 matter of medical aid during the first two weeks, or whatever 
 the period is before compensation begins, and hospital and surgi- 
 cal attention, and. all that, and I know as a practical fact of my 
 own experience that that is an exceedingly important element 
 entering into the question. I know there are many accidents in 
 which the man is disabled for three or four weeks, and the medi- 
 cal aid and hospital bills are eight or ten times what is called 
 for by the compensation. In most of the states in trades where 
 the percentage is high, that is lacking. I think that is an im- 
 portant element entering into this that ought to be considered. 
 It seems to me that is a matter of arithmetic for both employer 
 and employe to sharpen their pencils and get busy with and de- 
 termine what they want to do about it, and I would like to know 
 your views about that. It goes without saying that Missouri 
 cannot burden itself and cripple its industries by having its scale 
 too excessive ; on the other hand, I think we all feel that Missouri 
 can afford to deal very generously and fairly with its employes, 
 as compared with other states. It seems to me we would like to 
 hear from the representatives of labor, whether they would pre- 
 fer the medical aid and hospital bills during the first two weeks 
 paid, or whether they prefer that cut out and the percentage 
 higher. The burden on the industry may be equal in either case, 
 but it is a question of which is desired. When a man comes before 
 us and advocates that the state be burdened so it could not com- 
 pete, I don't think such a law could pass the Legislature. On 
 the other hand, no law could pass the Legislature which was not 
 fair and just to everybody. But" some have come before us who ' 
 don't seem to appreciate the enormous cost embodied in that first 
 aid. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : I feel this way about that : Illinois passed a com- 
 pensation act, notwithstanding that Missouri didn't have one, and 
 they took the risk of losing their manufacturers, and I don't know 
 that any great number have come to Missouri from there. Now, 
 Missouri should perhaps assume a little more burden on its in- 
 dustries and not lose its industries to Illinois. I believe that each 
 jrear, as we pass these bills, we can improve a little on the acts 
 of other states the year before. And I should say that of course 
 the first aid certainly ought to be borne by the industry. The most 
 of the states have a period of two weeks before the schedule of 
 compensation attaches, and. that is for the purpose of permit- 
 ting those bills to be borne by the industry, the medical atten- 
 
34c] 
 
 87 
 
 tion and hospital bills. Then if the injury continues over the 
 two weeks the employe begins to draw his compensation, I think 
 that is the usual way of arriving at that. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : Mr. Sumner, isn't it a fact that very few 
 of the employers in the state of Illinois have come under the 
 compensation act, simply because of the difference in cost, which 
 is enormous between their remaining under the employer's lia- 
 bility law, even with the difference eliminated of compulsion in 
 the compensation act, and do you think that is a healthy state of 
 affairs? Wouldn't it be far better to have a condition such as 
 exists in New Jersey, where the compensation is somewhat less, 
 but with a large majority of employers and employes covered 
 by the law? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : Well, now, my theory of it is that the reason the 
 employers of New Jersey got under that law is because it saved 
 them money. It doesn't increase the expense a bit. In Illinois 
 it does increase the expense somewhat, and they are holding 
 back. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : How do you explain the fact that not a single 
 employe in the state of New Jersey is not willing to come under 
 it? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : As explained this morning, the law is affirma- 
 tive. You are under it unless you notify your employer that you 
 don't intend to come under it, and like most other things, they 
 have simply neglected to take any action in the matter. 
 
 Mr. Britton: Have you any figures on that proposition that 
 they are saving money under that act? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: No. My reason for saying that is that the 
 employers — I have had- some experience in this matter. I have 
 lobbied with the employers' representatives on the other side and 
 whenever the employer sees that he can save money, he is for these 
 reforms; whenever it is going to cost him one per cent more he 
 is opposed to it, and we have to impose these reforms upon him. 
 The supposition is that the employers of this country, notwith- 
 standing they are released from the burden of the employers lia- 
 bility law, know fhat they are either going to have their defenses 
 taken away from them or they are going to have workmen's com- 
 pensation, and they are naturally eager to get out from under the 
 employers' liability law, with their defenses removed, and in favor 
 of getting just as small a measure of compensation as they . can. 
 And that is the interest most of the gentlemen have in coming 
 
[34c 
 
 88 
 
 here and arguing for this compensation. They know it is com- 
 ing and they want to get it as low as they can get. 
 
 Mr. Britton: That is a supposition not based on facts. I 
 can tell you where it is wrong. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: It is based on my experience. 
 Mr. Britton : It is not based on averages of the whole country, 
 and I can tell you where you can get figures on that proposition. 
 When the proposed federal bill was bdng considered by the com- 
 mission, the railroads of the country were asked to prepare figures, 
 which were verified by the Commission, as showing what they had 
 paid to injured employes during the last five years, and what 
 they would pay them under each compensation act then in ex- 
 istence, or what would be in existence under the federal bill. 
 There was not a law now in existence that saved the railroads any 
 money over what they had been paying under liability acts; in 
 fact, they would pay a good deal more under the federal law, 
 and they would pay a good deal more under every workmen's 
 compensation law then in existence. The reason for that is that 
 only a very small percentage of workmen injured in accidents 
 are compensated, while under a workmen's compensation act they 
 would all be compensated. That has been overlooked when you 
 say the employer is only favoring these bills because he thinks 
 he is going to save money. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : I don't want to be understood as meaning that 
 is the only thing that actuates them. I want to at least modify 
 that by saying they are not wholly actuated by mercenary motives. 
 Mr. Barrows: Your information in regard to the condition 
 in the state of New Jersey is opposite to the facts, because al- 
 most all the employers in New Jersey protect their individual 
 hazards by taking insurance. The cost of insurance in New 
 Jersey today is about double what it was before the compensation 
 act took place. And out of that double twice as much as what 
 he pays goes into the pocket of the employe. In addition to 
 that, you say they come under it because it is to their advantage 
 to come under it, that they save money by coming under it. That 
 is contrary to the facts, because the insurance rate on almost 
 all occupations in New Jersey today is the same whether they 
 are under it or out of it. It is what is called a well-balanced act. 
 They can insure under it or out of it for the same rate of pre- 
 mium. Yet they come under it because they like its workings, 
 
34c] 
 
 89 
 
 not because they save any money. Your information about that 
 is wrong. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : They have their defenses removed in New Jer- 
 sey unless they do come under it. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: Sure. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : That is the reason the cost of liabiUty insur- 
 ance has increased materially on these things in the last year. 
 If they didn't remove the employers defenses the rate would not 
 be as high for industrial insurance as it is now. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: Didn't Mr. Dutton testify at the meeting 
 in St. Louis that he favored the New Jersey law because it had not 
 added any expense to the employer? 
 
 Mr. Barrows : He did, and I am sorry to say that his infor- 
 mation in that regard was absolutely wrong. It has about doubled 
 it. Mr. Dutton also made another statement, which I corrected 
 at the time, in regard to the low average cost of the New Jersey 
 compensation. What Mr. Dutton meant to say, he has told me 
 since, was that the cost in New Jersey under compensation or out 
 of it at this time was equal. Instead of that he said it was the 
 same as before. He meant it was the same as the cost under 
 Uability today. It has been about doubled. That is the real fact 
 about that. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : The question with me is this : I know of 
 no state in the union where they have wiped out all of those de- 
 fenses. 
 
 Mr. Britton: New Jersey. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Only under the elective system. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: I haven't had anything to indicate that. 
 What precedent has there been to justify that statement? I 
 know of no state which has wiped out the defenses, with the possi- 
 ble exception of the State of Georgia. Their liability law has been 
 more liberal than in other states. There are a very few wiped out 
 those defenses that I know of. 
 
 Mr. Keith : Kansas has wiped them out. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: They have got a compensation act along 
 with it. 
 
 Mr. Keith : My own experience in Kansas — 
 
 Chairman Greene: (Interrupting). Gentlemen, we are not 
 getting along very fast. I would suggest that we defer this dis- 
 cussion among the members until all the parties present have been 
 heard who desire to be heard. 
 
[340 
 
 90 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I think I have said enough with reference to 
 that to show my viewpoint and what we think regarding the 
 situation. 
 
 There is one other question. I feel that this compensation act 
 ought to cover all employes in the State, or we ought to have 
 the defenses of the employers removed as to those industries 
 that are not covered by the bill. I feel that the employe, under 
 the circumstances, is entitled to compensation for his injuries, and 
 if you don't feel that you can get that bill to cover all of them, 
 I believe in all justice you ought to remove the defenses Of the 
 employers who don't want to come under that bill in regard to 
 industries, just the same as in regard to those engaged in these 
 industries you intend to have this bill cover. 
 
 Mr. Keith : You refer to farmers as well as industrial 
 workers ? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Yes, I do. I was interested in the statement. 
 I got the most of my information, or the greater part of it come 
 through Mr. Schweidtman's book and his argument. The statistics 
 in Germany are that the most hazardous employment in Germany, 
 it has developed, is the agricultural industry. Wasn't that the 
 statement? 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: That is correct. I did not intend to 
 challenge the other statement, but as he says he had most of 
 his information coming from that source, I now feel justified 
 in broadly challenging any statement that the employers are in- 
 terested in this proposition only on account of dollars and cents, 
 because it is not true. I do know from actual experience that 
 thousands of employers are bound to pay considerable more to 
 have their men under a compensation law than under a liability 
 act. That is a fact. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: The reason I made that statement is that I 
 have been lobbying a good many years for laboring men, and I 
 never had the co-operation on any bill that we wanted of the em- 
 ployers. They were always on the opposite side of every proposition 
 we were in favor of, until they saw we were going to get some- 
 thing anyhow, and then they would come in and help us get less 
 than we wanted. I have generally found that the situation on 
 almost every proposition we were interested in. It is based on the 
 experience of some years. I don't mean to say that means all the 
 mein in the industries, but the fellows that usually appear as 
 lobbyists. I think there is no question about that. I remember 
 
34e] 
 
 91 
 
 when we had our nine-hour law in this State there were about 
 250 of the employers of this town went down and tried to get 
 Governor Hadley to veto that bill, after the legislature passed it. 
 I think everybody realizes now it was a good law, and I don't 
 believe the employers are going to try to any extent to have it 
 repealed. I think it will be a great mistake if they do. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: The question of taking in farm laborers 
 — now, of course, this question of workingmen's compensation,- 
 while some states, have adopted it, it is still rather in the begin- 
 ning. There may be some states where the majority of the people 
 are engaged in the industries, generally speaking, but if we get 
 into a state where the most of th^ inhabitants are in the rural 
 districts, we might have a, hard time getting a bill through which 
 includes all employes. 
 Mr. Sumner: Yes. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: That was the condition some of the men 
 went up against in Illinois a few" years ago, in trying to get a 
 liability bill through there. Some influence was injected into it 
 eliminating farm employes, and then the governor vetoed it. They 
 realized they couldn't get it through unless they did that. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: That was practical policy, and I don't believe 
 any of us are foolish enough to think we will get all we want; 
 but I think we ought to get this Commission to make a bill which 
 gives us the nearest approach to what we want now, the best 
 that we can do at this time, and then that bill will undoubtedly 
 be modified before it is adopted. Of course, there are a lot of 
 things we want that we are not going to get. I think the time 
 has come when this burden ought to be shifted off the employes 
 and put on the business, in some measure, anyhow. But I am 
 only telling you what I think we feel is what ought to be done 
 in the matter. 
 
 ' Mr, Schweidtman: You have had a good deal of experience 
 in lobbying in a legislative way at Jefferson City, and you have 
 repeatedly stated that you did not expect to get a satisfactory 
 bill in the very beginning. Have you given any thought as to 
 how we might perfect it from time to time by a standing Com- 
 mission, or operation of law, or making recommendations from 
 one assembly to another? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : No, I hadn't thought of that. I presume that 
 would come from the operation itself. We will have learned the 
 defects and naturally will be eager to correct them.' All of our 
 
[340 
 
 92 
 
 other legislation has been more or less defective when adopted, 
 and needed some amendment. We are making great improvement 
 in our social legislation in this State. I think it is standing up as 
 high as almost any state in the United States now with reference 
 to these matters. 
 
 I believe that instead of having the enforcement of this 
 matter placed in the hands of the court, and have the court act as 
 a judge or the arbitrator, that we ought to have an arbitration 
 board. And my chief reason for that is that we are going to have 
 legal procedure; we are going to get technical; we are going to 
 have the same trouble with reference to this bill before our judges 
 that we have now with reference to damage suits, and have 
 trained, skilled representatives of the interests as against our 
 feeble and unskilled people to defend themselves, and we are going 
 to have to go down and hire a shrewd lawyer and give him a good 
 part of what we collect to defend our case before that board. I 
 feel that if we are going to try and save waste, we ought to by all 
 means give this matter into the hands of a board of arbitration, 
 where our people can appear just the same as the others, as our 
 juvenile court and board of parole and our other institutions, 
 which are all getting away from technical law and hearing these 
 matters without regard to codes of procedure, so our people can 
 get their evidence in without having it thrown out because there 
 was something technical wrong about it. 
 
 Mr. Britton: Would you have that a State Board? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Yes. 
 
 Mr. Britton: Would you have it appointed? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : I think so. 
 
 Mr. Britton : Would you rather have a State Board pass upon 
 that question, appointed by some authority, than to have a judge 
 who was elected pass upon it? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I think so. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : Would you have it so that there could be 
 an appeal to the regular court? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : I think that has to be done. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: Wouldn't it be better in case of arbi- 
 tration to have something similar to the Illinois law, where the 
 injured party or someone named by him will appoint an arbitrator, 
 and the employer appoint an arbitrator, and the judge of the 
 Circuit Court appoint one ; or as the Massachusetts lav/ provides, 
 
93 
 
 one a member of a Board of Commission, as they first established 
 a commission in that state? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I was assuming of course that the bill would 
 have made arrangements for the employer and employe and some 
 disinterested party^ to act, on the board. 
 
 Mr. Britton: Mr. Bxittingham means in each case, have a 
 separate board in each case, as I understand. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: The Wisconsin act is different. They have 
 a regular State Commission. I don't know how it works out in 
 practice, but I have rather thought the better way to do was 
 to have a commission which handled these matters continuously, 
 and if they were appointed with reference to the representation 
 of the different interests, we would have a thoroughly intelligent 
 and responsible board to pass on and handle these matters, so 
 we would get much quicker and I think more satisfactory re- 
 sults. I am not at all settled in my opinions about these things. 
 I say, if we can get by the question of the measure of compensa- 
 tion and some of those other things, I believe that what we want 
 is a bill that these details can be worked out so we can get jus- 
 tice and get it quickly. 
 
 Mr. Hall : About the measure of compensation, you were talk- 
 ing about the maximum and minimum, but only referred to the 
 minimum in injury. In case of death, do you think they should 
 all receive the same compensation, or should it depend on how 
 many dependents they leave? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I am glad you brought that question up. I 
 don't expect many to agree with me, but I think the most in- 
 famous thing I know of is the bill which says that a foreigner 
 cannot recover as much as a native, which is undoubtedly a dis- 
 crimination against the employment of our home people in favor 
 of foreigners, because he cannot get the same amount of dam- 
 ages in case of injury. I feel that way with reference to that 
 situation. I tliink the proposition something like the widows' 
 allowance act, that the first child gets $10.00 a month and for 
 each child thereafter $5.00 ; I believe that the burden -ought to 
 be heavier on the man with a wife. It ought to be so that it is 
 not an encouragement to the employer to hire a single man or a man 
 with a wife without any children. I am enough of a Ropsevelt- 
 ian to believe we ought to protect this nation from race suicide. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: Don't you think that the amount payable to 
 a man or a widow with ten children is made higher than if it is 
 
C34e 
 
 94 
 
 some foreigner who is in this country with no dependents ; wouldn't 
 that operate in just the way you suggest, to make it hard for the 
 man with a big family to get employment, who needed it most? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I think you misunderstood me. I say that the 
 purpose is for a man and wife to get 50 per cent, that is, with a 
 wife. I don't remember the figures. If he has a child he gets 
 so much for that child, and so much for each additional child. 
 I feel that whether he is a foreigner or not, the measure ought 
 to be the same, and that he ought to be paid a larger percentage 
 with one child than it is now. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : Wouldn't that operate to m.ake the employers 
 select a single man? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : No, I don't think so. I don't see why it would. 
 
 Mr. Keith: According to Mr. Sumner's idea, a man who 
 has one dependent upon him gets the maximum amount, and a 
 man who has several dependents gets proportionately less for 
 each dependent he has. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: No, that is. not my argument. I may not be 
 very clear. I am clear in my own mind about it that if a single 
 man is injured he is not a burden. Then what occurs? The em- 
 ployer has the incentive to employ single men. If a man is mar- 
 ried but has no children, the burden on the industry is not so 
 great on it as it would be on it if he has children. The incentive 
 is to hire a man with wife and no children. I feel that the bur- 
 den certainly ought to be heavier on the industry for the single 
 man, if he has dependents, or the man and wife, than it would 
 be on the man with a big family. In other words, in that way 
 there is not that same incentive to save money by hiring a man 
 with no children as against the man with a large family. 
 
 Mr. Britton: You mean that man's wife with several chil- 
 dren should receive more compensation than a widow who has no 
 children? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. Britton: Then why wouldn't it operate as Mr. Bar- 
 rows suggested? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : Well, it would. I mean that the widow, if she 
 has no children, ought to get more than the present rates in the 
 bills, between what the widow gets if she has no children, and 
 what the widow with children gets. 
 
 Mr. Hall: Isn't that the law now, under the damage act, 
 
34c] 
 
 95 
 
 that widows with children can recover more than the loss of a 
 husband than if she has no children? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I really don't know. We are talking about a 
 compensation act now, to determine how much the compensation 
 should be for a child, or for a man with a wife. 
 
 Mr. Keith : Your idea is that the compensation in either case 
 should be the same? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : It ought to be somewhere near equal. 
 
 Mr. Keith: So there is no discrimination between em- 
 ployer to have only one dependent and those who have a number? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : I don't think it ought to be the same. The 
 rates ought to be different from that named in all the bills. Some 
 of our states are providing that foreigners with families back 
 home should get the same compensation or somewhat near the 
 same compensation as a man in this country who has a family 
 here gets, in order to destroy the inducement to employers to hire 
 foreign labor. 
 
 Mr. Keith : You think there should be no discrimination be- 
 tween foreign and domestic labor? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: There ought not to be. The argument of the 
 employers has been, and it was argued in the Kansas Legisla-. 
 ture, and some of the bills provided that the foreigner without a 
 family here should not recover damages. The law in Pennsyl- 
 vania now is that a foreigner shall not get damages if his family 
 is back home. That has been an inducement to import those men 
 without families to work here. 
 
 Mr. Britton: Here is the provision of the New Jersey law: 
 "Compensation under this article shall not apply to citizens with 
 dependents not resident in the United States." You are opposed 
 to that? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I am absolutely opposed to it, as an induce- 
 ment to employ foreigners because if they are injured they do 
 not recover; if a man who has a family here is injured they do 
 have to pay. 
 
 Mr. Keith: Do you know of any specific case where such a 
 discrimination has ever occurred? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I have read about it a number of times in 
 Pennsylvania, because they have a law there with regard to for- . 
 eigners. If a man is injured with a family in Europe, he has no 
 right of action. It has been a grievance of some years in Pennsyl- 
 
[34c 
 
 96 
 
 vania that it creates an inducement to employ foreign labor rather 
 than those living here. 
 
 Mr. Britton : Do you suppose the purpose of that was to in- 
 duce these laborers to this country? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : I don't know. No, I don't think it was. 
 
 Mr. Britton: Whatever the purpose was, you don't think 
 it operates that way, but that it is rather a discrimination against' 
 native labor? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : I am quite sure of it, yes. I think our indus- 
 tries ought to employ our pwn people, and I think we ought to 
 make it difficult or impossible for them to discriminate against 
 our people in favor of employing foreign labor. I think this 
 bill certainly ought to take care of that feature. 
 
 Personally, I am rather friendly to the Washington State 
 law. I don't believe there is any hope of getting it here, and 
 I think perhaps it ought to be tried out there more, but the ar- 
 gument made this morning with reference to the operation of 
 that law and the burden on the Dupont Powder Company, and 
 the fact that they are paying 10 per cent of their income and all 
 that, didn't make any impression on me, because that rate goes 
 down according to their experience as to the cost of paying com- 
 pensation in those different departments. 
 
 Mr. Britton: What do you think of the equity in one com- 
 pany paying the damages for injuries caused by the negligence 
 of another? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Well, that is the fire insurance system; that 
 is the bank guaranty system in Kansas and Oklahoma; that is 
 the system we are adopting generally in all our legislatures; and 
 that really causes the employer to see that inspection is made and 
 that we do have safety devices. It is just the same incentive 
 as that of any mutual insurance company. If the rate is based up- 
 on the number of accidents or casualties in that industry, there 
 is the same incentive to see that the number of accidents are kept 
 down to the minimum. The ones that are going to pay will be 
 interested to see that the proper inspection is made. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : In Washington it works just the opposite 
 way. That is the reason it was criticised this morning. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: It was <?riticised in that case, and it was just 
 one month after the law was passed that the accident happened. 
 
 Mr. Barrow: Is there any incentive to make the plant safe 
 when the employer gets no advantage? 
 
34c] 
 
 97 
 
 Mr. Sumner: There is just the same inducement as there 
 is in the bank guaranty law, to see that our banks didn't go 
 in the lumber business, or didn't buy worthless securities or lend 
 money on them. I think it is the same proposition and would 
 work out the same way as insurance companies, to see that the 
 risks are better in order to reduce the rates. Everybody who 
 was injured in an insurance company is interested to see that all 
 that are insured will have the proper safeguard. 
 
 Mr. Keith: Do you know of any insurance where the rate 
 varies according to the hazard? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Yes. 
 
 Mr. Keith: In Washington that is not true. It is a blanket 
 rate. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : It is a blanket rate, according to the trade. 
 
 Mr. Keith: It is a blanket rate according to the trade and 
 the rate varies according to the different people in it. It is a 
 blanket rate, and consequently, there is no inducement for a man 
 to better his hazard. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: Isn't it necessarily defective in the entire 
 system? You can't get away from it. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : Not as I see it. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: It works the opposite from what you say? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : No, I differ from you. I say the same induce- 
 ment to get that 10 per cent reduced to 6 or 8 or some 
 lesser amount would actuate the employers to see that all who 
 come under that law have the same safety devices and the same 
 up to date system and appliances, in order to get the reduced 
 premium. 
 
 Mr. Britton : Take this concrete case spoken of this morn- 
 ing, 47 industries in the classification of the Washington law. The 
 rates for those industries are .fixed according to the number of 
 accidents in those industries, as I understand it. That is correct, 
 isfi't it? • 
 
 Mr. Sumner: No, I don't think the bill was based on any 
 claimed investigation of that subject. 
 
 Mr. Britton : That was the purpose, to make a rate based 
 upon the hazards of the industry. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Yes. 
 
 Mr. Britton: Then after arriving at that, they apportion 
 that rate among the various industries in that industry, the various 
 plans, you might say, according to their pay roll. 
 
 340—7 
 
[34o 
 
 98 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Yes. 
 
 Mr. Britton : Here is the Dupont Powder Company in Wash- 
 ington, with a tremendous pay roll, paying a great per cent of 
 the total fund, while the little' fellow who only has a small pay 
 roll pays but a small proportion. What incentive is there for the 
 small employer to make his plant safe? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : He is going to have the pressure put on him 
 by the others in that business. You can see that if we are going 
 into a mutual insurance company, or any other system, that 
 there will be those small employers with one plant who will have 
 more accidents, and under the mutual scheme they will be forced 
 by the others to improve their plant. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: Under the mutual scheme they are the very 
 ones that try to get in. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: They are in now. Any others are insured 
 in proportion or according to the number of employes. The pres- 
 sure will undoubtedly be brought to bear on those little fellows 
 by the bigger ones to insure safety in the plant. 
 
 Mr. .Britton: In a mutual insurance company no one can 
 come in unless the rest of them say so, while under your State 
 insurance system all of those industries can come in. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I know; but what are you then going to do 
 with the employers in this industry who are not let in? We are 
 trying to make it so comprehensive that everybody will have to 
 be in it. 
 
 Mr. Britton : But I am speaking about the incentive to make 
 the plant safe. If every factory in a particular industry has to 
 come under that law, then the rest of them, the big plants, have 
 no control over the small ones. They can come in anyway; they 
 have to come in. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: That has worked out in so many other ways 
 and in so many other things. Some of the compensation bills 
 provide an additional payment for those industries that do not 
 have the safety devices. And they could by this factory inspec- 
 tion law and others, those who have the large pay rolls and ef- 
 ficient plants, are going to see to it that the inspector makes the 
 proper inspection of those who are also interested in that busi- 
 ness and who are negligent, and the pressure is going to come from 
 the outside, and they will put the pressure on the State authorities 
 to see that they do their duty, just as they are doing now with 
 reference to other matters. 
 
34o] 
 
 99 
 
 Mr. Barrows: Did you ever see a State inspection in this 
 or any other state or any Federal inspection, under political 
 control, that amounted to two whoopees? Isn't it true that in 
 the city of St. Louis, and no doubt here in Kansas City, there 
 are hundreds and hundreds of children under the legal age of 
 employment whom the inspectors under the inspection law never 
 find? Isn't it true that the inspection of elevators isn't worth 
 a whoopee, and the beer inspection and the inspection of coal 
 oil, and everything else always has been and always will be a 
 farce under political control? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: That is not confined to small employers with 
 little pay rolls. The pressure in a political way is put on by the 
 big interests. That is one thing that is not done. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: There is the same object and principle — 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Pardon me a minute. No. If the large in- 
 dustry is paying a high rate for his protection becaiise of the 
 fact that injuries in the small industries make it so, he will 
 see that you have fair and proper inspection. He will see that 
 he gets the same benefit from the operation of that law that the 
 small one does, iand it is the big business that prevents our in- 
 spections that Mr. Barrows speaks of. The first thing would 
 be to get the legislature to make some appropriation sufficient in 
 amount to have efficient and capable inspection; and second, be- 
 cause the political pressure would be put on them by the big 
 business interests to see that the inspection is honest and fair. 
 That is the way that is done now, just the opposite of that, and 
 anybody that knows anything about these facts knows that is 
 the way it is done. It is not the little industries that do that 
 work. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : I am speaking of the failure of the Washing- 
 ton law, because it puts a premium on making the individual plant 
 safe, and the responsibility is left upon the individual employe; 
 as it is under the law in New Jersey, he has every incentive and 
 gains every reward for making his plant safe. And isn't it true 
 that the Washington law just absolutely takes away all incen- 
 tive to make the factory safe, is so considered generally? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : I say that is not right. I say the same incen- 
 tive exists in Washington that exists in New Jersey, because that 10 
 per cent is supposed to cover all the expense of that risk of that 
 business. If you have the improved safety devices, you can get 
 a reduction in rate. The big employer who has equipped his 
 
[34c 
 100 
 
 plant with these safety devices, their damages are reduced to 
 a minimum, and he is going to see, in order to get the advantage 
 of that rate, that others will Jiave this inspection . and those 
 devices instituted, and he is going to have the same incentive, to 
 get a reduction in the State premium as he is now getting in the 
 mutual insurance company. If the. purpose is that we cannot 
 recover compensation from those, small employers who . will not 
 obey the law, then it is not going to operate as we expect it to 
 operate, by giving. compensation to all the employes in. the indus- 
 tries regardless of whether they work, for large plants or small 
 ones. I say the purpose is to get them all secured. 
 
 Mr. Britton: How long has the Washington law been in 
 
 operation ? 
 
 Mr. Sumner ; I think about a year. 
 
 Mr. Britton: Do you know whether or not the , accidents 
 haye increased or decreased during the operation of the law? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : My understanding from our point of view 
 that many of the employers . were responsible for the bill in the 
 first place, and that the e_mployers themselves have gone und,er 
 the bill, with the exception perhaps of some like the Dupont Po^w^- 
 der Company, and that it is working excellently. That is my 
 understanding of it, and I have heard so this last week from, a 
 fellow who was out there and said that was a fact. 
 
 Mr. Britton: I was referring particularly to the prevention 
 of accidents. .,e 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I think it is too short a time yet.ta find out 
 with reference to that feature of it. 
 
 Mr. Keith: Let me ask you a question. If you had a risk 
 that was not well protected, and your neighbor had a risk that 
 was well protected, and your rate was the same as his. rate and 
 was fixed by statute, what inducement would there be to you to 
 increase your protection? That is the situation in Washington. 
 
 Mr. Sumner': It seems to me, under that condition, of af- 
 fairs, it would be up to you to see that I kept my plant the. same 
 as yours. 
 
 Mr. Keith: If your rate was the same and yoUr hazard was 
 greater than that of your neighbor, and if it required great per- 
 sonal expenditure necessary to bring your hazard dow.n.io ,the 
 same basis as my hazard, would you make that expenditure or 
 wouldn't you? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: No, that is. not the purpose of any, of. this 
 
3te] 
 
 101 
 
 insurance. They have a set rate for hazardous business and for 
 , non-hazardous Business. 
 
 Mr. Keith: I think you are mistaken about that. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: That is what it is in Washington, and why 
 most of us are opposed to that law, because it took away the in- 
 centive to make the plant safe. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : I say there may be defects in it with reference 
 to including all of the industries with regard to the hazard and 
 the different departments, but I feel so far as the industry is 
 concerned, unless the rates of non-hazardous and hazardous em- 
 ployes are different, it would be just the same to that business 
 whether they had a blanket insurance for all the employes or 
 for those only engaged in hazardous trades, or a different rate 
 for those in non-hazardous trades. It is immaterial whether 
 the rates are fixed in each industry, or each department, with 
 i"eference to the hazardous or nOn-hazardous employes. 
 
 Mr. Keith: Isn't it true in the Washington incident cited 
 this morning, Where 100 per cent of the employes in the one 
 case were exposed to the entire hazard and only 25 per cent in the 
 other, that the proportion there should be about the ratio of four 
 to one? If 10 per cent were the correct basis to start with, pro- 
 vided the hazard was well protected, and that will be conceded 
 to be fair in the case of the Dupont Company, oughtn't the rate 
 on the other concern to be 40 per cent? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I see no reason why that could not be done 
 as a matter of law. 
 
 Mr. Keith : The rate is 10 per cent, and in one is 100 per 
 cent to the risk exposed, they are exposed to "the explosive risk, 
 and in the other only 25 per cent are exposed. Don't you think 
 they ought to reduce that hazard in the one? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I see no reason why you should take the Wash- 
 ington bill entirely, any more than the New Jersey bill or any 
 other. You are going to modify the New Jersey bill, and the 
 Illinois, and I don't see why you couldn't modify the Washington 
 bill and eliminate some of those matters. 
 
 Mr. Keith: If each man was responsible for the whole 
 hazard of his business, under a workmen's compensation bill 
 such as I have been speaking of here, the man that had to pay 
 it all, nobody else chipping into the pot to help him pay his losses, 
 as was the case in Washington, would there be a greater in- 
 centive to employers and owners to protect their hazard so as 
 
[3fc 
 
 102 
 
 to reduce their own hazard and decrease the cost of operation? 
 ' Mr. Sumner: I don't just get your point. 
 
 Mr, Keith: Suppose you were employing men and you had 
 to pay under the New Jersey act? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Yes. 
 
 Mr. Keith: Wouldn't there be a greater incentive to you 
 as an employer to throw every safeguard around your men and 
 do all possible in the way of prevention of accidents under that 
 law that it would be under the law of the State of Washington, 
 where you have a fixed percentage you know you have to pay 
 every year, and no difference what you do it will not reduce that 
 expenditure? The amount of money you spend will be an addi- 
 tional expense to that already paid into that fund. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I don't agree with you that that is the effect 
 of the Washington law. 
 
 Mr. Keith: That certainly is the effect of the Washington 
 law. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : Under the New Jersey law you pay indemnity 
 insurance according to the number of employes in the business, 
 not according to the accidents in your plant. 
 
 Mr. Keith: They can take insurance in a stock company or 
 a mutual organization. ; ~ 
 
 Mr. Sumner : Yes, or buy the indemnity. 
 
 Mr. Keith: They take the best on the basis of the hazard. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Yes. 
 
 Mr. Keith: Take two plants, right by the other, one man's 
 rate is 3 per cent, and 5 per cent for the other. Both are \n the 
 same industry, and the 5 per cent man, whose risk is a greater 
 hazard than the other, on order to reduce his expenses to the 
 3 per cent basis, will put into effect expenditures and bring it 
 down to that. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : Those rates don't go by the amount of improve- 
 ment of the plant ; they go according to the . individuals em- 
 ployed. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : In New Jersey every man is given a rate ac- 
 cording to the individual plant, opposite from the case in Wash- 
 ington. Therefore, we all thought the New Jersey law gave every 
 incentive to make the plant safe, and the Washington law gave 
 none. You take the opposite view. 
 
 Mr. Moss: Mr. Sumner is evidently under the impression 
 that insui-ance is fixed with reference to the particular line of 
 
34c]. 
 
 103 
 
 business. That is not the case. It is fixed with reference to the 
 condition under which the line of business is operated. The same 
 Hne of business may be in one case 5 per cent, and in another 
 2 1-2, and in another 3 1-2. It is fixed with reference to the con- 
 ditions under which they operate. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: Under which the individual plants operate? 
 
 Mr. Moss: Yes. 
 
 Chairman Greene; Is that in Washington or New Jersey? 
 
 Mr. Moss: That is everywhere. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I didn't know the New Jersey law made that 
 change. I supposed it was the same as industrial insurance laws. 
 I know when I had a little iron foundry over in the East Bot- 
 toms I paid according to the risk in that foundry because I never 
 had an accident there. I don't see why we can't gfet these things 
 into the bill under the Washington law" just the same as the New 
 Jersey law. I don't see any reason why the rate cannot be writ- 
 ten into this bill under the Washington law just the same as the 
 New Jersey law. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: If you write the rates into the bill then you 
 take away the incentive to safeguard the plant. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : You don't need to do that. I don't agree with 
 you that that would be the result. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: You say you are in favor of the Washing- 
 ton law. In what respect do you think the Washington law is 
 better than the opposite type, the New Jersey law. What ad- 
 vantage do you get? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Because it is all inclusive. 
 
 Mr. Keith: Will you explain what you mean by that? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: It takes in all the industries and classifies 
 them, and the State collects the premiums and pays them out. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: But does not guarantee the payment? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: No, only to sue and put the business out of 
 business or get it. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: That condition does not maintain in New 
 Jersey, and they can get quicker action than they do in Wash- 
 ington. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I don't understand they do. That one case 
 was before the law had operated over a month. The accident was 
 in the little plant, instead of a big plant. I don^t believe that 
 is a typical case at all. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: In what way is a man at a disadvantage in 
 
t34c 
 104 
 
 New Jersey? If he gets a judgment against the employer he can 
 tie up every wheel in the engine and levy on it. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I understand that. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: In Washington he can't do that. These 
 people have no money. 
 
 Mr. Britton : Or no recourse. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: There is a recourse if the state authorities 
 will sue the Dupont people, and the law is constitutional. 
 
 Mr. Keith: That is the trouble, the State authorities are 
 afraid to bring suit. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I don't want an unconstitutional law here. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: Then you don't favor the Washington law? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Yes. The State courts have upheld that law. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: They didn't uphold it very much, when they 
 don't dare to bring suit for fear of having the law knocked 
 out. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : I don't know why they have not proceeded. 
 The Supreme Court has upheld the law. I don't know why they 
 don't proceed against the Dupont people, unless they are afraid 
 the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: There are two advantages which you have 
 cited in the Washington law. One you think it gives an ad- 
 ditional incentive to make the plant safe, and the other is the 
 additional security to get the money. Are there any others ? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : No, I don't know of any others. 
 
 Mr. Britton: Isn't it a fact that under the State insurance 
 plan you must leave the right to initiate the action to some board 
 or other State officer? That is, you take away from the employe 
 the right to himself go and get his compensation? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : Yes. 
 
 Mr. Britton: You must do that under State insurance. 
 
 Mr. Root (representing the Independent • Powder Com- 
 pany of Joplin, Missouri) : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am 
 not prepared with any theory on this subject, but I have been 
 actively engaged in the manufactur'e of dynamite for 15 years. 
 My father was engaged in the manufacture of powder all his 
 life or the greater part of his life before me, and the plant end 
 of the business I have been on intimate terms with since I quit 
 going to school. I think Mr, Sumner was reasoning entirely 
 from a false hypothesis on that Washington case. In the first 
 case,' the conditions there are somewhat similar to the State of 
 
105 
 
 Missouri. Mr. Gorman, of the Excelsior Powder Company, is 
 here today, and I think Mr. Gorman, the Dupont Company and 
 ourselves are three of the four manufacturers of explosives in 
 this State. The other manufacturer is like the manufacturer in 
 Washington, engaged in manufacturing what we call a wildcat 
 powder. His principle ingredient is chloride of potash, which 
 any chemist will tell you is a substance that no one can control. 
 As evidence and as proof of the fact that I am not speaking with 
 any competitive idea in my head when I make the statement, I 
 will say that Colonel Dunn of New York City, who is the Chief 
 Inspector of Explosives for the Interstate Commerce Commission, 
 and whose rules have been adopted as federal statute, has con- 
 demned the shipment of this chloride of potash explosive in this 
 State because he considers it unsafe. 
 
 Now, with that point in mind, would it be fair to establish 
 a flat rate on the powder industry in the State of Missouri, when 
 three manufacturers are manufacturing legitimate stuff and one 
 is manufacturing illegitimate stuff? Our own company employs 
 about 200 men, and we have quite a large pay roll. I don't know 
 just what it is today. Mr. Gorman employs a good many men. 
 The Dupont Company has two large plants in Missouri and em- 
 ploys a good many men. I dare say that in this little plant manu- 
 facturing the chloride powder there are not over five men em- 
 ployed. Ten per cent of the pay. roll would be a very small sum. 
 iBut in case they had a blow-up and killed those five men, the 
 damages or compensation might be quite a sum in the aggregate, 
 and the Dupont Powder Company and the Independent Powder 
 Cohipany and the Excelsior Powder Company would be expected 
 to chip in and help pay that loss. 
 
 And we are right up against the proposition. The Dupont 
 Powder Company has a very large corps of scientific men work- 
 ing constantly toward improved machinery and processes to make 
 their manufacturing plants safe. The Independent Powder 
 Company in a small way does the same thing, just as far as we 
 are able. Ten years ago we completed our dynamite factory, we 
 thought. For the past four years we have spent $50,000.00 a 
 year on our plant, after we thought we had it completed. This 
 money has been spent to erect big concrete barricades as a pro- 
 tection between the buildings, and tearing down buildings which 
 were too close together and putting them fut-ther apart. 
 
 Now, I don't suppose all told this other plant has spent $50,- 
 
[34C 
 
 106 
 
 000.00— I don't suppose they have spent $10,000.00 on the whole 
 plant, and yet where we have made this large expenditure we are 
 penalized just as heavy or heavier than they are. 
 
 You might say, "Well, your expenditure is for the purpose 
 of making your product cheaper." I will say that ten years ago, 
 when our dynamite plant was nothing like as safe as it is today, 
 we made powder a good deal cheaper than we do today. The 
 safeguards we have put in have merely added to our expenses. 
 This plant manufacturing in Washington this chloride powder 
 could not be compared with the Dupont Powder Company, manu- 
 facturing legitimate stuff. The hazard is very much greater. 
 They are regarded by the whole powder fraternity as illegitimate 
 people, and they should be not considered in the same moment 
 with legitimate manufacturers. 
 
 Now, Mr. Sumner made a suggestion that to cover that ques- 
 tion we should make the rate 10 per cent on the Dupont Com- 
 pany and 40 per cent on the other company. He started out 
 reasoning on one point and came right back to the other, which 
 is this: It is the point the powder manufacturers and other 
 manufacturers would like to have. They are perfectly willing to 
 pay their own bills and pay their own risks and their own com- 
 pensation, but they don't want to pay the other fellows. Now, 
 instead of making the rate higher on one factory than it is on 
 the other — and they don't know, very much about it ; they guess 
 at what the rate ought to be; it is nothing more than a guess — 
 why not let each factory carry its own risk? The employe gets 
 just as much money from the plant that is responsible for the 
 damage, and the man who has to pay the most damages is the 
 man that is going to hustle the most and put the most safeguards 
 in to prevent that damage. 
 
 Mr. Britton : With a law like they have in Washington, what 
 ctiuld you do to make that other plant conform? 
 
 Mr. Root: I am just coming to illustrate that point. The 
 Dupoint Powder Company has had about 99 years the start of us in 
 the powder business. They have been testing out safe processes 
 before I was born. They probably have a lot of them that the 
 Independent Powder Company has not got, although we haye 
 done all we can and got all we can think of, and we spent a lot 
 of money in that direction. As far as this illegitimate manu- 
 facturer in the State of Missouri is concerned, he has not got 
 one word to say as to what he can do or must do or will do. As 
 
•S4c] 
 
 107 
 
 far as he can go, Colonel Dunn has already done by saying, "The 
 railroads will nbt handle your stuff because it is dangerous." That 
 is as far as we can go now. You can go out here anywhere you 
 want to and make powder if you want to, and if you can get a man 
 to buy it you can sell it, but you can't transport it over the rail- 
 roads. The federal law prevents that. 
 
 Mr. Britton: And the Interstate Commerce Commission? 
 
 Mr. Root: Yes, and the Interstate Commerce Commission. 
 Now, in our particular case, to show you what marks the im- 
 provement of one factory from another, I will tell you our his- 
 tory. Not long ago we wanted to improve our. process of mixing 
 and packing dynamite, and we put our mechanical engineer and 
 chemist in a closet and locked them up and would not let them 
 out until they had given us some good ideas. That resulting in 
 the designing and patenting of certain machinery which is very 
 much safer, very much more efficient, and exposes a good deal 
 fewer men to risk and danger than before. We had six men in 
 the .mixing house at that time, and now we have two. That may 
 some day save four lives. It was that thought in mind that 
 we put that machinery in. 
 
 We no sooner got the machinery patented than the Dupont 
 Powder Company sued us for infringement of patent, and Judge 
 Laffey and I have the pleasure of fighting that suit together right 
 now. We are going to discuss it today. There is a case, you 
 might say, where the Dupont Powder Company prevents us from 
 introducing machinery which would eliminate a risk. I am not 
 foolish enough to say the Dupont Powder Company ought to 
 give us this machinery beqi^use it eliminates a risk. They have 
 spent a good deal of mon^y, assuming that we are infringing on 
 their patent, to develop this machinery. It is one of the assets 
 of that company, and we have no more right to it than I have 
 to go and steal Judge Laffey's hat and go down stairs with it. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: That answers Mr. Britton's question. 
 
 Mr. Root : ' You can see how one sort of co:mpany can affect 
 
 another. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: In some cases even prevent it from improv- 
 ing its plant. 
 
 Mr. Root: Mr. Gorman and I discussed the matter about 
 a powder mill. We have a black powder mill in Indiana, and we 
 talked about this, that and the other thing, and gave each other 
 a good many pointers on plant operation; but when it comes to 
 
[3te 
 108 
 
 some big thing the other fellow has spent a lot of money on, and 
 it is property that he has patented, I have no more right to it 
 than I have to steal Judge Laffey's hat. I would not think of 
 going to this man in Washington and letting him use our mix- 
 ing machinery and packing machinery, as we have spent over 
 $10,000.00 in perfecting that machinery. I wouldn't think of giv- 
 ing that to that man in Washington or that illegitimate man in 
 Missouri. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Do you think that holds good as to gen- 
 eral safety methods in factories, that particular case? Isn't it 
 a fact that after all improved safety devices in those cases that 
 the real incentive of those safety devices is to make for efficient 
 business? 
 
 Mr. Root : We regard it as a great safety device in a powder 
 mill where we can have two men exposed to danger where be- 
 fore we had six, don't you? 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: I am only speaking as to how that par- 
 ticular industry is aifected as a whole in the State of Missouri. 
 
 Mr. Root : If you will pardon me, I will say that question 
 is immaterial, for this reason: It does not make any difference 
 about that, as long as each industry or each plant has to pay, 
 the cost of their own accidents ? Don't you see ? 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: No, I don't see, because after all I be- 
 lieve the general idea of installing safety devices is something 
 quite opposite from your idea. I believe that a large number 
 of manufacturers, instead of preventing each other, as they nec- 
 essarily do under your case, that they help each other to prevent 
 accidents and to have safety devices. I know that companies 
 operating in this country will go on further and further, day 
 after day, week after week, year after year. So that it only af- 
 fects a small proportion of the industries in Missouri, where 
 they do hot have the peculiiar conditions that exist in a large ma- 
 joritj'^ of the industries. 
 
 Mr. Root: Well, grant that. Do you mean to say that 
 one electric light plant which has the same equipment as another 
 electric light plant, and it only has three men there, and the 
 other has a large number, isn't it a fact that with the same 
 equipment one plant would have three men killed and in the 
 other one only one, and each plant pay for its own accidents, isn't 
 that equity? 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Quite so. 
 
84g] 
 
 109 
 
 Mr. Root; Can any man complain about_,that? That is 
 what the powder. people are doing today, 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman:: , Suppose one of those powder companies, 
 the Dupont Powder Company or this other company, the Im- 
 perial Powder Company, which had the accident in the State pf 
 Washington, instead of ..being a responsible and solvent concern, 
 had been a small blacksmith shop, where a verdict of $5,000 or 
 ,$10,0f)Q would have not only ruined the manufacturer, but would 
 not have, given the' workingmen any compensation at all. Of 
 course^ in. the terge concern it ought to have the right to seJfTin- 
 ^urance, but it seems to me that your method would not hold 
 ^ood for the a,y,erage small concern at all, because it simpjy .de- 
 prives the injured workman of compensation, and in addition to 
 that might possibly ruin the manufacturer. 
 
 .., Mr. Keith: As I understand, you are in favor of elective 
 type, without the State insuran<;e feature, and insure your own 
 risk or place it with other companies? 
 
 Mr. Root: Yes. 
 
 Mr. Keith: As against State insurance? . , 
 
 \ Mr. Root: Yes. 
 , , . Mr. Barrows.: And bringing it down a. little closer, if. I ufi- 
 ^erstand you .right,, you are, iij, .the penalty bein.g left on each 
 individual employer, and not grpup.all classes together at the 
 same rate ;. that is, that you are willing to either carry your own 
 insurance or go without insurance and take your own risk, or else 
 you are willing to go out and pay such premium as you can ne- 
 gotiate for insurance,, but .you. are. not willing to be put in the 
 same class and pay the same rate as they do in Washington and 
 this -other plant you speak of. 
 
 Mr. Root-: I. think the last proposition would be manifestly 
 unfair. In the absence of any regulation to establish safety in 
 a powder mill, some of these other fellows might start in and 
 break all the rest of us. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : You don't mean in abrogating to , your- 
 self the right for self -insurance, you are not objecting to the pro- 
 vision in the law compelhng you to assume insurance in some 
 company which is as large or has as large financial standing as 
 yourself? • ,,..,. 
 
 Mr. Root : Well, I see the point you are driving, at, whether 
 we would be financially able to pay a loss which might occur in 
 our. mills.. .1 would, .dislike very much to see our company.. forced 
 
[340 
 
 110 
 
 to take out insurance in some insurance company, because I think 
 the rate we would have to pay would be probably five or ten 
 times the amount of the losses that would come. To show you 
 how it works in actual practice, we have had about nine men 
 killed at our works. We were unfortunate enough to lose four 
 in one explosion. Out of all the accidents we have had we 
 have never had but one lawsuit. .We handled the matter to the 
 entire satisfaction of our employes, and I think we have had 
 the benefit of direct contact with our employes. No lawyer has 
 got any of the money. The beauty of the compensation is that 
 every dollar we paid out went to the man who needed it. That 
 is the position we would like to be left in. If we had to pay a 
 great, big rate for that I would consider that a great economic 
 waste, because it is not necessary. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: It seems to be generally conceded that cer- 
 tainty of payment to the widow and orphans is fair and desirable. 
 
 Mr. Root: Yes. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: I think we all admit that. 
 
 Mr. Root: I would have to admit that myself, certainly. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: Where a concern is big enough and financially 
 able to go without insurance, don't you think that it would meet 
 your case if they were obliged to give a bond? Or do you think 
 there is any reasonable objection to that? 
 
 Mr. Root: I think in a great many cases it would be a 
 mighty good thing to have a bond, particularly for some of these 
 powder companies. I think this one I mentioned in this State, 
 if they had three men killed I think it would break the com- 
 pany about three times over. 
 
 Mr. Barrow: You think it would be well to have a bond? 
 
 Mr. Root : There are cases where' you would want to have 
 some assurance that the money could be collected. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Shouldn't they, in justice to you, be 
 placed under bond or compelled to insure in some reputable com- 
 pany? 
 
 Mr. Root: I see only one way of getting around that, giving 
 a bond — insure in some company whose financial strength is be- 
 yond question, or make a financial showing for your own company 
 which will show you are able to carry it. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Or mutual? 
 
 Mr. Root: Yes. 
 
 Mr, Brittingham : Isri^ it a fact that giving a bond is prac- 
 
34e3 
 
 I 111 
 
 tically the same as insuring the risk with some insurance com- 
 pany? 
 
 Mr. Root: That is something I am not quite sure about. 
 It is just a question of dollars and cents with me. From what 
 experience I have had along th9se hnes I think a bond could be 
 secured cheaper than regular insurance. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: You don't see any reasonable objection that 
 the employer could give to furnishing a bond if he wanted to 
 go without insurance? 
 
 Mr. Root : No, I don't. I would like to ask one question for 
 a matter of information. Have any of you considered how 
 much compensation an employe gets before he is hurt, if he is 
 . employed in a 'dangerous occupation, how much of his salary 
 goes for that? How much of his wages does he receive for actual 
 work performed, and how much does he receive because of the 
 danger of his employment? 
 
 Mr. Britton: That is a question I asked a little while ago. 
 
 Mr. Root: Mr. Sumner, I think, mixed the statistics just 
 a little on that Washington proposition. In speaking of the Du- 
 pont Company, with their pay roll, he figured it out about five 
 to seven hundred dollars, per capita. Probably 50 per cent of 
 those men were pushing trucks with wood pulp on, and men shov- 
 eling coal, and cutting weeds, and doing the regular roustabout 
 work there is around every manufacturing plant. At our own 
 plant I don't think there are over 30 per cent of our men 
 employed on powder. There are men in our plant who have been 
 there four years and I don't believe have seen dynamite. They 
 unload coal, cut weeds, take care of the horses, the carpenter 
 gang and machine shop men, and all that sort of thing. Now, this 
 other little company, the Imperial Powder Company, where Judge 
 Laffey said 100 per cent of their people were exposed to the 
 danger of explosion, I think that is like the powder factory I 
 knew of in Pennsylvania. They had their mixing house on the 
 first floor, and the men werfe packing the powder in cotton in 
 the same room, and overhead were 20 women at work on the 
 very next floor. The whole shebang blew up one day and killed 
 them all. There was a 100 per cent exposure to the danger of 
 explosion, and were not getting paid in proportion. But in our 
 works, and I dare say in every legitimate powder works, the 
 man working on powder receives more money than he can get 
 anywhere else in the United States, t have an example of that. 
 
[340 
 
 112 
 
 We had a young man packing powder for us and making dyna- 
 mite cotton. He was a very good man. He made about $4.50 a 
 day. He had been with us about three, years and he had a bad 
 dream one night and got a little nervous, and he came up at 
 noon and said be believed he would quit. I asked him why and 
 he said : "Well, I thought if I worked on powder too long I might 
 get. killed and I would quit before it came." He went away 
 apd was gone a year and came back. I want you to bear in mind 
 that this was a sober, intelligent American citizen, about 20 years 
 old. He was an intelligent boy, had been to school, but he had 
 no trade. He was not a bricklayer or a machinist or anything 
 of that kind. He was not in a position to go and earn 60 or 75 
 cents an hour anywhere. What he had been doing he told me^ 
 when he afterwards applied for the same job again. He said 
 "Mr. Root, I have npt been able to make a living since I left here." 
 I said, "Billy, what have you been doing?" "Well," he said, "I 
 drove St, grocery wagon up at Carthage and worked about 12 
 hpurs a.. day and on .^^turday.jabout 14 hours, and all I got was 
 nine dollars a -vveek. I got tired of that and got a job of working 
 in a restaurant.,. 1 got my board and ten dollars a week there. 
 If I can't knock out $4.50 a day over here it is a pretty bad day." 
 This man worked in comfortable, well-lighted quarters, but he 
 worked on dynamite, . and he got two or three times as much 
 money as he could get anywhere else that he could find work. 
 And he was an intelligent fellow. He wa^ not a skilled workman, 
 a skilled mechanic of any kind, but he had been to school and 
 wrote a good hand and was quick at figures, but he was not 
 trained in any trade. I would like some gentleman here to tell 
 me whether or not this man was receiving compensation before 
 he got hurt, and whether a matter of that kind should be taken 
 into consideration in a compensation act? 
 
 Mr. Sumher: I just want to ask what the difference in 
 wages is with this man and a hodcarrier, and the difference 
 in the hazard between the hodcarrier and this employe, and the 
 difference in the skill required, and see whether as a matter of 
 ^act .a man is paid for the additional hazard for working on dyna- 
 mite as against carrying a hod. I still stand on the statement 
 that the hazard is not paid for by the wages. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : Mr. Sumner, I am interested in this ques- 
 ^^on^that is brought up as to whether it is true that the hazard of 
 |j^,^^Qppupatio,n influences the wages or not. You thinks it does 
 
34c] 
 
 113 
 
 not. And if it does, to what extent? One question was asked, 
 and I would like to hear your opinion on it. It seems to be typi' 
 cal to this whole case. Take it in the railroad business, we know 
 that the hazard of a freight brakeman is extreme, a very hazard- 
 ous occupation. The average scale of wages on railroads — if I 
 am wrong maybe Mr. Brittingham can correct me — I should say a 
 passenger brakeman, though he has some additional expenses, 
 has to buy a uniform and watch and other expenses, get $40.00 
 a month, while the other man with the same character of work 
 and the same number of hours gets about $80.00 a month. Doesn't 
 the hazard of the occupation give one man double wages over 
 the other, or is there some other reason for it ? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I don't think it is the hazard, because I say, 
 what is the difference between the wages paid an express mes- 
 senger and a railroad mail clerk. They are both the same hazard^ 
 one gets twice as much as the other. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : How do you explain the difference if it is not 
 the hazard? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I can't explain it, but I can show you many 
 illustrations exactly the opposite of that. 
 
 Mr. Hall : Do they belong to the same union, the freight and 
 passenger brakemen? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : I don't know whether they do or not. 
 
 Mr. Romey: You said a man with a pick and shovel digging 
 on top of the ground got as much as a man under the ground min- 
 ing coal? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : I didn't express any opinion on that. 
 
 Mr. Romey: What do you think about that? Do they get it? 
 • Mr. Sumner: I think a man on top of the ground — do you 
 mean top mining or on the street? 
 
 Mr. Romey: On the street. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : No, I think not. I think the union has a great 
 influence on wages paid in the mines. 
 
 Mr. Romey: Don't you know that there is no union in the 
 Joplin district? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I know that. 
 
 Mr. Romey : What influence has a union down there? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: It has that influence. The Western Feder- 
 ation of Miners, or whatever the union is called here, they have a 
 very distinct effect upon the wages paid in the same industry. 
 
 34c — 8 
 
[34o 
 114 
 
 Mr. Roney: Don't you know that the Federation of Labor 
 can't light in that district? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : They can't organize, but they can light. 
 
 Mr, Keith: Isn't it a fact that in the union scale for mine 
 workers there is- a difference between the price paid the man who 
 works on top and the man who works below? i 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I really don't know. I understand it is not 
 sufficient to make a difference in the matter of hazard. 
 
 Mr. Barbee: Are you taking into consideration the question 
 of skill in your estimate? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Yes. 
 • Mr. Barbee : Both must be considered. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Take the case of a structural iron Worker. 
 
 -The hazard of that trade is as great I think as any other, and 
 
 before the union got into action the wages were from $2.50 to 
 
 $2.75 and $3.00, while the union has increased the wages up to 
 
 $4.50 and $5.00 more. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: Hasn't the whole wages in the United States 
 nearly doubled in all occupations? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: But the structural ironworkers today are get- 
 ting practically that much, the nonunion men. 
 
 Mr. Britton : That does not answer the question. What was 
 the other laborer in a similar occupation that is not hazardous 
 getting at the same time before the structural ironworkers or- 
 ganized ? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : Well, the hodcarrier has always got more. 
 
 Mr. Britton: That is more hazardous than working on 
 structural iron on the ground, isn't it? 
 
 Mr. Sumner : Certainly it is not more hazardous than work- 
 ing on the building. 
 
 Mr. Britton: I mean take a man doing the same character 
 of work that structural ironworkers would be doing on a build- 
 ing, isn't his hazard reduced on the ground as compared with that 
 on the building? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: The wages are the same with the hodcarrier 
 who is on the ground and the one on the top of the building, and 
 the wages are the same with a structural ironworker who is on 
 the ground and the one on top of the building. 
 
 Mr. Britton: I understand that. 
 , Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, instead of going over all these 
 things, I would suggest that Mr. Smith, the Secretary of the State 
 
34C] 
 
 115 
 
 Federation of Labor is here, and also Senator Melang from the 
 Joplin district, and I believe they can give us some accurate fig- 
 ures and some information on this subject. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman : Before you leave this question, I want to 
 know from Mr. Sumner, I can find illustrations where a man 
 working in a hazardous occupation receives from $4.00 to $4.50, 
 and if he is working and using his best efforts in other occupa- 
 tions which were not hazardous, or not as hazardous, he would re- 
 ceive about a dollar or a dollar and a half. Doesn't that answer in 
 some degree the statement that they don't pay for the hazard? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I don't say that is invariably true. I do say 
 that men who go down in caissons receive the pay for the hazard. 
 
 Chairman Greene: I beljeve that an answer to that would 
 simply be a conclusion which could be drawn by any member of 
 the Commission and would not be helping us any in arriving at 
 what we are trying to find out. 
 
 Mr. C. C. Shepherd (representing the Missouri Lumber Com- 
 pany) : Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen : We iemploy about 500 
 men, and I would like to say that we are heartily in favor of the 
 plan that Judge Laffey outlined to us so fully this morning. I 
 like particularly the plan he suggested for the administration of 
 the law which he recommended, because we think it would result 
 in economy. 
 
 Mr. E. M. Clendening (representing the Kansas City Com- 
 mercial Club) : Mr. Chairman, the subject was presented to us 
 two years ago before the Legislature, and we asked our chairman 
 of our Legislative Committee, Mr. Pierre R. Porter, to become 
 conversant with the various laws, and he would like to be heard 
 at this time. 
 
 Senator Greene: Senator Melang of Joplin is here and asks 
 to be heard, and I think we might keep our record straight by 
 keeping together as much as is possible these kindred subjects. 
 We will listen to Senator Melang. 
 
 Senator John Melang: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: We 
 of Joplin, while we have no labor organization in operation in our 
 mines among our mine laborers, we have no quarrel with the labor 
 organizations. I take it, and we take it, that the Commission is 
 after the facts as they exisl in the labor world in the State of 
 Missouri, labor conditions in -the State of Missouri. Mining lead 
 and zinc is considered a hazardous business. It is so considered 
 beca use of the sp ecial danger of being in the ground, the many 
 
f34d 
 116 
 
 appliances used that may be defective, the falhhg of the ground, 
 the constant use of dynamite and other kindred things that are 
 liable to cause injury, As to the wage scale, without the aid of 
 any union it is very apparent that we pay proTiably not from 
 choice, gentlemen, but 'from necessity, the fair average between: 
 the man working underground and the man on top of ground in 
 light employment. As an illustration, I think that the minimum 
 wage scale in Joplin for unskilled la;bor underground would be 
 $2.50 to $3.50. On top of ground you can secure men for a dollar 
 and six bits or two dollars a day for light employment. We have 
 men working in the ground or underground that are employed at 
 work where they are making $50.00 a week in our industry, iand 
 I would not hesitate to say that the average wages of that line — 
 of course, it is piece work — is from four to eight dollars a day. 
 The same man on top would get from a dollar and seventy-five 
 cents to two dollars a day. I am not positive but what I would 
 say that in the Carthage quarries they pay $2.00 and $2.25 for the 
 machine men running one of those steam drills, and we pay from 
 $3.00 to $3.50 for like work underground. They work more hours 
 per day than our men underground,, but we pay that much more 
 money. So I take it that we are paying from 30 to 40 per cent of 
 our wage scale on account of its hazard, without regard to any 
 union, because we have no union in the Joplin mines or mining 
 fields. 
 
 The Joplin mine operators are burdened on account of the 
 excessive' price of liability insurance. As a business, we are all 
 materially concerned as to what this Commission will do. Right 
 now, while ore is selling at the present price, of course, there is 
 very little said about this or that incidental expense connected 
 with the industry, because we are receiving more for our product 
 than ever before in the history of it. But those of us who have 
 been in the industry a number of years have been compelled to 
 pay 4 and 41/2 per cent on our pay roll for insurance, as the in- 
 dustry assuming the risk, and there is not one man in twenty- 
 five engaged in the business that could do it. You know we have 
 got to cari;y the insurance, or be threatened at any time with be- 
 ing driven out of business. To be driven out of business means 
 that you would deprive Missouri of one of her greatest industries,, 
 one of her industries that employs a large number of men and 
 pays the highest scale of wages. 
 
 The mine operators of the Joplin district do not complain 
 
34c] 
 
 117 
 
 • 
 
 • when they have to pay their employes for being injured. What 
 we are complaining about is the present law, that, in our judg- 
 ment, less than 60 per cent of the indemnity reaches the real 
 beneficiary. We want a law^and we are not going to quarrel 
 about 60 per cent of the compensation; because we take care of our 
 , men if one of them is injured, and we are willing to do it — ^but 
 we want a law that when you assess an operator $2,000.00, that 
 goes to the beneficiary, the injured or his dependent. That is 
 what we want. We don't want to see $600.00 of, that $1,000.00 
 going to a bunch of men in the State of Missouri disgracing the 
 legal profession by calling themselves lawyers, and we are here 
 today more to ask you to so clarify this law, make it so plain that 
 tb^ most ignorant man in our mines, if possible, can go before 
 your court or your Commission that you select and know his full 
 rights are so safeguarded and his interests are so safeguarded 
 that he can get his money, or his dependents can get this money 
 right when they need it, right after the accident has happened. 
 That is the interest that we have in this. 
 
 , Now, as to the compulsory compensation act or the elective, 
 I will give you one illustration. We have a certain large cor- 
 poration in our district that I understand pays their men full time 
 for the time they are losing for their employment, pays full wages 
 for the time, takes care of them, pays all their medical aid, all 
 their incidental expenses, and reinstates them in their position 
 after they are ready to go to work; that is, the injured. It seems 
 to me it would work an injustice on the employer and employe to 
 cpiijpel thjs employe, to accept other terms of settlement that only 
 pays 60 per cent. That is all they ask for, 60 per cent of the sal- 
 ary. I assure you, gentlemen, that as to the 350 or 400 mine 
 operators in Joplin, give them a fair and equitable law that the 
 injured will receive the full amount of indemnity, that they will 
 pay their laborers full wages, full medical aid and all incidentals 
 thereto, until such time as he is ready to go back to work, and they 
 will be satisfied. 
 
 I am going to give you one little illustration to show you why 
 we are here, some of us, and asking you to be sure and clarify 
 this law so that there will be no mistake made, and so that the 
 simplest, if possible, can understand it. Unfortunately, I had a 
 man killed by reason of a wrench in his hands coming in contact 
 With the flywheel of a casting that was running 450 revolutions 
 a -minute. This man was an especially good man for us. , He was 
 
.[34e 
 
 118 
 
 killed in disobeying orders, trying to tighten up the casting, when 
 he had been told never to do that when it was running. After the 
 accident I felt very sorry for the family, and I feitawfully sorry 
 we lost the man, and I went to his widow and I said, "Under "the 
 law there is no liabiUty. This is contributory negligence, virat ^ll 
 view of the fact that your husband lost his life while trying to 
 further our interests I will use my good offices to try and getyou 
 something to help you along, and your children," and I succeeded 
 in getting my people to offer $1,200.00 in settlement of that 
 claim. She was very grateful and told me she would accept that 
 settlement, but before I could consummate the deal — he belonged 
 to a certain lodge over there in WeJDb City, and she had relatives 
 and he had relatives, and one of our industrial agents over the;i^e 
 got sore and said, "You will get $5,000.00. There is no sense in 
 taking $1,200.00." The result was that the woman didn't know 
 what to do. Finally she said, "While I want to accept that, Mr. 
 Melang, I can't. My folks are all against it." The lawyer offered 
 to settle with me in 30 days for $600.00, and at the end of two 
 years they settled for $300.00, and she got $150.00, when she 
 could have gotten $1,200.00 without a bit of cost or trouble on her 
 part. That is what we are more concerned about than anything 
 else. We are not so niggardly' that we are not willing to take care 
 of the injured in our industries, providing the benefits go to the 
 beneficiary. (Applause.) 
 
 Mr. Barrows: I understand from your remarks that you 
 favor the elective rather than the compulsory law? 
 
 Senator Melang: I do, at least as a trial. I understand that 
 is the t)reference, anyhow. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Coming to, that same point, wouldn't it 
 be an injustice to you if some one in your district — of course, a 
 law ought to recognize self-insurance — but wouldn't it be an in- 
 justice to you if some small operator in your district would have 
 to insure his men in order to be sure those men would receive 
 compensation, wouldn't it react upon the whole fraternity of 
 operators if some one was more niggardly than you are and would 
 not insure his men, they would not be able to pay the compensation 
 when it was due? 
 
 Mr. Melang : Well, it seems to me you could clarify that by 
 your bond proposition. I don't want to be understood as saying 
 to you that we mine operators are angels. We are not ; but I be- 
 lieve th»t we come a§ near taking care of the injured as any in- 
 
34ca 
 
 119 
 
 dustry in the country. Now, if you enact a law that is fair and 
 equitable, that does not burden on the business to a point that the 
 expense of carrying this insurance hurts the industry, then your 
 little fellow can take out insurance. In fact, there is no man now 
 that owns a mine without insurance in our district, unless it be 
 the large companies, which are financially able to carry the loss. 
 You can safeguard that by legislation, I would think, 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Then there would practically be no dif- 
 ference at all, if they carry insurance now, and the ones that do 
 not carry insurance ought to do it. Therefore, compulsory in- 
 surance, providing a man has a choice between self, mutual and 
 stock insurance, wouldn't it be beneficial, because it would do 
 practically what you say — it would clarify the air; it would im- 
 mediately make the sum available at the time when it is most 
 needed. 
 
 Senator Melang: Isn't that elective? 
 Mr. Schweidtman : No ; that is compulsory. 
 Mr. Barrows : Isn't Mr.. Schweidtman in error, in that he 
 contrasts the situation as we propose to make it under compensa- 
 tion and the conditions that exist today? It has been well pointed 
 out that there is no, class of industry in this State, no large class, 
 which is such a good illustration of the eflfect'of that as the mining 
 companies in the Joplin district. The probable Ufe of all. com- 
 panies organized down there isn't two years. I fully agree with 
 Mr. Schweidtman as to the desirability of making the compensa- 
 tion reasonably sure, but today we can right the Joplin district 
 and do right it at a far less rate than we could under the usual 
 conditions of compensation, because under compensation it would 
 subrogate the injured party and his widow to the rights of the 
 employer. Now, that being the case, the situation today is not 
 fair compared with what it would be then, is it? 
 
 Senator Melang: It is not. I will give you an illustration 
 of the rate. You may be more familiar with it than I am. We 
 have some little operation over in Kansas. I had a policy written 
 at 4 per cent. The last Kansas Legislature passed a compensation 
 ■■act. It was approved by the Governor, and I got notice from the 
 company that they would give us partial indemnity at five some- 
 thing, and would give us full indemnity for 8 per cent, or some- 
 thing like that. But let me again tell you my position. This law 
 is based upon something broader than a man's direct obligations, 
 and I am unable to cover the whole fieW of the l^w ^nd its puv- 
 
[340 
 
 120 
 
 pose. The only thing we want is an equitable adjustment in this 
 matter. I don't think we want the Kansas law, because the 
 Kansas law will make it prohibitive, practically prohibitive. 
 
 Mr. Ridge : How effectual is the state mine inspection down 
 there? 
 
 Senator Melang : Well, it provides a nice, lucrative salary 
 for an individual, where he can enjoy the comforts of life. 
 
 Mr. Ridge: That is the effect of it? 
 
 Senator Melang: Well, mostly, I think. 
 
 Mr. Ridge : I operated a mine there for a year or more, and 
 I never heard or saw a state mine inspector or never received a 
 report from him. 
 
 Senator Melang: In justice to the present inspector, or 
 rather the one that was in prior to the one in now — in other words, 
 Mr. Wallace, I think he tried to make an honest endeavor to in- 
 spect the mines, but that the job was so large that his health 
 failed. 
 
 Mr. Ridge: Don't you believe that an ounce of prevention 
 would be worth a pound of cure? 
 
 Senator Melang: Yes. Let me give a little counsel to my 
 friend over here. It is my candid opinion that 70 per cent of the 
 accidents in the mines at Joplin is due to contributory neghgence. 
 They get so familiar with it, rubbing up against it day by day, 
 until they cease to see its danger. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: I say that is almost equal to inherent risk. 
 You take that class of men, it is natural for those men to get so 
 acquainted with those risks that they become indifferent, just like 
 railroading. You couldn't turn a wheel on the railroads of this 
 country Jf you conformed to the law. The men break those laws 
 because they have to do it in order to get the wheels along. The 
 result is that they get so indifferent to the danger that they do 
 contribute to their own injury. 
 
 Senator Melang : You can't run a zinc mine without danger. 
 
 Mr. Britton: What law are you speaking of? 
 
 Mr. Sumner: The general laws with reference to operation 
 of railroads. 
 
 A Voice: Oh, he is just talking generally. 
 
 Mr. Sumner: No, I am not talking generally. I have had 
 some experience in investigating the subject. I know something 
 about it. 
 
 Mr. Britton; Can yQu cite us to any law? 
 
121 
 
 Mr. Sumner: Sure. The law with reference to the speed 
 trains may be run within city limits. There is no railroad in this 
 town that comes anywhere near half way obeying that law. 
 
 Senator Melang: My reason for stating that was only said 
 something about that proposition before. 
 
 Mr. Britton: You said you didn't want the Kansas law. 
 What is the objection to it? 
 
 Senator Melang: Seven dollars ninety cents a hundred rate. 
 That is a particular objection. 
 
 Mr. Britton: It is the effect of the law in the increase of 
 premiums ? 
 
 Senator Melang: That is it exactly. 
 
 Mr. Brittori : That is a concrete result, so far as you are 
 concerned, but I was wondering if you were familiar with the 
 law. 
 
 Senator Melang: No; I am not. I don't know what. the effect 
 is, but I know the 7 or 8 per cent is a serious proposition. 
 
 JVlr. Keith: That would put you at a disadvantage against 
 mining ore in Arizona? 
 
 Senator Melang: Yes; our mines are developed generally, 
 in a small way. There are some large companies there, but the 
 most of them are developing in a small way. A man will start 
 out working on a proposition, and that will develop into some- 
 thing that looks promising, and he will either sell it or. develop it, 
 When you materially increase the expense there will be. less men 
 engaged in the business. Then, as .1 said before, when ore reaches 
 its normal price,- as we have had. in the past, that, additional drain 
 on the business, to meet that will either, necessitate one tff two 
 things, to cut wages or quit business.- That is all there is to it. 
 
 Mr. Keith: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the discussion of 
 this matter, I would suggest that each speaker who has spoken 
 once reserve his discussion and give the rest an opportunity to be 
 heard. 
 
 Chairman Greene : I think we will have to enforce that rule. 
 This is taking up too much time. 
 
 Mr. Pierre R. Porter (representing the Kansas City Com- 
 mercial clus) : Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I have been 
 asked to appear here on behalf of the Commercial Club of this 
 city, which is an organization composed of about 920 different 
 manufacturing firms and corporations. Gf course, there are 
 among those • some individuals. Now, those men represent, I 
 
[34e 
 122 
 
 think I may say, a majority of the business interests in this city. 
 And there are men among them who not only are producers, but 
 also consumers. 
 
 Now, we want this : We want first of all a law -which shall 
 do away with the present damage suit evil and eliminate the snitch 
 lawyer. That is one proposition which we wish to ask you to con- 
 sider. Second, we want the liability for compensation confined 
 to the particular employer in whose employment the accidents 
 happen. Third, we want a law which shall, as fat as possible, 
 , tend to reduce the number of accidents and prevent accidents in 
 general. Fourth, we want some provision made for insurance. 
 And when I say insurance^ I mean we want some provision in 
 your law so that the small employer may shift the burden of this 
 compensation upon somebody else, I disagree with the Senator 
 who spoke last, when he said that this question did not end with 
 the liability of the particular emptoyer, because I think that it 
 does end right there. I believe that the question of compensation 
 for iiijured in industries should be confined to the particular, em- 
 ployment, and when you attempt to transfer the burden of taking 
 care of these men upon the community at large, your are getting 
 into social insurance, which is something that is an entirely dif- 
 ferent proposition from compfensation. 
 
 I want to illustrate to you what compensation means. It 
 itneans that I am working for you; that I am contributing my 
 labor and my skill and my time, and you are putting up your 
 mdhey; it means that I get hurt while doing this work for you. 
 Now, statistics have shown in the past that most accidents- re- 
 sult, not ^because you have been wilfully or even carelessly negli- 
 gent in apanging your plant, nor because I have been either wil- 
 fully or carelessly neghgent in doing my work, but they result 
 from the inherent risk in the business ; they result from the man- 
 ner in which the work is necessarily done, because the work is 
 dangerous. 
 
 Now, we believe that the workman who suffers an injury 
 thereby contributes his share of the payment of the compensation. 
 That is the theory of the law. The injury is certainly equivalent 
 to 50 per cent, and we believe it ought to be equivalent to 50 per 
 ceht. The idea being that the employer and employe gets to- 
 gether and take care of this accident. That is the theory of com- 
 pensation. When you get into a law like the law in Washington 
 you are getting int? simply a charitable prppgsjtion, 
 
34c] 
 
 123 
 
 Chairman Greene: Would you provide that a settlement 
 made between the employer and employe should not be for less 
 than that fixed by the law? 
 
 Mr. Porter : I certainly would. I think that certainly ought 
 to be in there. 
 
 Now, as to taking care of this compensation. You have be- 
 fore you for consideration in different laws that have been en- 
 acted throughout the country two different types. You have 
 first got the insurance scheme. That is, you have got a fund that 
 is made up by assessing different employers in different indus- 
 tries, and collecting that fund and having that fund supervised 
 and paid out by the State Insurance Board. That is the situation 
 in the state of Washington, where the law is compulsory. Then 
 you have the same situation in Ohio, except that the law is op- 
 tional instead of compulsory. 
 
 Now, that is the theory that the industry shall bear the risk. 
 And when I say industry, I mean the different employments in 
 the same line, lumber or coal or whatever it is. I believe that is 
 the wrong theory, because I think the theory, the proper theory, 
 should confine the burden of paying the compensation to the par- 
 ticular employer in whose employment the accident occurs. That 
 is not only just, but it is practical, and by practical I mean that 
 you get results. It is a self-evident proposition, and it has been 
 gone over here this afternoon that if I have to pay for what acci- 
 dent's occur in my establishment I am going to see to it that mighty 
 few accidents occur; but if I contribute a certain, definite 
 premiunij and you contfibute a certain, definite premium 
 which is proporti6nately the . same because we are in the 
 same line of business, then there is no incentive for me to run my 
 business carefully and use all proper safeguards, if at the same 
 time you, by running your business carelessly, can get off scot- 
 free just the same. That is the theory that I should be made to 
 pay insurance on your accidents, I being careful and you being 
 careless, that it would tend to the prevention of accidents. In 
 fact, it tends the other way. And certainly the most essential 
 feature in a compensation act should be the prevention of acci- 
 dents. 
 
 You might answer that as Mr. Sumner suggested, by saying 
 that I should be made to pay 10 per cent and this gentleman 
 should be made to pay 40 per cent, because he is fovir times a§ 
 careless a§ I am, Is that what you s&id? 
 
" [34c 
 
 124 
 
 Mr. Sumner : I said it could bfe done that way. 
 
 Mr. Porter: Unfortunately, it can't be done that way, for 
 this reason, and I am coming now to a matter whic.^^ill interest 
 the legal members of the Commission more than th^others, pos- 
 sibly, and it is this : The moment that you attempjin your in- 
 surance fund to differentiate your rate, that is, to; tax this man 
 40 per cent and the otber man 10 per cent in the safne industry, 
 leaving the burden of fixing that rate upon the Commission, that 
 moment you get into a question of constitutionality which is even 
 more serious than that of the constitutionality of compulsory 
 compensation, and I want to show you why. In this State of Mis- 
 souri there was an attempt made some years ago to pass what was 
 known as an anti-department store law. That was an act which 
 provided for fixing a certain license which had to be paid by any- 
 body who engaged in selling different lines of goods, that is, more 
 than one line of goods, and that license tax was left to the discre- 
 tion of a commission, a license commission provided for in the 
 act. They had the discretion of taxing those department stores 
 anywhere frpm three to five hundred dollars. Now, the Supreme 
 Court of this State held that that act was unconstitutional, be- 
 cause it left to the Commission the power to fix the rates entirely 
 within, its discretion, and it was, unconstitutiojial for the reason 
 that in our State Constitution we have a clause which says that 
 the taxing power may be exercised by the General Assembly for 
 State purposes, and by counties and other municipal corporations, 
 under authority granted to. them by the General Assembly, for 
 county and other corporate purposes.. That is, the idea is that it 
 is unconstitutional to delegate- to any commission the power to fix 
 arbitrary tax rates as the commission may see fit. So you see 
 what you are running into. You are running into a proposition 
 of a kind of insurance scheme whereby a state board is to fix the 
 rate, which is unconstitutional because of this decision. Our Con- 
 stitution says it cannot fix that tax rate arbitrarily as it sees fit, 
 because the General Assembly is the only one that has the right 
 to fix the tax rate for State purposes, and it can delegate it to 
 some county or city, but not to a commission. So on this 40 per' 
 cent and 10 per cent proposition, we have the careless man getting 
 the benefit which the careful man does not get, and the careful 
 man does not receive the benefit which he ought to under that law. 
 
 .Senator Greene: That objection' could be overcome by em- 
 bodying the methods of the Ohio law, couldn't it? 
 
34eJ 
 
 125 
 
 Mr. Porter: The Ohio law leaves the fixing of the rate abso- 
 lutely to the state board. 
 
 Chairman Greene : And the state board 'fixes them by divid- 
 ing them into classes, according to the injuries they have had? 
 
 Mr. Porter : Well, you can't do that. The state board can't 
 change the rate. The idea is this : The State Legislature can say 
 that you people in the coal industry shall pay 40 per cent. If your 
 state board attempts to change one particular employer in that 
 industry, to raise the rate or lower it, because of his experience in 
 accidents during the preceding year, then you are getting into an 
 unconstitutional field. 
 
 Chairman Greene : But can't the Legislature gay, "All in- 
 dustries hot having had more than a certain number of accidents^ 
 during ihe year ?" 
 
 Mr. Porter: I don't think that would work practically; 
 
 Chairman Greene: That is the Ohio theory, isn't it? 
 
 Mr. Porter : I don't understand it that way. I understand it 
 says the question of fixing the rates is left entirely with the boar#* 
 
 A Vbice : The question of accidents, and not taxes, would M 
 the true criterion; 
 
 Mr. IJorter : To get back to that point, the Commercial Club 
 feels that the burden should be put upon the liarticular empto^^ 
 in whose employment the accident occurred. 
 
 Now, as I said, we want to arrange in some manner so that 
 we can shift this burden. Take the case of a small employer, and 
 I think this meets the argument of the gentleman who asked about 
 the suppositious question^ whether the Imperial Powder Company 
 would be insolvent and the people could not collect their money, 
 you must in your law provide for some kind of insurance. You 
 have got to do it. The Commercial Club does not care whether 
 that insurance may be in a stock company or in a mutual company,, 
 or self insurance, or any way you want, except State insurance. 
 We would like to have the privilege of insuring our risk either in 
 stock, mutual or self, or any way we want, but we don't believe 
 that it would be just and right to have a State fund, for this: 
 reason — • 
 
 Mr. Keith : Does the Commercial Club take the position that 
 if a solvent company wants to carry ils own risk it ought to carry 
 insurance anyway? 
 
 Mr. Porter : No ; I thought I had covered that, but I have not: 
 If a company is solvent and can show it is solvent, I believe it 
 
[34c 
 
 126 
 
 should be allowed to carry its own risk, but if not, then some> pro- 
 vision could be made so the workman may get his money. 
 
 Mr. Schweidtman: Isn't that what we call self -insurance? 
 
 Mr. Porter : I think so. 
 
 Mr. Keith : So that self -insurance might also be taken to mean 
 intra-insuranee ? 
 
 Mr. Porter : There are several different methods of that kind. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: Have you considered the question of some Se- 
 curity for the payment of the employe? 
 
 Mr. Porter : I think there should be some provision made for 
 the deferred payments, by bonds or insurance in a solvent concern. 
 
 Chairman Greene : Why do you think it more necessary for 
 an insolvent concern to give a bond than there is under the present 
 law? You can't collect anything now, and you couldn't collect any- 
 thing then. 
 
 Mr. Porter : Yes ; I thought of that. I think the answer to 
 that is that under the present system it is true that a workman 
 who gets a judgment against an insolvent concern usually does not 
 get any money at all. You asked me why there should be any pro- 
 vision made for insurance under compensation any more than at 
 present? Is that it? 
 
 Chairman Greene: No; if we are enacting a compensation 
 law, should Uhe insolvent employer be required to give bond? 
 
 Mr. Porter: For this reason: If you have a compensation 
 law that does not work out, that does not reasonably satisfy the 
 workmen as well as the employer, you are going to get State insur- 
 ance, because the argument of those who want State insurance is 
 that that is the only way you can provide that the workingman is 
 going to get his money. Now, I believe that State insurance would 
 be one of the greatest evils that could befall this community, for 
 this reason : It is easily conceivable that if this fund we have been 
 talking about runs dry that there must be some method used Ik) 
 raise that fund, so that the man gets his money. Now, the ultimate 
 result would be that that would be raised by taxation of the general 
 public. I say it is unfair to put the burden of compensation upon 
 the general public, for the reason that -the general public pays once. 
 I pay as a consumer. If I buy coal I have to pay so much more for 
 that commodity because of this compensation law. If you come 
 around again and put even a small tax upon me, in addition to the 
 indirect tax which I have had to pay, then you are taxing me 
 
34cl 
 
 127 
 
 double, and I say that is not just; not only that, but the people will 
 not stand for it. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: Isn't it also a violation of our State Constitu- 
 tion? 
 
 Mr. Porter : I have not looked at it from that point of view. 
 It is a taxation of the general public. The Constitution provides 
 for no taxation of the general public except for State purposes. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: You are familiar with the Schwitzler case? 
 
 Mr. Porter : Yes ; that was an attempt to levy a tax for the 
 benefit of charity students at the State University, by levying a 
 tax upon the general public, and Judge Gantt, in that case, held 
 that it would be unconstitutional to tax the general public for that 
 benefit, for that was not a public purpose. And you will run into 
 another danger in this question of compensation, the question of 
 whether you will not have your State insurance law held invalid 
 on the theory that it is not for a public purpose. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: In your opinion as an attorney, doesn't this 
 Schwitzler case preclude the possibility of putting any of that tax 
 in any way upon the public at large? 
 
 Mr. Porter : That is my opinion, and yet you will all remem- 
 ber that question was decided some time ago, and the general trend 
 of progress since that time — 
 
 Mr. Barrows (interrupting) : Hasn't the Supreme Court 
 within the past year affirmed that theory? 
 
 Mr. Porter : In a general way they have. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: I am informed that in one decision within a 
 year they reaffirmed that theory absolutely. 
 
 Chairman Greene : You are talking about this insurance fund 
 running dry. It would be practically the same thing with an in- 
 surance company. 
 
 Mr. Porter : That is practically true. 
 
 Chairman Greene: The whole thing resolves itself into the 
 question of administering the fund and applying the insurance, as 
 to whether or not it is possible for the State to undertake it as a 
 practical proposition. 
 
 Mr. Porter : The difference is this, as I understand it: There 
 is not much danger in your company running dry, as they ordinarily 
 reinsure one another. 
 
 Chairman Greene : , They do run dry. 
 
 Mr. Porter: I don't know of any case. 
 
[340 
 
 128 
 
 Chairman Greene: The Metropolitan Liability Company is in 
 the hands of d receiver now. 
 
 Mr. Porter : That is a surety company, a different proposition. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : The funds allotted to the insurance companies 
 under the present law — '■ 
 
 Chairman Greene (interrupting) : Let us not disturb Mr. 
 Porter. 
 
 Mr. Porter : I was going to say that each state requires the 
 insurance companies to put up a reserve which conforms to the 
 estimate of the New York law, which is very high; and I don't 
 think there is any danger under that reserve of the insurance fund 
 running dry. I believe that when you come to that question of in- 
 surance you could require all concerns that patronize the insurance 
 companies to see that they keep up an adequate reserve. I believe 
 that mutual companies should be required to keep up an adequate 
 reserve, and I believe that the same thing should apply to in- 
 ter-indemnity exchanges, because that is the only way you will 
 have of getting a law where the man will get his money. 
 
 Mr. Britton: You would make mutual insurance and inter- 
 insurance associations subject to the same provisions of the statute 
 with reference to reserves that stock companies are? 
 
 Mr. Porter: Yes.; why not? Is there any reason why they 
 should be exempt? 
 
 Mr. Britton : No ; I agree with you. 
 
 Mr. Porter: I am only stating what the Commercial Club 
 would like. I believe you will all agree with me that if you want 
 to get this kind of law, we should certainly eliminate the question 
 of insolvency of the employer. Of course, all of the Commercial 
 Club are not manufacturers, but they are public-spirited enough 
 that they don't want to see a law where the workman does not get 
 his money. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : Is the Commercial Club in favor of .putting 
 a clause in the compensation act, passed in this State, subrogating 
 ■and handing over to the employes the right for an employer under 
 any insurance which he has? 
 
 Mr. Porter : I was going to get to that. . I think there are two 
 other provisions, and that is one^of them.' That ought to be in the 
 law, that is, you ought to make provision so that the workman can 
 recover directly against the insurer, whether that be a stock, mutual, 
 indemnity exchange, or whatever it may be; and second, there 
 ought to be some regulation of the right of the insurance company 
 
3te] 
 
 129 
 
 to limit the liability. That ought to be in the law in some way, and 
 that is going to be a problem to put it in, but it ought to be there. 
 
 Now, this suggestion about giving the workman the right to 
 recover against the insurer has been suggested in several different 
 places. It was suggested by the American Bar Association, and, it 
 was suggested quite recently by the report of the Minnesota Com- 
 mission. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : It has, been done in some states. 
 
 Mr. Porter : I don't know of any state, unless it might be over 
 in Kansas. 
 
 Mr. Keith: There can't be any real objection to that, can 
 there ? 
 
 Mr. Porter : I don't think so ; no. 
 
 Mr. Keith: If the company is insolvent the employer can't 
 recover. 
 
 Mr. Porter : Of course, that is the way it looks to me offhand. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: I don't see anything unjust about it. 
 
 Mr. Porter : That is not a question of contract. 
 
 Mr. Keith : It is a question of contract between the employer 
 and the insurance company whether they will write any policies. 
 
 Mr. Porter: If the companies will not write any unlimited 
 policies, it would be very easy to prohibit them from doing business. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: They concede the equability of it and the ad- 
 visability of it to get away from any socialistic feature. They can 
 make a rate on that just as well as without it. 
 
 Chairman Greene : The only effect of that would be to increase 
 the rates, 
 
 Mr. Keith : , Why should it increase the rates ? 
 
 Mr. Barrows : It naturally operates that way. 
 
 Mr. Keith: Why? 
 
 Mr. Barrows: Because those indemnity exchanges and stock 
 companies only step into the shoes of the employer and agree to 
 reimburse him for what he has paid out, and in many cases they 
 escape liability altogether because they could not collect, but my 
 idea is to subrogate the employe to the rights of the employer 
 against the insurance company, irrespective of whether the em- 
 ploye is able to pay or not. 
 
 Mr. Keith : It looks to me if the insurance company is willing 
 to take the risk — 
 
 Chairman Greene (interrupting) : Let us hear Mr. Porter. 
 
 Mr. Porter: There are only one or two more propositions. 
 
l34o 
 
 130 
 
 notably the question of the rate of compensation. I believe Mr. 
 Sumner stated that he felt that the rate ought to vary according to 
 the size of the family of the deceased. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : That is provided in most cases. ' 
 
 Mr. Porter : I don't agree with that. I believe that the pay- 
 ment of the compensation should be based upon the wages, and not 
 upon the size of the family left by the deceased man, because when 
 you get into such a thing as that you are getting into a social sys- 
 tem, taking care of the poor, or charitable poor relief plan, which 
 is not the object of a compensation law. If you confine yourself to 
 the payment of 50 per cent, I think it is a fair amount. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : Do you mean to exclude from that the hospital 
 bills and medical bills for the first two weeks, or are those included? 
 
 Mr. Porter: Yes; those should be paid irrespective, because 
 the 50 per cent is not paid until at the end of two weeks. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : That would amount to more than 67 per cent, 
 wouldn't it? 
 
 Mr. Porter: I don't know just what the limit is on that; I 
 haven't looked that up. 
 
 Mr. Keith : Has the Commercial Club studied this question of 
 what the compensation should be? 
 
 Mr, Porter : No ; I can't say the Commercial Club ha,s studied 
 that up. I have studied it up a little, and as chairman of their 
 Legislative Committee, I might perhaps speak for myself, and for 
 those I have talked the matter over with. Of course, you under- 
 stand that when I say I represent the Commercial Club', it is not 
 possible for the whole club to have had a meeting and endorse 
 everything I am saying, but if I understood Mr. Clendening, we 
 have discussed this matter ^t different times, appeared before the 
 Legislature of Missouri and Kansas, and we have a sort of a gen- 
 eral idea of the law that we want, a law which shall do away with 
 the damage suit evil. That we think is the greatest burden which 
 as a Commercial Club we have at this time. Is that correct, Mr. 
 Clendening? 
 
 „ .Mr. Clendening: That is correct. We want the benefit to go 
 direct to the beneficiary. 
 
 Chairman Greene: Has that been endorsed by the Commer- 
 cial Club? 
 
 Mr. Porter: Yes. 
 
 Chairman Greene: At a meeting of the club? 
 
 Mr. Porter: It has been discussed by the directors. 
 
34c] 
 
 131 
 
 Chairman Greene : Has it been discussed by the members of 
 the club generally, who are not officers of the club? 
 
 Mr. Porter: No. 
 
 Mr. Clendening: They had the opportunity to do that fre- 
 quently. The subject has frequently been under discussion for 
 nearly two years. 
 
 Mr. Porter: Two years ago, before the State Legislature in 
 this State, we appeared and argued in behalf of the workingmen's 
 compensation law, and the principal argument was that the matter 
 should be handled by a commission. Mr. Sumner was there at that 
 time representing the opposition, and he argued in favor of a lia- 
 bility law, and I- am very glad to see that Mr. Sumner has come to 
 our way of thinking. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : May I correct you ? 
 
 Mr. Porter: Yes. 
 
 Mr. Sumner : I was in favor of a workingmen's compensation 
 law, but the Commercial Club was against it at that time. They 
 said we ought to have an employers' liability law for two years, and 
 we ought to take two years to make up our mind whether we 
 favored a workingmen's compensation law. We couldn't get it 
 at that time. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : There is one question that has been before 
 the Commission, and that is the method of paying it. Are you in 
 favor of a lump sum? 
 
 Mr. Porter : Not at all ; I think it should be paid so much a 
 week or a month. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : Do you think it proper to leave that to the 
 option of the judge of the district or member of the Commission? 
 
 Mr. Porter: Well, that might be all right. I think there 
 would be a tendency on the part of some insurers, if they had to 
 pay, to settle for a lump sum far less than the amount of the com- 
 pensation, and thereby the workman would be deprived of the bene- 
 ficial result. 
 
 Mr. Hall : Don't you think in the case of death he should be 
 paid in a lump sum? 
 
 Mr. Porter: No. 
 
 Mr. Hall: He could figure out how much was coming. 
 
 Mr. Porter: Yes; that is true. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: When they pay the lump sum, that usually 
 takes into consideration interest for a long series of years, and in 
 
132 
 
 many cases does not amount to half what it would be if paid 
 monthly. 
 
 Mr. Porter : As I understand, the argument against the pay- 
 ment of a lump sum is that it would or might be dissipated by the 
 family of the deceased workman, and in that way the object of the 
 compensation law would be defeated. 
 
 Mr. Keith : Take this situation, in this kind of a case : Here 
 is a concern in business producing from the ground raw material 
 which will be exhausted in a given number of years, in some cases 
 3 or 5 or 25 or 50 years. The company is going out of business at 
 the time of complete exhaustion of this raw material. Don't you 
 think that company ought to have the right to pay off its entire 
 liability? Don't you think it would be better for a man in that 
 case? 
 
 Mr. Porter : If the provision was adopted that I suggested in 
 regard to securing the deferred payments, there would be provision 
 for that, even though the company went out of existence. 
 
 Mr. Clendening : If I might be allowed to refresh Mr. Porter's 
 memory, we thought the law ought to be liberal about that, as to 
 whether it should be paid in a lump sum or not. Conditions vary, 
 and sometimes it is very advisable to have it in a lump sum. 
 
 Mr. Keith: You thought the employer and employe should 
 have the optional right to dispose of it that way ? 
 
 Mr. Clendening: Yes. 
 
 Chairman Greene: The question would simply be a mathe- 
 matical question. 
 
 Mr. Porter : I don't think we are concerned very much at this 
 time with a matter of that sort, but we want to bring to your atten- 
 tion the danger of any kind of an insurance fund law, particularly 
 the Washington law and the Ohio law. The Ohio law is full of even 
 more pitfalls than the Washington law. Nobody has argued in 
 favor of it, and it might be unnecessary for me to argue against it. 
 
 Mr. Keith : I understand the Commercial Club is in favor of 
 the optional, elective form, to begin with? 
 
 Mr. Porter: Well, about that, we feel that we want a law 
 which is fair and reasonable to both sides, and equitable. I feel 
 that the New Jersey law is the best law of that sort today, and it is 
 certainly preferable to the Kansas law, where only 125 employers 
 have come under the law. I have a letter from the Secretary of 
 State of Kansas, received yesterday. 
 
 Mr. Keith: Does he classify them? 
 
34c] 
 
 133 
 
 Mr. Porter : No ; he didn't send me that information. He says 
 about 125 employers of the state have elected to come under the 
 provisions of this law. Of course, that is a very small percentage 
 of the employers in Kansas who would be affected by this act. I 
 think probably one reason why the New Jersey law has been suc- 
 cessful and the Kansas law has not, is on account of the fact that 
 in New Jersey you are necessarily under, unless you declare your 
 intention of not being under, not only that fact, but also the fact 
 that in New Jersey, as I understand it, the insurance rates are prac- 
 tically the same whether you come under or not, and in Kansas it 
 is about three times when you come under what it is if you do not. 
 So, consequently, you can easily see why they stay out in Kansas. 
 Of course, the insurance companies must have some good reason 
 for declining that risk in Kansas. Therefore, in your law, I think 
 you should so arrange the payments that they should not increase 
 the insurance rate, because the members of the Commercial Club 
 are interested — 
 
 Mr. Barrows (interrupting) : You mean compared to pres- 
 ent rates ? 
 
 Mr. Porter : No, I don't mean that. 
 
 Mr. Keith : He means the proper parity should be maintained 
 ■whether you come under or whether you don't. 
 
 Mr. Porter : When this compensation act is in effect we would 
 like to have the insurance rate equal, whether we come under the 
 act or whether we don't. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: What you call a well-balanced law? 
 
 Mr. Porter: Yes. We are necessarily very much interested 
 in buying insurance as cheaply as possible, and in order that we 
 may get cheap insurance we want the opportunity to insure in 
 any way we can, and we don't want to be confined to any insurance 
 fund of any kind. 
 
 I think I have covered everything that I want to say, unless 
 there are some, questions some of the gentlemen would like to 
 ask. 
 
 Chairman Greene: We will hear from Mr. Smith now, from 
 the State Federation of Labor. 
 
 Mr. John T. Smith (Secretary State Federation of Labor) : 
 There was something said in the discussion this afternoon about 
 the wages of the hazardous trades, and something was said that 
 I could give some information on that subject. I haven't got that 
 with me this afternoon, and as far as I am personally concerned, 
 
[340 
 
 134 
 
 I don't see where that has anything to do with this particular case^ 
 what wages are paid in these different trades. Of course, our or- 
 ganization as a rule looks after the wages of the men, and I have 
 never yet saw but very few instances where anybody came and 
 handed us any increase of wages, and anything we have gotten 
 along that line we generally had to make a fight for it. Of course, 
 the coal operators and coal miners have showed a very good les- 
 son to us employes in the state and nation as well, the way they 
 get together on these different propositions, by getting their feet 
 under the table and talking it over together and coming to some 
 kind of a conclusion finally that will be satisfactory to both op- 
 erators and miners. There are friendly relations existing between 
 those two, and they should exist between all of us. 
 
 I will say for Kansas City that she has got no fight on' the 
 labor movement, and we have no fight on the Joplin lead and zinc 
 operators, and we have no fight on the Commercial Club or any 
 employers of .labor anywhere. We are on friendly terms with 
 one another. We can light in Joplin, and we have tried to or- 
 ganize the men down there, and the time is coming when we will 
 organize them.. It will not be long until you find the Western 
 Federation of Miners banner flowing through the air in the city 
 of Joplin. It has been done in other places equally as bad as Joplin. 
 
 Of course, we want a fair compensation law, and we don't 
 want anything else. I wouldn't want a law that was not just and 
 fair and for the benefit of both sides, the workingmen as well as 
 the employers, and the general public. 
 
 Mr. Keith : Would you favor a law where the compensation 
 was just and reasonable, so that the company would pay compen- 
 sation, or would you prefer a law such as they have in Kansas, 
 which would drag your people into court all the time? 
 
 Mr. Smith: No, I favor more the Jersey law than any one 
 I know of. I am not very familiar with it. I would leave that to 
 the good judgment of this Commission, as they would certainly 
 be familiar with all these different laws, and what is wrong in 
 one law can be eliminated and something else put in that is bene- 
 ficial. Of course, you could not write it perfect at the beginning. 
 We in the trades union have sick benefits, and we also have a 
 death benefit. So we would be in much better shape under the 
 compensation law than the man who does not belong to a labor 
 organization, for he does not enjoy that benefit that we get from 
 our sick benefits and death benefits in our labor organizations. We 
 
3Jc] 
 
 135 
 
 have a death benefit of $550.00 and a sick benefit- of $5.00 a week. 
 Of course, we would be in a much better position to get along with 
 any kind of compensation than the man who is not a member of a 
 labor organization. 
 
 Mr. Keith : How do you fix your benefit of $5.00 a week and 
 $550.00 in case of death? On what basis do you arrive at that? 
 
 ■Mr. Smith : In my own organization, the cigar makers, it is 
 not a hazardous trade, although some of us make as much wages, 
 as I said awhile ago, as they do in the hazardous trades. We pay 
 so much dues a week, 30 cents a week, the same all over the 
 United States and Canada. Our sick benefit is $5.00 a week, which 
 runs for 16 weeks in one year. Our death benefit runs according 
 to the membership. A man that has two years continuous mem- 
 bership gets $100.00; a man that has five years continuous mem- 
 bership gets $200.00; a man that has ten years continuous mem- 
 bership gets $350.00, and a man that has 15 years continuous 
 membership gets $550.00. 
 
 Mr. Keith : It is figured without any regard to the compen- 
 sation of the men? 
 
 Mr. Smith : Yes. A man may be making a five cent cigar all 
 his life, and another may be making a fifteen cent cigar or bet- 
 ter, but it is all the same. That fund is figured out on the basis 
 of the membership of the whole organization. There was a 
 resolution introduced at our national convention on that subject, 
 and I don't know what action was taken on it. The International 
 president was instructed in case that was carried to get in touch 
 with the proper parties in regard to it. We are going to get 
 an old age pension, to pay our men after they get to a certain 
 age. We have the out-of-work benefit now. They get a certain 
 sum every week for a certain number of weeks during the year. 
 
 Mr. Keith : And you want to increase your dues to take care 
 of that? 
 
 Mr. Smith: 30 cents a week. Of course if we get the olfl 
 ■ age pension, we will have to increase the dues to about 35 cents 
 a week. 
 
 Mr. Britton: Does the sick benefit apply to injuries? 
 
 Mr. Smith : Yes, anything, unless the man brings it on him- 
 self, in case of intoxication or something like that. 
 
 Mr. Britton : In a workingmen's compensation act, would the 
 benefit a man would get there be applied on that, or would it be 
 in addition to that? 
 
[34e 
 136 
 
 Mr. Smith : - No, they would still get the same amount, no 
 difference what kind of an act there is. In New Jersey and in 
 other states where they have the compensation law they still get 
 the same benefits from the organization that they received be- 
 fore. 
 
 Mr. Eritton : Are you familiar with the New Jersey act ? 
 
 Mr. Smith: No, not very. I have read it over and I am 
 satisfied there are some things in it that are all right, and of 
 course, as I said, there are some things in there that are not. 
 Of course, you couldn't get a law that would be satisfactory to 
 everybody, and there are things in some of the other states that 
 are more satisfactory that could be changed and put into the 
 law here. What I want to see, and I think I can speak for the 
 biggest part of the labor movement, is something that is fair and 
 just and right. 
 
 Mr. Keith: In your opinion, doesn't the New Jersey act 
 come as near being fair as is within the human mind to make it? 
 
 Mr. Smith: I think so. Of course, there are some things 
 in there that we don't like. You can take it in our own experience 
 here, when we got the nine hour day for women in the last Legis- 
 lature, we were not satisfied. We wanted eight hours, for our 
 able-bodied men were enjoying an eight-hour workday, and it 
 didn't look right for us to go down there and ask for nine hours 
 for women when we were getting eight. We did go there and 
 accepted nine and were glad to get it. 
 
 Mr. Britton: What do you think of the scale of compen- 
 sation? Have you any ideas along that line? 
 
 Mr. Smith: No. 
 
 Mr. Britton: Have you considered the question of maxi- 
 mum compensation? 
 
 Mr. Smith : I believe that it should be on the wages a man 
 receives, either 50 or 62 1-2, or whatever that amount was. 
 
 Mr. Britton: What about the maximum? In the New Jer- 
 sey law it is $10.00 a week, 50 per cent and $10.00 a week as 
 the maximum. Do you think the employes would generally ac- 
 cept a law providing for that? 
 
 Mr. Smith. $20.00 a week would be the maximum with 
 that 66 2-3 percentage, if a man makes $30.00 a week. 
 
 Mr. Britton : Yes, 50 per cent, or $30.00 a week, and $10.00 
 maximum. 
 
 Mr. Smith: Yes. 
 
34c] 
 
 137 
 
 • 
 
 Mr. Britton: Are there many laboring men that get as high 
 as $30.00 a week? 
 
 Mr. Smith: Oh, yes, quite a number of them. In the typo- 
 graphical union as a rule they generally average about $30.00 a 
 week. 
 
 Mr. Britton: They are either highly skilled laborers, or 
 they are employed in hazardous occupations, those that are get- 
 ting large wages. 
 
 Mr. Smith: Well, there are a good many of the men in the 
 State of Missouri today working in places like the powder works, 
 and I am not so familiar with their wages. While the Excelsior 
 Powder Company was organized, they are not organized now 
 and I couldn't say what the wages are now. I couldn't say about 
 that just now. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: What do the brick masons receive here? 
 
 Mr. Smith : 55 cents an hour and an eight hour day and Sat- 
 urday half holiday. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: Hodcarriers? 
 
 Mr. Smith: 87 1-2 cents per hour. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: Mortar mixers^ etc.? 
 
 Mr. Smith: 37 1-2 cents. The plasterer tenders and what 
 is commonly called the hodcarriers and mortar mixers all come 
 under the same head, 37 1-2 cents an hour. Other laborers in 
 the building, the common laborers, I think they got an increase 
 the other day. I think they were getting 25 then, and now they 
 are getting 27 1-2 or 30. 
 
 Mr. Britton: In the building trades, what percentage of 
 the time is a man employed? He is not employed constantly, is 
 he? 
 
 Mr. Smith: No. I wouldn't know just exactly the average 
 for the year. Of course, after the building is enclosed quite a 
 number of them work during the whole winter. In a number 
 of the large buildings, like the Commerce building, and the men 
 worked all fall and winter and never lost a day, outside of Sun- 
 days and holidays. 
 
 Mr. Keith: The average time is about 60 per cent, isn't it? 
 
 Mr. Smith: About that, I would judge. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: You seem to look at this from a different 
 angle than some representatives that have been here, and I want 
 to ask you whether or not the representatives of the labor move- 
 
[31q 
 
 138 
 
 ment don't recognize the great benefit of even a partial compen- 
 sation law, as compared with present conditions? 
 
 Mr. Smith : Well, I don't hardly know. We have not talked 
 the matter over very much lately, but as I understand it they are 
 anxious to get some kind of a compensation law. While some 
 of them say we will hot get what we want on the start, the em- 
 ployer may not get what he wants on the start, and after it is in 
 actual practice in the state for awhile both sides will probably then 
 be able to get together and make it better all around. 
 
 Mr. Britton: You heard Mr. Sumner's remarks concerning 
 the maximum fixed by the New Jersey law? 
 
 Mr. Smith : Yes. 
 
 Mr. Britton: I would like to get the idea of some of the 
 representatives of the labor organizations as to whether or not 
 they would oppose any maximum fixed in the law, such as they 
 have in New Jersey, because it seems to me that a law without 
 such a maximum would be impracticable. No employer could af- 
 ford to come under any law under which his liability might be 
 unlimited. On the other hand, it • occurs to me that the workers 
 ought not and possibly do not expect to get. the full percentage, 
 60 or 50 or whatever it is, of their wages in every case. Some- 
 times those wages might be unusually high, on account of the 
 peculiar hazard or the hours or something of that sort. And 
 yet we must strike some sort of an average to fix a maximum. 
 That is a thing I would like to hear from you on, and others. 
 
 Mr. Smith: I can say that Mr. Sumner has given this 
 matter more consideration and more thought than anyone I know 
 of in the labor movement, and he is much better qualified to 
 speak on these things than anyone I know of in the movement. 
 We have not taken the matter up, and as far as us going before the 
 Legislature and fighting any kind of a proposition, I don't know 
 whether that will be the question or not. I should think not. 
 
 Mr. Britton: You think we are all working to the same 
 end? 
 
 Mr. Smith: I think we are all working to the same end, 
 yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Britton: And we want to get a law reasonably satis- 
 factory to the worker and employer? 
 
 Mr. Smith: Yes, I think that is right. I think we are all 
 working to get a law that will be reasonably satisfactory to 
 both sides, to the employer as well as the employe. 
 
34cJ 
 
 139 
 
 Mr. Britton: But there are bound to be objections from 
 each side? 
 
 Mr. Smith: Oh, yes. The miners organization has laws 
 passed at every session of the Legislature, but still they are not 
 always satisfactory to the miners, and they are not always satis- 
 factory to the operators. While they both agree in the first place, 
 something else turns up that makes it look different to them af ter- 
 wards. 
 
 Mr. Keith : We never agree on that, Mr. Smith. 
 Mr. Smith: You get your feet under the table, anyhow. 
 That is more than a whole lot of the other employers do with 
 their employes. 
 
 Mr. Roney : What do you think of the proposition that every- 
 body would be undei' the law unless they want to come out from 
 under it? Wouldn't that be better to draft that kind of a pro- 
 vision in the law, that if a man wanted to be under the law 
 he would say so, that is, that you are under the law unless you 
 say you don't want to be under it. 
 
 Mr. Smith: I wouldn't be in a position to answer that 
 now. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham': From your knowledge of the amount of 
 interest of the average man in these matters, about what percent- 
 a,ge do you think would know anything about this compensation act 
 after it' is passed? 
 
 Mr. Smith: I understand that all right enough. It is like 
 a good many other things. We have got to continue going be- 
 fore 'the different organizations and acquainting them by word 
 of mouth and communications and circulars in some way, getting 
 the matter before them in some way. Our people, as far as 
 Kansas City is concerned, are taking more of an interest now 
 in things generally than they ever did before. They are begin- 
 ning to think and read and are in a better position now to give 
 these things some consideration than they were in years gone 
 by. We have less trouble in Kansas City than in any other city 
 in the country. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham : The fact that the leaders of the American 
 
 ' Federation of Labor and other organizations have come out openly 
 
 in favor of workingmen's compensation, then you don't believe 
 
 that there would be any serious trouble in case a law of that kind 
 
 should be enacted, do you, Mr. gmith? 
 
 Mr. Smith : I don't think so. I wouldn't think there would 
 
[340 , 
 
 140 
 
 be any serious objection to it, although I don't know exactly what 
 the other organizations are going to do about it. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: The head of the American Federation is 
 in favor of it? 
 
 Mr. Smith: Yes, as far as I know. Even our State Federa- 
 tion, which is a part of the American Federation of Labor, is 
 also in favor of it. 
 
 Mr. F. J. Moss (representing American Sash & Door Com- 
 pany) : There are a number of classes of employment in which 
 the employment lasts a very brief period, for instance, glass blow- 
 ers. They draw good wages while" they work, but they are em-; 
 ployed only a few months in the season. In arriving at the 
 compensation should that be considered by taking 12 months or 
 the short season of the employment? 
 
 Mr. Smith: I don't know just how that is done in other 
 states. I believe the average employment of a glass blower is 
 about nine months in the year, maybe less. They are off three 
 months in the summer, I think. I don't know how that would 
 affect it. 
 
 Mr. Moss: That is an important item. 
 
 Mr.. Smith: On the other hand, there is a dull season in all 
 trades, as far as that goes. Even in the tailor trade, they are 
 sometimes laid off a month or two. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: As compensation is paid by the year, most 
 compensation laws take the whole earnings during the period, 
 which would seem to be fair to my mind. 
 
 Mr. Smith : Yes, that is the way I would look at it. 
 Mr. Moss: I have just a very few things to touch on on 
 this subject. I have in mind some remarks made by the sena- 
 tor from Joplin, which reflected a condition with reference to 
 his business that does not exist in our business. The generosity 
 of the mine operators down there is certainly to be admired, and 
 their willingness to take care of their unfortunate employes, but 
 there are a good many employments, like my own, where the com- 
 petition is so strong that we are absolutely unable to do that. 
 It is not a question of what we want to do, it is a question of 
 what we can do. The competition that we encounter is of such 
 a nature that the profit is reduced to the minimum, and as I say,^ 
 it is not a question of what we want to do, but a question of what 
 we can do. 
 
 Speaking for my company, we are in favor of some sort of ' 
 
34c] 
 
 141 
 
 a compensation act such as you have in mind, heartily in favor 
 of it. It is a big problem, and one that we fully realize the dif- 
 ficulties that you will encounter. If we are operating under a 
 more expensive and trying condition than those of our neighbors 
 in other states, it is going to restrict our own operation in this 
 state. I feel that that is something that should be considered 
 carefully by this Commission. I can't think of anyone being op- 
 posed to an equitable measure of this kind, where it does not 
 work a hardship on anyone. 
 
 Mr. Britton: What is your business, Mr. Moss? 
 
 Mr. Moss: Sash and door business. 
 
 Mr. Keith: Can you add that cost of production to the 
 cost to the consumer, any increase made in the State of Missouri 
 through a compensation act? In other words, isn't your compe- 
 tition such that you would have to be governed entirely by your' 
 competitive conditions in other outlying districts? 
 
 Mr. Moss : Almost wholly : Of course, the effect of any added 
 price of that sort is added to the cost of the product, and that must 
 be paid by the consumer. 
 
 Mr. Keith: Aren't you limited in your ability to charge 
 the consumer on those matters? 
 
 Mr. Moss. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Keith: For instance, if the State of Iowa had no com- 
 pensation law and the State of Missouri had one, Iowa could 
 take your market? 
 
 Mr. Moss: Yes, that would be the natural consequence. It 
 bears directly upon the cost of our operation, just as much as 
 the cost of labor or lumber. 
 
 Mr. Britton: Where are your principal competitors lo- 
 cated? 
 
 Mr. Moss : Iowa. Those are the chief competitors in this 
 immediate marke't. To some extent you might also consider Wis- 
 consin and Minnesota and the south. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: And Kansas? 
 
 Mr. Moss : Very little in Kansas. There is very little manu- 
 facturing in our line in the State of Kansas. There are some 
 in Chicago. 
 
 Mr. Brittingham: Is there much in Illinois? 
 
 Mr. Moss: Yes, considerable in Illinois. 
 
 Mr. Keith : Isn't it true that about 80 per cent of the manu- 
 
[34c 
 
 142 
 
 facturers in your line of business in Illinois have gone out of busi- 
 ness in the last year? 
 
 Mr. Moss : Yes. Our chief competition conies from Iowa and 
 Wisconsin and California and some of the southern states. . 
 
 Mr. Barrows: To illustrate that point, I would like to ask 
 Mr. Drennon what is the rate as between Missouri and Kansas? 
 
 Mr. Drennon: I couldn't tell you to save my life, but it 
 is at leasl twice as much in Kansas as it is in Missouri. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: So that you have thslt advantage over Kan- 
 sas in this state. 
 
 Mr. Moss: Speaking for the business I am engaged in, we 
 are in favor of an act of that sort, with competitive markets 
 to be considered. 
 
 Mr. L. A. Brown (representing the Brown Bed Manufactur- 
 ing Company) : In discussing these matters, I would like to ask 
 whereabouts the liability of the employer comes in when the 
 employe enters the ground? 
 
 Mr. Barrows: Under most laws the compensation begins at 
 the end of two weeks. Is that what you mean, or do you mean 
 where the employe would be liable going to and from the work? 
 
 Mr. Brown: Yes. 
 
 Mr. Barrows : If you ask for a matter of information only, I 
 can say that I have not seen wherein that was clearly demarked. 
 I have thought myself it might be well to work out something 
 on that point. 
 
 Mr. Brown: I have a case I will state in regard to that, 
 th^t directly affects us, a case we had during the noon time where 
 a couple of our employes were there, and one threw naphtha on 
 the other. It proved serious and caused the death. That was 
 during the noon time recess. The question is whether or not that 
 would be an accident for which the employer would be responsi- 
 ble. 
 
 Chairman Greene : Well, under that law it would be covered. 
 
 Mr. Britton : It would be the act of a fellow-servant. 
 
 Mr. Porter: I think I can make a suggestion as to that. 
 That is all taken care of by the phrase, "In the course of em- 
 ployment," and it has been held in England that that would be 
 covered by the law. It is simply an accident occurring in the 
 course of employment. In this country they have sustained the 
 New York law and limited accidents to those occurring during 
 the course of employment, and I think in this country under the 
 
34g] 
 
 143 
 
 language of all the laws we have got that they would be covered. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: I think that is- one of the propositions that 
 we want discussed before us, whether we should make our law 
 more specific as to when a man enters or when he leaves the em- 
 ,ployment, and as to whether accidents occurring on the premises, 
 in na way in connection with the employment, are covered or 
 not. What do you think of that? 
 
 Mr. Brown: My individual opinion is that is not up to 
 the company. If the company, is responsible during the hours 
 of employment, it certainly should not be held responsible for 
 the man's meal time. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: Suppose on the other hand that during the 
 noon hour a man was going from one part of the work to another 
 and injured himself on a defective walk, would you consider that 
 an act of employment or not, or how should we treat that? 
 
 Mr. Brown: I would consider that up to the company. I 
 would consider that responsibility as belonging to the company, 
 that the company would have to provide a safe way to the men 
 to get out as well as to get in. 
 
 There is another question I would like to ask in regard to 
 the classification of rates. It seems to me like it is hard to make 
 a just liability law without being able to classify the rates. My 
 work might be more hazardous than another man's work, etc., 
 and it would not be fair to make a general law that would apply 
 the same to everybody. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: You are in favor of leaving the liability with 
 the individual employer in that respect? 
 
 Mr. Brown : ~ Yes ; there is another question. If we pay 
 into this fund so much, as the New Jersey law is compulsory to 
 a certain extent, what law have we to protect ourselves? Can 
 we go out and insure in any company against the risk, or do we 
 have to pay into that fund anyhow? 
 
 Mr. Barrows : Go out and insure with any company your- 
 self. 
 
 Chairman Greene : You don't pay into anything. You either 
 insure it in some company, or you don't carry any insurance, 
 but pay the loss yourself. 
 
 Mr. Shackelford: Just one question in regard to small 
 operators. Down in our district, the Joplin district, the work- 
 man of today is frequently the mine operator within a few weeks. 
 You take one of those fellows that has been working in a mine, 
 
[34o 
 
 144 
 
 and he starts into business for himself, and you might say he is 
 insolvent, how are you going to fix that man so he will be hable for 
 any accident in his mine? 
 
 Mr. Keith: How many men are employed to start on? 
 
 Mr. Shackelford: Not very many. 
 
 Mr. Keith: Two or three or more? 
 
 Mr. Shackelford: Not over two or three. 
 
 Mr. Keith: Do you suppose if we exempted all employers 
 employing less than five men that that would take care of that 
 situation ? 
 
 Mr. Shackelford: I think it would. He would not be in a 
 position to furnish a bond or to carry insurance. 
 
 Mr. Keith: In the Kansas law it is 15, and in some other 
 states it is five. 
 
 Mr. Shackelford: I think that would cover it all right. 
 
 Chairman Greene: Is there anyone else that wants to be 
 heard ? 
 
 It was thereupon moved and seconded that the Commission 
 go into executive session. 
 
 Chairman Greene: It has been moved and seconded that 
 the Commission go into executive session. Are you ready for the 
 question? All in favor will say aye; contrary, no. 
 
 The ayes seem to have it and the Commission will now go 
 into executive session. 
 
 (All parties present not members of the Commission there- 
 upon withdrew, and the Commission went into executive session) . 
 
 Mr. Britton: I move that the sub-committee be instructed 
 to draft a bill of the general type of the New Jersey law, leav- 
 ing the question of what industries it shall be applied to to the 
 sub-committee to recommend, and allow the whole Commission 
 to pass upon it, and the general scale of compensation to be 
 left to the sub-committee to fix in the first instance, and later 
 on the Commission as a whole to pass on it, it being distinctly 
 understood they are not to follow the New Jersey law rigorously, 
 but this is simply a suggestion as to the type of law. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: I second the motion. 
 
 Chairman Greene: You have heard the motion. Are you 
 ready for the question? 
 
 Mr. Britton: Make it read this way: Without committing 
 itself to final approval- of the form of law in existence in New 
 Jersey, the Commission requests that the subcommittee appointed 
 
145 
 
 by the chairman shall draft a law of the general type of the 
 New Jersey law, shall draft a proposed law of the general type 
 of the New Jersey law, inserting suggestions for the industries 
 to be covered and the scale of compensation, the entire bill to be 
 submitted to the Commission for its consideration. 
 
 Mr. Barrows: I second that motion. 
 
 Chairman Greene: You have heard the motion. Are you 
 ready for the question? 
 
 Mr. Britton: It being understood that a minority of said 
 sub-committee or any member thereof .may submit for consid- 
 eration of the whole Commission a bill or bills embodying other 
 types or forms of law. 
 
 Chairman Greene: You have heard the motion as amended. 
 All in favor will say aye ; contrary, no. 
 
 The ayes seem to have it and the motion is carried. 
 
 Upon motion, duly seconded, the Commission thereupon ad- 
 journed. 
 
 V 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CAVLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTEDINU.S.A 
 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 HD 7816.U7M78 
 
 Report of Missouri Commission on Employe 
 
 3 1924 000 607 543