Cornell University Library HD7816.U6A3 1916a Federal employees compensation. Hearings 3 1924 002 552 465 HD 7316 TJ6 A3 1916a U. S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Federal employees' corrpenEation. Hearings. CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS THE GIFT OF The Family of Dr. I M. RuBiNOW 1875-1936 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SIXTY-FOURTH CONGRESS t * FiHST Session ON FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION Serial 16— Part 3 JANUARY 28, 1916 WASHINGTOK GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1»16 ^ CONTENTS statement of— Page- Hon. Daniel J. McGillicuddy, Member of Congress 3 Dr. John B. Andrews, of New York 5 Dr. I. M. Rubinow, of New York 17 Mr. Miles M. Dawson, of New York 19 Miss Eva Ward, of New York 19 Hon. Perry E. Hull, Member of Congress, 21 Mr. Edward J. Gainor, of Muncie, Ind 23 Dr. Royal Meeker, Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Washington, D. C 27 Mr. Middleton Beaman, of New York 58 Mr. L. D. Clark, of Washington, D. 63 Mr. Frank T. Rogers, of Washington, D. C 70 Mr. Edward J. Cantwell, of Wadiington, D. C 71 Mr. Ahoy S.Phillips, of St. Louis, Mo 72 Mr. Thos. P. Flaherty 73 2 '=•'^0, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY. """•^^S""^ House of Rupkksentatives. SlXTY-rOUETH CONGRESS. CHARLES C. CAELIN, Virginia. ROBEET Y. THOMAS, Jr., Kentucliy. H. GARLAND DUPRfi, Louisiana. JOSEPH TAGGART, Kansas. WILLIAM L. IGOE, Missouri. WARREN GARD, Ohio. WM. ELZA WILLIAMS, Illinois. RICHARD S. WHALEY, Soutft Carolina. HARRY H. DALE, New York. THADDEUS H. CARAWAY, Arliansas. EDWIN Y. WEBB, North Carolina, Chairman. A. L. QnzCKELj Clerk. M. M. NEEIjY, West Virginia. HENRY J. STEELE, Pennsylvania. ANDREW J. VOLSTEAD, Mipnesots, JOHN M. NELSON, Wisconsin. DICK T. MORGAN, Oklahoma. HENRY G. DANFORTH, New York. GEORGE S. GRAHAM, Pennsylvania. WALTER M. CHANDLJSR, New Yorlj. LEONIDAS C. DYER, Missouri. HUNTER H. MOSS, Je., West Virginia. FEDBKAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION^. Serial 16— Part 3. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, January ^8, 1916. The committee this day met, Hon. Edwin Y, Webb prepidipg. The Chairman. We have met this morning for the purpose of hearing various gentlemen in advocacy of House bill 476, I'his meet- ing was called at the request of Eepresentative MoGiUiquddy, The chairman understands that there are several persons who would like to be heard in advocacy of the bill, and the chairman recognizes Judge McGilUcuddy. STATEMENT OF HON. BANIS)! J- Meail-IICUDBY. Mr. McGiLLicuDDY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the eom- mittee, this is the same bill that this committee considered during the last Congress and reported favorably. There is nothing new, no new principle in the bill that leads into any experimental field- Thirty-three States in the country have already adopted compenga* tion legislation, and it has worked so well in every State wherever it has been tried that, so far as I know, no State after having once adopted the compensation principle, has abandoned it or repealed the law. I think that is a very significant test of the compensation principle, and shows that it is not only sound in principle, but is ftlso 4 FEDEEAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. economically sound. I am not going to take the time of the com- mittee to go through the bill in detail, but I do wish to call attention to some of the principal features of it. In the first place, this bill covers all Federal employees. As you are aware, under the present law, the law of 1908, about one-quarter of the Federal employees in the more hazardous employments -are covered. I think you will become convinced when you hear the views of those who are to appear before the committee this morn- ing, f roni the labor bureau, that the present law is absurdly inade- quate in its practical working. This bill covers, as I have said, all civilian Government employees. Compensation is granted for injuries incurred by reason of acci- dents and occupational diseases. The amount of the compensation for total disability is two-thirds of the monthly wage, and for partial disability two-thirds of the difference between the amount of the monthly wage and whatever the employee is able to earn in his partially disabled condition. Those amounts have been fixed in this bill because experience has demonstrated that they are the nearest to being .satisfactory, con- sidering two things: First, it gives to the employee a fair remunera- tion or compensation for his injury in giving him two-thirds of his pay; and, in the second place, it leaves one-third of the pay as an inducement to return to work as soon as he is able to do so, and thereby takes away the temptation to feign illness or malinger. Medical attendance and hospital service are supplied, and for the first three days there is no compensation for disability, except that medical attendance and hospital service, etc., is furnished. The death payment to the widow is 35 per cent of the monthly pay of the deceased employee. To the widower, if there is no child, 35 per cent, if wholly dependent for support upon the deceased em- ployee at the time of her death, and such proportionate amount as the commission deems proper if partly dependent. This com- pensation is to be paid until death or marriage. I am not going to take up the time of this committee to go through the provisions with reference to the children and dependent parents, brothers, sisters, etc. Burial expenses to the extent of $100, and transportation of the body in case of death, in the discretion of the officials of the board, are provided for. There is a provision for payment in a lump sum, in certain cases where a person is to re- move from the country. No liability is to be created for compensa- tion unless written notice is given within 48 hours after the injury or death. No compensation is allowed to any person unless he makes a claim within 60 days after the injury or within one year after death. For any reasonable cause shown, the commission may allow original claims for compensation for disability resulting from injury or occupational disease to be made at any time within one year. I desire to call particular attention to the provision for medical ex- amination. All injured employees are required to submit to medical examination at the request of the oificial, and no compensation is payable so long as any employee refuses to submit to such examina- tion. Another section of the bill which I consider very important, pro- vides that before any employee is admitted to the public service he must submit to an examination, and if, upon that examination, it FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 5 is disclosed that there are symptoms of an occupational disease, or of a physical condition that would render the employee likely to contract such disease, or even sustain an injury, he shall not be appointed to any position for which he is adjudged unfitted. I think that is not only a good provision so far as the employee is concerned, but it will materially tend to raise the standard and efficiency of all Government employees and thereby promote the public service. The bill also takes care of those cases where a third person is liable for an injury to an employee. The administration of the bill is placed in the hands of three commissioners, who are to be appointed by the President. There is just one other provision that I desire to call attention to, and that is section 36, which provides that the commission shall study the causes of accidents and occupational diseases among civilian employees of the Government and report annually to Congress the result of its investigations and make such recommendations as it may deem proper to the various departments as to the best means of preventing accidents and occupational diseases. I think this is one of the most important features of this bill, and if there were no other reasons for passing it this would be an impelling one. It is a good thing to compensate for injuries and disease, but it is a much better thing to prevent them. It is confidently expected by the friends of this bill that that pro- vision will very materially reduce in the specially hazardous de- partments of employment the number of accidents, and that it will also very materially reduce the causes of occupational disease. Now, I am not going to go through the bill in detail. I know that this committee will consider the bill line by line and section by section. There are several gentlemen here who would like to be heard, and I shall now give them that opportunity. The Chairman. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. McGilli- cuddy, for your explanation. I understand that Dr. Andrews desires to make a statement. STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN B. ANDREWS, SECRETARY OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR LABOR LEGISLATION, 131 EAST TWENTY-THIRD STREET, NEW YORK CITY. Mr. Andrews. We can assume, of course, in discussing this bill that the principle of workmen's compensation is accepted. Congress accepted the principle in 1908, when it passed the existing law. Thirty-three of the fifty States and Territories of the country since that time have also enacted workmen's compensation laws and have thereby accepted the principle. The important features, then, which we can discuss very briefly, relate to the adequacy and reasonableness of the proposed legisla- tion, and we can also say a few words about the inadequacy of the existing law of 1908. In the first place, the existing law covers only one-fourth of the employees of the United States Government. About 300,000 men and women in the United States Government employ are without the protection of workmen's compensation. That is very serious, inasmuch as the sovereign " can do no wrong," and these employees. 6 FEDERAL EMPLOVEES' OOMPENSAIION. of course, are not even in a position to seek redress through em- ployer's liability. Mr. Nelson. I would like to ask you a question if I may interrupt you- Mr. Andrews. Certainly. Mr. Nelson. I would like to have you point out, if you will, how you pass from the principle of the present law, which is supposed to cover hazardous occupations, to this one, which is to cover all employees, including those who may not be engaged in hazardous employment. Mr. Andrews. I am very glad you raised that question, becausfe it should be stated, I think, that it is impossible justly and satis- factorily to classify hazardous employments. Any employment is hazardous to the workman who is injured therein, and it has been found in practice that it is much better to make a compensation law inclusive rather than try to cover a small list of so-called extra- hazardous employments, as was attempted in the previous legisla- tion. That earlier practice is being abandoned. The second point that I would like to emphasize as to the inade- quacy of the existing law is that it omits occupational diseases. The cases of occupational diseases in the Government service are, of course, very few. It is only occasionally that there is an injury caused by conditions which result in occupational disease, but when those few cases do occur it is a terrible injustice to the victim of lead poison- ing, for instance, whose wrists may be paralyzed, not to receive compensation just the same as though he were incapacitated by accident. Mr. Volstead. Let me ask you whether a person who is a rural carrier and who contracts rheumatism as the natural result of cold and exposure while engaged in his work would be considered as suffering from an occupational disease ? Mr. Andrews. He would not. Mr. Volstead. Have the courts passed upon that proposition? Mr. Andrews. The courts generally have decided that rheumatism is not an occupational disease under compensation acts. Mr. Nelson. Broadly speaking, how do you define occupational disease ? What would be included in that term ? Mr. Andrews. As to the Government service, it is already clear that there would be a few casfes of lead poisoning. Men would suffer from painters' lead colic, and also from various forms of paralysis of the wrists, due to the gradual absorption of lead. There have been a number of such cases in the navy yards, where the men go into the double compartments of war vessels and scrape off paini and breathe the dust during that process. Mr. Nelson. What is the line of demarcation between an occupa- tional disease and any other disease that may be contracted nor- mally by any ordinary human being? Mr. Andrews. I should say it is generally recognized that we class as occupational diseases those that are clearly due to the nature of the employmeni^— where there can be no doUbt about it. Mr. Nelson. Has any court defined that law at all ? Mr. Andrews. No, sir. Mr. Nelson. That has been done scientifically — ^by an adminis- trative officer? FEDEBAL EMPLOYEES GOMPENSATlON. 7 Mr. AndHews. Yes, sir. Mr. Nelson. Have any of the States attempted to point out that line of demarcation ? Mr. Andrews. The States of California and Massachusetts already include occupational diseases, as well as accidental injuries, and the tendency generally is to include occupational diseases. Claims on this account are presented from time to time, and in a few cases they are so clear that the compensation is paid, and these cases are then regarded as coming under the head of personal injuries, and from that time on it is a mere matter of administration. Mr. Steele. Does the legislation of these States define what is an occupational disease? Mr. Andrews. The laws in these States make the workmen's com- pensation apply to " personal injuries." The Supreme Court of Massachusetts has decided, in given instances, that victims of occu- pational disease shall be Compensated under the head of personal injuries. Mr. Steele. The legislation of these States uses the term " occupa- tional disease," the same as this act ? Mr. Andrews. They use the term "personal injury ; " and it has been decided by one or two courts in other States that where the term "accidental injury" is used occupational diseases are not covered. Mr. Volstead. Have you in mind any State that provides ex- pressly for occupational diseases? Mr. Andrews. There is no other State in this country which does expressly provide for them. There is a bill now before the Legisla- ture of New Jersey to include occupational diseases. In several European countries occupational diseases are included. We have thought it was better openly to state that this bill would include occupational diseases as well as accidental injuries. Mr. Nelson. It seems to me that this is one of the points of at- tack on the bill by the opponents of any measure of this kind. We must be careful to draw the line so that it does not include every disease, such as measles, for instance. We should be careful to draw the line between the temporary disease and the permanent dis- ease, and see that an employee does not get the benefit of compen- sation no matter what the disease is. Mr. Andrews. I think it is very interesting to note that in the States of Massachusetts and California, where the casualty insur- ance companies, after occupational diseases were included, were naturally called upon to fix rates for private employers. In Massa- chusetts they decided it would not be necessary to increase the already existing rate, and in California some of the companies, I understand, made an estimate that perhaps 2 per cent additional cost in compensation payments would cover it. Mr. Volstead. That may be true under certain conditions. It has occurred to me that this might be stretched to cover most anything. It might make it difficult to pass, unless we limit this in some way so as to be sure we are not going to give some officials the power prac- tically to give compensation to a fellow who may catch rheumatism. Mr. Andrews. We thought it was sufficiently safeguarded by pro- viding that the cases should be presented to a commission, which would look into the matter very carefully. 8 FEDERAL, employees' COMPENSATION. Mr. Nelson. The commission has discretion in the matter? Mr. Andkews. Yes, sir. Mr. Nelson. Why is it not practicable to define occupational disr eases in the bill in some way ? , Mr. Andrews. We considered that very carefully, and it seemed to be almost impossible to make a definition that we would want to put in the bill. It seemed that the best thing to do was to put it into the hands of the commission which, on the basis of careful investi- gation, could settle the matter impartially. Mr. Nelson. You would let the administrative officers pick out the occupa.tional diseases as they come up? Mr. Andrews. Yes, sir. Mr. Steele. Would the commission determine what is an occupa- tional disease? Mr. Volstead. I think the natural tendency would be for the com- mission to stretch the law so as to protect the inen. Personally, I would rather trust a court to do this than a commission. Mr. Gard. If you leave it to the courts, you abandon the whole idea of workmen's compensation. Mr. Volstead. That may be true, but the question of what is an occupational disease could be submitted to a court. The Chairman. Suppose a postmaster should stand on his feet for six or eight hours a day, and as a result of that suffer from a disease, would that be considered an occupational disease ? Mr. Andrews. He might get flat-foot from standing such a long time and be incapacitated. Mr. Williams. I know of a case of a mail carrier who had trouble with his foot. The department refused to compensate him during the interval that he suffered, because it held that it was not occupa- tional or incidental to his employment; yet he contracted it solely by the carrying of mail. Mr. Andrews. Do you feel that that was just? Mr. Williams. Oh, no ; I do not think it was just. Mr. Andrews. I was going to say in answer to a question asked awhile ago, that this administrative commission would not merely represent the employees of the United States Government, but it would also impartially represent the taxpayers. We had better trust a commission, so constituted, than without experience attempt, in advance, narrowly to define occupational disease. Mr. Nelson. The proponents of the bill thought that the term " occupational diseases " would cover a very limited number. Lead poisoning would be one, for instance. It would be better to have that clear, so that there could be no mistake about it. Mr. Andrews. Yes, sir. The third inadequacy under the existing law of 1908 concerns the waiting period. The prescribed waiting period under the present law is 15 days, but if the employee is incapacitated more than 15 days he secures full wage compensation from the date of his injury. You can see that there is a financial temptation to the injured work- man, under the present law, to be incapacitated at least 16 days if the incapacity is really of only 12 or 13 days' duration. Otherwise, if he goes back at the end of 14 days, he receives no compensation whatever, whereas his friend, working near him, goes back on the L' FEDEEAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 9 sixteenth day and is paid full wages from the date of the injury. There is no other compensation law that I know anything about that has such an absurd provision. This is a thing that should be guarded against. The scale of the present act is very inadequate, and there is no special provision for the prevention of accidents and occupational diseases. The proposed law, we believe, is adequate and reasonable. It has been drafted with very great care, and I believe that there has been no compensation law introduced in any legislature in America which has been more carefully considered. Mr. Volstead. What statute have you that would compare with this in liberality ? Mr. Andrews. The New York State law, for example, is very similar in nearly all of its provisions. Mr. Volstead. This gives, in case of total disability, 66§ per cent for life. Have you any State law that gives such an amount ? This, as I understand it, gives 66| per cent of the wage. Have you any law that gives that sort of compensation? Mr. Andrews. The New York law provides, for instance, in case of total disability 66| per cent of the wage during disability ; if perma- nent, 66f per cent of the wage, not to exceed $3,500. The scale of compensation in Massachusetts and Ohio is also based on 66f per cent of wages. Mr. Gard. Is the New York law elective or compulsory ? Mr. Andrews. Compulsory. Mr. Gard. How long has that been on the books ? Mr. Andrews. It has been in effect more than one year and a half. Mr. Gaed. What contribution do the manufacturers or employers of labor make? Mr. Andrews. They bear the entire cost, as is true is practically all of the States. This bill covers all civilian employees of the United States Govern- ment, and it provides a waiting period that will not furnish a tempta- tion to malinger. Mr. Whaley. Does this law include postmasters appointed for a period of four years? Mr. Andrews. It includes all civilian employees and officers of the United States Government. Mr. Whaley. A man who has a temporary employment in the service for a period of four years would be covered by that bill ? Mr. Andrews. I assume that he would be. We place great emphasis, finally, upon the provision for an admin- istrative commission. It is quite essential. It has been found in re- gard to workmen's compensation everywhere that there should be some commission to receive claims and to pass upon them and that shall also be charged with the duty of looking into the causes of these injuries to see if it is not possible to prevent them. You gentlemen know that under workmen's compensation acts during the past three or four years in this country many large establishments have found it possible to prevent as high as two-thirds of the accidents which were formerly regarded as inevitable. We believe that a commission charged with the investigation of these matters would be able to pre- vent many of the injuries in Government employment. 10 PEDEEAL B]VtPLOYBtes' OOMtElJaAMON. I tvill insert at the close of My remarks very brief statements by Dr. I. M. ftubinow atid Mr. Miles M. Dawson, who were hei'e at the hearing a year ago and could not be here to-day. I would like also to mention the fact that Dr. Lindley D. Clarfa, of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, who has had an inti- mate acquaintance with the administration of the present inadequate laW) in an article on this subject in the Journal of Political Economy for October, 1915, made an estimate of the cost of the proposed law as compared with the existing law, and he states that during the first year, at least, the cost would not be more than under the present law, because only two-thirds instead of the whole wage is to be paid as compensation. Mr. Nelson. On that point, have you at hand any statistics to demonstrate that this will not be excessive and go into millions, as some have claimed? Can you show us definitely the approximate amount that this will run into in the first five years? Mr. Andrews. At the present time the existing law is costing an- nually about half a million dollars, and the present administrators estimate that this plan during the first year will fall within that. Then there comes the period of cumulative payment, when it would be increased somewhat each year, for a time. We realized that that was an important point, and we asked the Bureau of Labor Statistics to be prepared to present to-day a careful statement covering that. Dr. Clark, who is in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, helping in the administration of the existing law, says: A desirable law would merit and require a tliorougli and responsible admin- istration ; and experience bespeaks in this connection the same conclusion that theory would suggest, and that is an independent commission to give thorough attention, not only to relief but to prevention as well, and to administer uni- formly for all groups and classes a law that should foster good relations be- tween employers and employed, securing for both the fullest protection possible against any tendency to overlook proper precautions as to health and safety, together with the earliest and most complete restoration attainable to a capacity for resumption of employment under conditions safeguarding the interests of both parties. The proposed law has been indorsed very widely by a large number of civic organizations, and in addition by the American Federatioi| of Labor. I am glad to submit here the statement of the American Federation of Labor executive council covering that point : EXTRACT FROM REPORT OF AMKHICIAN FEDERATION OF LABOR EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, 10 14^ A large number of bills were introduced in the House and Senate as amend- ments to the Federal employees' compensation law. S. 738, by Senator Kern, of Indiana, and H. II. 1.5222, by Representative McGillicuddy, of Maine, are very complete, comprehensive compensation bills, both of which were approved by the Seattle convention and strongly advocated because of the fact that they make provision for beneficial payments to Federal employees suffering from occupational diseases, as well as those directly injured while in the employ- ment of the Government. * * * This is an exceptionally meritorious meas- ure, and its passage through Congress should be urged by our membership. (Report of the Proceedings of the Thirty-fourth Annual Convention of the American Federation of Labor, held at Philadelphia, Pa., Nov. 9 to 21, inclusive, 1914. p. 79.) So far as we know no open opposition has been encountered to this legislation. Prof. Henry H. Seager emphasizes that point and ex- presses the opinion that many people throughout the country are FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 11 looking to you for the early adoption of this legislation. I will sim- ply introduce his letter on this point. Columbia University, New York, January 26, 1916. To the Members or the Judiciary Committee. Gentlemen : As time goes on the failure of the National Government to make provision for Federal employees Who suffer Industrial accidents, as generous as that required by the majority of the States or private employers, becomes little short of a national disgrace. Wage earners constitute the vast majority of ouf citizens. To improve their situation in any and all ways is one of the highest obligations of a democratic government. One obvious Way in which the Federal Government can exert its influence is by being itself in all respects a rbodel employer, A compensation system for Federal employees is all the more needed because the Federal Government may not be sued for damages. The defects in tlie present liability law are constantly brought to my attention by cases of Federal employees who are injured in tlie service of the Government, but are not included in the classes entitled to compensation, even on the quite inadequate scale of the present law. A pitiful letter describing such a case, from a man who was a laborer about one of the substations here in New York, lies on my desk at this moment. Among measures of preparedness none merit more sympathetic consideration than those designed to increase the loyalty of our wage earners to their country and its Government. While planning to secure increased revenues to make pos- sible preparedness in other directions, should not Congress also provide the means for adequate compensation to Federal employees, and at the same time pass tlie Kern-McGillicuddy bill to make Such compensation effective? That, I feel sure, Is the view of a great majority of American citizens. Respectfully, yours, Henry R. Seager. Mr. Nelson. Do you believe that under the present law you could allow a full wage for one year? Mr. Andrews. Yes, sir ; it is done. Mr. Nelson. And this one you cut down to two-thirds? Mr. Andrews. Yes, sir ; two-thirds as a maximum. Mr. Nelson. That will take care, in large measure, of the extra cost, you think? Mr. Andrews. Yes, sir. During the first year the cost will be reduced somewhat. Of course, under the present law, for incapacity lasting more than 15 days full wages are paid from the date of the injury. A man may receive a salary of $2,000 a year, and get as compensation his full wage. This bill places a maximum limit of two-thirds of $100 a month as the most that an injured employee can receive. I do not wish to take up any more time, but Miss Ward, who is a member of my staff, and who has investigated some recent accidents under the present law, would like to have the opportunity of speak- mg to you. Miss Ward can state very briefly what she learned with reference to the explosion at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, which oc- curred about two weeks ago. Mr. Neely. In your opinion, would it impair the adequacy of this bill to include in it the definition of occupational diseases as follows: "An occupational disease, for the purposes of this act, shall be construed to be any diseases which, in the opinion of the commis- sion, is the direct result of the occupation in which the applicant for benefits hereunder may be engaged." Mr. Volstead. Would that limit it in any way? Does that defi- nition in any fashion limit it ? Mi". NjcelY, I think it limits it directly. 12 FEDEBAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. Mr. Nelson. Does not that put it within the discretion of the commission at all ? . . ■ Mr. Neely. With this difference: I think here the commission would be bound to find out the direct result. I think under the bill, as it now exists, it would probably be the indirect result. Mr. Volstead. It seems to me it ought to be some disease or dis- ability peculiar to that occupation and not a disability that may be general to a great many occupations. I think that this language, as it stands, is somewhat dangerous, unless it is administered with a great deal of caution. I think we have got to read into the law just what we intend, because I do not think it is in here now.,; It is open to all sorts of explanations. I think that the t^m is too general. Mr. Neely. I am heartily in favor of this bill, but I do think that there should be a definition in the bill of "occupational dis- ease." Mr. Nelson. I would like to hear Dr. Andrews's opinion as to the language. JB^r. Andrews. It seems to me that that provision would not do any harm. If it is the judgment of this committee that it is better to try to define now an. occupational disease than to let the com- mission, through its experience day by day in enforcing the law, do that, I certainly should not raise any objection to the amendment you have suggested. Mr. Volstead. If we had a commission which was very liberal in its construction, it seems to me we might be furnishing in this bill a general pension. As most people grow old in the service, and wear out, we would really have a general pension eventually. « The Chairman. How many persons in the United States will be affected by this bill ? Mr. Andrews. There are now about 400,000 civilian employes in the United States Government service. This bill covers all of them. The existing law covers only about one-fourth of them. I shall be glad in conclusion to submit for the record the following brief statement which has been carefully prepared, setting forth the standards for workmen's compensation laws which are recommended by careful students of the problem : Standards foe Workmen's Compensation Laws Recommended by the American Association for Labor Legislation. In the opinion of the American Association for Labor Legislation the follow- ing features are essential to satisfactory workmen's compensation laws : I. SCALE or compensation. Assuming machinery to insure the prompt payment of the compensation re- quired by law, the scale of payments is the most important feature of the system. The strongest argument for compensation to all injured workmen or to their dependents is that shortened lives and maimed limbs due to Industrial injuries are just as much expenses of production, which should be met by those conducting industry for their own profit, as are used-up raw materials or worn- out tools and machinery. The whole expense of losses to capital is necessarily borne by the employer. The whole expense of the personal losses due to in- juries is the loss in wages sustained and the expenses for medical care during incapacity. The only logical reason for not imposing, through the employers, this entire expense on every industry that occasions it is that injured workers FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATIOK. 13 must not be deprived of a motive for returning to work and to Independent self-support as soon as tliey are able to do so. The compensation act, therefore, should provide for the expense of medical attendance up to a reasonable amount and for the payment of such a proportion of wages to the victim of the injury during his incapacity, or to his dependents if he be killed, as will pro- vide for the resulting needs and yet not encourage malingering. The following scale is believed to conform to these requirements and to be the lowest that should be inserted in any compensation law: 1. Medical attendance. — The employer should be required to furnish neces- sary medical, surgical, and hospital services and supplies for a reasonable period (to be determined by the accident board). The accident board should be empowered to establish a schedule of physicians' and hospital fees and to control all such charges. All of the acts except those of Alaska, Kansas, New Hampshire, Washington, and Wyoming provide for medical attendance. In California, Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio, Oregon, and West Virginia the period during which such serv- ices and supplies are to be furnished is left to the discretion of the accident board. In California, Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin this board controls the amount of such services and supplies. In Maine and Pennsylvania the amount payable may be increased in the discretion of the board in case a major surgical operation is required. In Indiana, Maryland, New York, and Oklahoma no charges of physicians and hospitals are enforceable unless ap- proved by it. 2. Waiting period. — No compensation should be paid for a definite period — to be not less than three nor more than seven days — at the beginning of disability. In Illinois, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin the waiting period is as here recommended. In Oregon and Washington there is no waiting period. 3. Compensation for total disability. — The disabled workman should receive during disability 66§ per cent of wages, compensation not to exceed $20 a week. If he is a minor, he should, after reaching 21, receive 66§ per cent of the wages of able-bodied men In the occujiatlon group to which he belonged. If his wages are less than .$.5 a week, his compensation should be the full amount of his wages. All of the acts except those of Alaska, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming base the compensation on a percentage of wages rather than on a flat rate regardless of the wages. The percentage of wages here recommended is the same as in Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio. California and Wisconsin provide 65 per cent, while Hawaii, Nevada, and Texas provide 60 per cent. In California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Montana, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia compensation for permanent total disability is allowed for life, and in Nebraska, Oregon, and Washington compensation for total disability is payable during the continuance of the disability. The fact that the injured employee is a minor is recognized in fixing com- pensation in California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. 4. Compensation for partial disability. — The workman who is only partially disabled should receive 66f per cent of the difference between. his wages before the injury and his wage-earning capacity after the injury, compensation not to exceed .$20 a week, with provisions for minors and workmen earning less than $5 similar to those in the case of total disability. The principle of basing compensation for partial disability upon loss of earn- ing power is adopted, with respect to temporary partial disability, in all the acts in this country except those of Alaska, Iowa, New .Jersey, and Wyoming, and is adopted, with respect to permanent partial disability, in the acts of Arizona, California, Colorado, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia. 5. Compensation for death. — (1) Funeral expenses: The employer should be required to pay a sura not exceeding $100 for funeral expenses, in addition to any other compensation. In California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsyl- ' vania, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming funeral expenses are paid in all cases of death, whether or not there are dependents. The same is true in Maryland, unless the decedent's estate is large enough to pay such 14 FEDBBAL EMPLOYEES' OOMPENSATION. expense. The maximum limit is $200 in Majqe, Massaphusetts, Micjiigau, and Rhode Island, while Alaska, Illinois, and Ohio allow $130, and Nevada $125. (2) Compensation for widow: If living with the dededent at tjie time of his death, or if dependent, the widow should be granted 35 per cent of his wages until her death or remarriage, with a lump sum on remarriage equal to two years' compensation. The method of compensation for cases of death i-ecommended in this anfl ii) the succeeding paragraphs is substantially the same as in Hawaii, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont, and in the Sutherland bill recently before Congress relating to railroad employees. The' provision (or a lump-sum payment to the widow oa remarriage is adopted in Minnesota, Ne- vada, New York, Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia. (3) Compensation for widower: If living with the decedent at the time of her death and dependent upon her support, the widower should receive 35 per cent of her wages, or a proportionate amount if his dependency is only partial, to be paid until his death or remarriage. (4) Compensation for widow or widower and children: In addition to tUe compensation provided for the widow and widower, 10 per cent should be allowed for each child under 18, not to exceed a total of 66f per cent for the widow or widower and children, Compensation on account of a child should cease when it dies, marries, or reaches the age of 18. (5) Compensation to children if there be no widow or widower: In case phil- dren are left without any surviving parent, 25 per cent should be paid (or one child under 18, and 10 per cent for each additional such child, to fte divided among such children share and share alike, not exceeding a total p( C6f per cent, Compensation on account of any such child should cease when it dies, marries, or reaches the age of 18. (6) Compensation to parents, brothers, sisters, grandchildren, and grand- parents, if dependent : For such classes of dependents 25 per cent should be paid for one wholly dependent, and 5 per cent additional for each additional person w^olly dependent, divided among such wholly dependent persons ghare ^nd share alike, and a proportionate amount (to be determined by the accident board) if dependency is only partial, to be divided among the persons wlioUy or partially dependent according to the degree of dependency as determined by the accident board. These percentages should be paid in cases where there is no widow, widower, or child. Where there is a widow, widower, qr child, the members of this class should receive as much of these percentages as, when added to the total percentage payable to the widow, widower, or child, will not exceed a total of 66§ per cent. Compensation to members of this class should be paid only during dependency. (7) Compensation for alien nonresident dependents: Aliens should be placed on the same footing as other dependents. In Hawaii, Maryland, New Hampshire, and New Jersey alone are alien non- resident dependents expressly and entirely excluded from compensation, In Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, and, in par(;, in Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Yorli, Okla- homa, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wyoming they are expressly in- cluded. In the other States they are apparently included, in the absence of any reference to them. (8) Maximum and minimum compensation for death: The wages on whicli death compensation is based should be taken to be not more than $30 per weelf nor less than $10 per week; but the total amount of the weekly compensation should not be more than the actual wages. 6. Commutation of periodical compensation payments. — If the beneficiary is, or is about about to become, a nonresident of the United States, or if the monthly payments to the beneficiary are less than $5 a month, or if the acci- dent board determines that it would be to the best interests of the beneficiary, the employer should be permitted to discharge his liability for future payments by the immediate payment of a lump sum equal to the present value of all the future payments computed at 4 per cent true discount, compounded annually. For this purpose the expectancy of life should be determined according to a suitable mortality table, to be selected at the discretion of the accident board, •and the probability of the happening of any contingency, such as marriage or the termination of disability, affecting the amount or duration of the compensa- tion, should be disregarded. Substantially similar provisions are found in nearly all the States. FEDEBAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 15 II. EMPLOYMENTS TO BE INCLUDEU. It is believed tliat sufficient progress has now been made in public education on the problem and in the development of efficient and economical machinery for insuring the employer against his compensation liability to justify the in- clusion in the system of all employments. The only exception which should be made is of casual employees in the service of employers who have only such employees and who, therefore, can not fairly be required to carry -compensa- tion insurance policies. Such policies, on payment of a small additional pre- mium, are now drawn so as to embrace casual as well as regular employees. No serious burden is, therefore, entailed on employers, even of domestic serv- ants, in making them liable to pay compensation even to casual employees. The principle of limiting the act to so-called " hazardous employments " is adopted only In Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, New Hamp- shire, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming, and, in part, in Illinois, and in most of these States employers and employees in other em- ployments may elect to come under compensation. Farm labor and domestic service are excepted from the operation of the act In nearly all the States, either expressly or indirectly. In AJaska, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming the operation of the act is limited to employers employing more than a certain number of employees, ranging from one to five ; and in Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin employers of less than a certain number are not subjected to the abrogation of the defenses in case they refuse to elect compensation. In all the other States there is no distinction as to the number of employees. In Iowa, New Hampshire, Washington, and Wyoming, and apparently in Maryland, the employees to be included are limited to persons engaged in the hazardous part of the employment. In all the other States persons engaged in clerical work as well as those engaged in manual work are included. Casual employees are included in Alaska, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, New York, and Oklahoma. in. INJURIES TO BE INCLUDED. Compensation should be provided for all personal injuries in the course of employment and death resulting therefrom within six years, but no compen- sation should be allowed where the injury is occasioned by the wilful intention of the employee to bring about the injury or death of himself or of another. The act should embrace occupational diseases which, when contracted in the course of employment, should be considered personal injuries for which com- pensation is payable. In all the States except Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming the Injury " out of " as well as " In the course of " the employment. The principle of limiting the time within which death must occur in order to form a basis for compensation Is found In Arizona, Calfornia, Colorado, Con- necticut, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and West Virginia. The exception of injuries caused by the wilful Intention of the employee is found In Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New .lersey. New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wis- consin, Occupational diseases are Included as personal Injuries entitling the employee to compensation In California by a 1915 amendment, and in Massachusettii, ly. OTHEE KEMEDIES THAN THOSE PEOVIDBI) BY THE COMPENSATION ACT. One of the weightiest arguments against the outworn system of employers' liability Is that It causes vast sums to be frittered away in law suits that shoijld be used In caring for the ■victims of the accidents. To avoid this waste the compensation provided by the act should be the exclusive remedy. If the em- ployer has been guilty of personal negligence, even going to the point of violating a safety statute, his punishment should be through a special action prosecuted by the State itself, not through a clyil suit for damages carried on at the expense and risk of the injured employee. 16 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES* COMPENSATION. This Is the law in Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebrasls^, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, except that in a few of these States if the employer fails to insure the payment of compensation the injured employee- has the option of claiming compensation or of suing at law with the defenses removed. V. SECUEITY FOK THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AWARDS. The supreme tests of a compensation system are, first, the incentive provided for reducing accidents to the utmost, and, second, the promptness and certainty with which compensation claims are met. The strongest incentive toward pre- vention results from imposing the whole expense of compensation upon the employer. The irregularity and uncertainty of accidents, however, make this policy inexpedient for small employers with limited financial resources. Security can only be attained through some system of insurance. Employers should therefore be required to insure their compensation liability. Alaska, Arizona, California, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, and New Jersey are the only States which do not require in some form or other the employer to- secure the payment of compensation either by insurance or by the giving of a bond. • In accordance with the plans of insurance at present provided for employers may either: 1. Maintain their own insurance fund subject to the approval of the accident board. In Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin the em- ployer is permitted to carry his own insurance, if unsatisfactory to the adminis- trative authority. 2. Insure in a mutual association authorized to insure compensation liability. Insurance in a mutual association is permitted in most States, including Cali- fornia, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin. 3. Insure in a State insurance fund managed by the accident board upon the same principles and subject to the same general requirements as those govern- ing mutual insurance associations. State insurance funds are established in California, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, New York, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Washing- ton, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 4. Insure in a private stock company, such companies to be subjected to the most rigid regulation as regards the rates to be charged, the agents' com- missions to be paid, and the methods of compensation to be used, so that the- State may be spared the experience of some States which have tried to organize an efficient State insurance system while subjecting such system to the un- scrupulous competitive methods unfortunately employed by too many agents of the casualty companies. Insurance in private stock companies is allowed in every State except Nevada, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. VI. ORGANIZATION OF ACCIDENT BOAED. It is essential to the successful operation of the compensation system that an accident board be created. This board should consist of three or five members appointed by the governor with the consent of the Senate. The board should have ?iower to employ necessary assistants. Its members should be required to devote their entire time to its work and should not be permitted to carry on any other business or profession for profit. The entire cost of administra- tion of the accident board, including the administration expenses of conducting the State insurance fund managed by the accident board, should be paid out of an appropriation made by the State. Accident boards are provided in all of the States except Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wyoming. VII, PBOCEDUEB FOE SETTLEMENT OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS. Provision should be made for the settlement of compensation claims either by agreement subject to the approval of the accident board, or if no such agree- FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 17 ment be reached, by arbitration before a committee composed as follows : One representative of the employer, one representative of the claimant, one member of the accident board or an authorized deputy. The decision of this committee should be made conclusive, unless the appeal therefrom is made to the accident board within a specified time. The accident board's disposition of the case on appeal from the arbitration committee should be final and conclusive unless appeal therefrom is taken within a specified time. Appeals from decrees of the accident board should not be allowed, except on questions of law, and should be carried direct to the highest court. Agreements must be approved by the accident board in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. In Iowa and Wisconsin, agreements may be disapproved within a certain time. In Illinois an agreement to waive the provisions of the act as to the amount payable must be approved by the board. In Minnesota and Ithode Island agreements must be approved by the court. The same is true in New Jersey in the case of minors. The procedure here recommended for the settlement of compensation where no agreement is reached is substantially the same as in Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Oklahoma. VIII. EEPOETS or ACCIDENTS. The bill should contain provisions similar to those of the standard accident- reporting bill of the American Association (or Labor Legislation, now in use for about half the industrial population of the country, requiring full and accurate reports of all Industrial accidents as a basis for computation of future industrial accident rates and for future safety regulations to decrease or prevent accidents. The essential features of workmen's compensation law here outlined are urged on the basis of a careful study of the whole question and of the com- pensation legislation not only of other States but of European countries. As one of the functions of the association for labor legislation is to promote the enactment of uniform labor laws, it earnestly recommends to the careful con- sideration of legislators and of those who are interested in social progress the country over the foregoing just, reasonable, and progressive workmen's com- pensation standards. statement filed by i. m. ktjbinow, statistician, pbesident op the casualty actuarial and statistical society of america. January 26, 1916. Hon. Edwin Y. Webb, M. C, Chairman Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir : Having learned that your committee has decided to grant a hearing of Friday, January 28, on the bill granting compensation in cases of employees of the United States suffering industrial injuries or occupational diseases, I very much regret that I am prevented by some business engagements from com- ing to Washington to appear before your committee in favor of the bill, and am therefore taking the liberty to write you on its behalf. I feel that for several reasons I may speak of the question with some weight of experience, not only because for eight years I have been in the employ of the United States but also because I witnessed the inauguration of the existing compensation system, through the act of May 30, 1908, because I was very closely connected with its administration for the first three years, having made many special investigations of difficult cases. Since many difficult problems soon developed in connection with the adminis- tration of the act, an interdepartmental conference was called together by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor in the spring of 1910, of which I was elected chairman. The conference agreed upon a long list of necessary changes in the act, and several departments indorsed the recommendations, but unfor- tunately nothing has been done. Since leaving Federal service in 1911 I have been connected with the Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corporation— -one of the largest liability and compensa- tion insurance companies — as actuary and statistician. Since 1914 I have been president of the Casualty Actuarial & Statistical Society of America. I am 26687— PT 3—16—2 18 3'E1>EBAL employees' COMPENSATION. author of Social Insurance and other books and articles on workmen's com- pensation. All this i« mentioned simply for the purpose of qualifying as an expert in the prohlem. I want to urge upon you and your committee as emphatically as I can a favor- able report upon the bill. The so-called Alexander Act of May 30, 1908, was a step in advance when it was passed, but that step was taken eight years ago, and the time is long past due when the next step should have been taken. 1. The present act is grossly discriminatory and the very worst example of class legislation, because the majority of United States employees are still un- protected, while others are covered under dfffierent provisions ; notwithstanding several extensions of the application of the act, less than -25 per cent of the (employees of the United States have some sort of compensation protection. That the employees of the same employer should be treated in such different ways — 25 per cent of them having the benefit of compensation, and the remain- ing 75 per cent no redress at all — is, of course, contrary to the most elementary ■ concept of equity and .justice. 2. The act is grossly inadequate when compared with compensation acts, l)assed by the States, and creates a situation which should appear intolerable vto the dignity of the Federal Government. The recent catastrophe at the Brooklyn Navy Yard has given some gruesome evidence of this charge. If the same workmen 'had suffered loss of life or limb on the other side of the fence surrounding the navy yard, in the employ of a private person or corporation, they or their dependents would be entitled to .perhaps five times as much compensation. Opinions may differ as to how liberal the Government ought to be to its em- ployees beyond what the private employer is ready to grant. There is a good deal of merit in the contention that the Government ought at least to be a model employer. But surely all will agree that the people of the United States collectively can not afford to treat their employees with less justice than the same people through their State legislation require of the private employer. You can not improve the character of Government service so long as the fear exists that on accepting work for the Government rather than for a pri- vate employer one will find himself on the wrong side of the fence. 3. The act of 1908 is at present a drag on the whole social policy of the Government, just as it was a measure of progress eight years ago. Logically the Government can not make any further steps in social legislation for the protection of workmen in private industry until it has cleaned its own house, as it were. 4. The present act is wasteful. It may be cheaper than the new act would be, but cheapness is not always economy. In granting 100 per cent compensa- tion for trivial injuries it does something which no other compensation act Ihas ■ever done, and let us hope never will. The injustice of this liberality is glaringly emphasized by comparison with the stingiest grant of only one year compensation to the widow and orphans of the deceased. 5. The act is technically inefficient. The most difficult problem of compensa- tion concerns partial but permanent disability. Persons crippled, but retaini,ng part of their earning capacity, are provided for in the State acts in many dif- ferent ways. The Federal act is the only one that fails to recognize this con- clitlon of partial disability, and grants either full compensation or nothing. 6. The act is so poorly drawn that it proves to be a powerful stimulus to malingering. One man is disabled for 14 or 15 days and receives nothing. His neighbor on the job is disabled for a fraction over 15 days and receives full pay for all time lost. What is the result? For every 100 accidents lasting from 1 to 2 weeks, there are (according to the best statistics available) 43 .accidents lasting from 2 to 3 weeks. Among the employees of the United States the proportion is 115. In other words, there is a special tendency for Govern- ment employees to be disabled over 2 rather than under 2 weeks. 7. Prevention is being emphasized in all compensation legislation throughout the country. Nothing is being done for prevention in the Government service. There is no organization to investigate causes of accidents and eliminate them, and even medical aid to facilitate speedy cure is not given. In short, the defects of the act of 1908 are so glaring that mere amendments will not suffice. The new act proposed has been worked out with greatest, at- tention to detail. It grants compensation that is adequate and in accordance with the best American legislation on the subject. It covers all employees of the United States. It makes provision for occupational diseases, so that FEDERAL employees' COMPENSATION. 19 at a very slight tuMitioiuil cost tlie health of the employees may be safeguarded from injury due to unhealthy work. It provides -the necessary machinery for efficient administration and proper attention to the preventive measures. It may cost a little more, but it must be remembered that the high cost of compensation is largely a myth. The Massachusetts act costs in actual compensation to the employers less than three-fifths of 1 cent on every dollar of pay roll. The New York act is some- what more expensive, but even that does not exceed three-fourths of a cent on a dollar of pay roll. That may be a fraction more than what the act of 1908 has cost. But surely this Is not a charge that is too heavy for the Government of the United States to bring about, not only justice in its relation to its employees, but also better health and higher efficiency among the latter. Respectfully, I. M. RUBINOW. STATEMENT FILED BY MILES M. DAWSON, ATTORNEY AND CONSULTING ACTUARY, NEW YOEK CITY. Aside from the bill to provide insurance of miners in certain districts of Maryland against consequences of industrial accidents, which was introduced by Hon. David J. Lewis, now chairman of the Labor Committee in the House of Representatives, the first workmen's compensation law in the United States was the act of Congress providing for paying one year's salary in event of death, and compensation equal to the salary during not to exceed one year in case of disablement, due to accident arising out of the employment of civil servants of the Government. This law was urged upon Congress as a step in advance by President Roose- velt, upon the strong recommendation of Hon. Charles P. Neill, then Commis- sioner of Labor. Since that time no less than 33 States of the United States have adopted workmen's compensation laws, making more or less adequate provision for the victims of industrial accidents, but the original, wholly inadequate " first step " on the part of the Federal Government remains. There is now no excuse for continuing the absurd provision of one year's salary for the support of a widow and her children when a civil-service em- ployee of the Government loses his life in an accident incurred in that service, while, for instance, in New York the widows, and children of a workman killed by accident in the course of his employment will receive up to two-thirds of his wages during her entire widowhood, the portions of her children continuing until they are 16 years of age, and in like manner a provision of not to exceed one year's salary to an employee of the Government who is totally disabled by accident incurred in the service is absurd when compared with two-thirds wages allowed under the New York law to the workman who is thus injured, payable during the entire continuance of his disability. The law in New York, likewise, is not more liberal than in the most enlight- ened countries of Europe, In which countries we found the workmen's com- pensation system operating satisfactorily to all parties, and accordingly have transplanted it to our country. Certainly Congress, in which the representatives of the States that have en- acted workmen's compensation laws are a large majority, will not be willing that the Federal Government should fail to recognize the justice of the work- men's compensation principle and the right of employees injured by accidents to compensation equal to that paid under the most liberal provisions in this country in any State, both during their disability due to accident incurred while in the service, and for the support of their widows and orphans if death result from such accident. Congress can not be justified in refusing to Fed- eral employees that measure of justice which the legislatures of a large majority of the States that compose the United States have declared within their own borders. Miles M. Dawson. STATEMENT OF MISS EVA WAED. Miss Ward. I am a member of the staff of the American Associa- tion for Labor Legislation, with headquarters at 131 East Twenty- third Street, New York City. 20 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. You gentlemen will all remember that on January 15 there was a very disastrous explosion on the submarine E-Z''. There were 14 men killed and injured — 5 killed and 9 injured. Three of the killed and 6 of the injured were civilian employees within the scope of the present act. I have in the last year investigated a number of very pathetic cases of injured civilian employees who were not entitled to the benefits of the present law, but these are examples of men who enjoy that meager privilege. Of the killed, James H. Peck, aged 64, earned $2 per day. He leaves a widow. AH that she is entitled to receive as provision for herself and to pay the funeral expenses is one year's wage; that is, about $600. The widow of Joseph Logan, killed, also a middle-aged man, is entitled to a total compensation of about $1,200. Her husband earning a wage of $4 a day. On January 26, 11 days after the accident, I called at the Cumber- land Street Hospital, Brooklyn, N. Y. I wanted to see these Federal civilian employees who were being nursed as charity patients at the expense of New York City. The coroner was there before me and I was not able to talk to the men very long. I will read the names of these injured men, all of whom were young. They were: Otto Hasert, aged 36; earned $3.75 a day; married; three children, aged 8, 6, 4. A. ZoU, aged 32; earned $4 a day; married; two children under 4 years. M. Peyser, aged 27; earned $3.76 a day ; married. James Lyons, aged 31 ; earned $2 a day; single. E. Heyne, aged 34; earned $3.72 a day; single. A. Kaplan, aged 23 ; earned $3.76 a day ; single. Of the injured men five had almost precisely the same injuries. In each case there were severe burns of the head, neck, face, wrists, and hands. When I went upstairs the doctor in attendance and the superintendent of the hospital both told me that although they saw these men constantly, they could scarcely distinguish one from the other. They were all young men. In talking to one of these men I found that I could hardly hear what he said because his lips were so charred. The faces of all these men are covered with scars. Their lips are charred and their eyes are little lakes of pus. They did not seem like human beings at all. Of course their hair had disap- peared and their features were wiped out. I talked with the surgeon of the hospital. He told me what you gentlemen all realize — ^that you can not forecast what the result of such injuries will be. One thing is certain and that is that these men will be disfigured for life. Wherever they may go their faces will be a matter for remark. The surgeon hoped that in each case the men would recover their hearing. Michael Peyser was very deaf. His compensation will be $1,128. Henry Zoll was the best paid man of them all and his injuries were the worst. He earned $4 a day. He has two children under 4 years of age, and he may get $1,200 as a result of his injuries. James Lyons, who is 31 years of age and unmarried, can get only $600. The doctor stated that it was quite impossible to say what was to be the nervous condition of these men. You gentlemen know, of course, that you can never tell what the nervous condition of persons who have been burned will be. Gentlemen, I investigated that case because it had stirred up a great deal of feeling. I was in that hospital for nearly two hours, and during that time people were constantly calling up to ask about FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 21 these men. It did not seem to me that these employees of a great Nation should be charity patients in New York City, whereas if they had been employed by anyone else the employer would have had to contribute to the medical care of the men until they had re- covered. I came here for the purpose of pleading that you consider these men and try to pass this bill as soon as possible. Mr. Nelson. Are you making the plea that Uncle Sam should treat his workmen as other employers do? Would they receive as high a rate of compensation if they had worked for other people? They receive a higher rate of pay from Uncle Sam, do they not ? Miss Ward. No, sir. If I employ a plumber in Brooklyn, I have to pay him $5 a day. When Uncle Sam hires them he pays $4 a day. Of course I concede that there are a good many advantages in work- ing for the Government. Mr. Nelson. But do you not think they compensate for the fact that they have no compensation law? Miss Ward. As I said, the rate of pay on the outside is as high or higher. Mr. Whalet. Do you mean to say that the Government pays less than outside employers? Miss Ward. These plumbers of the navy yard were paid $4 a day. The usual scale in New York City is $5. Mr. Whalet. Is it not understood that the wage in the navy yard should be the prevailing wage in th-e neighborhood? ' Miss Ward. I have not investigated the wages in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Mr. Whalet. The impression that you gave was that Uncle Sam was paying less than outside employers. As a matter of fact, the law is that he shall pay the same as the prevailing wage in the neighborhood. Mr. Volstead. And in addition to that, they get paid for time when they do not work at all. In private yards they get no pay for that. Mr. Whalet. They do not get it in the navy yard. I know that, because I have a navy yard in my district, and I happen to know what the law is. Miss Ward. The wages are not high. They are between two and four dollars a day. Mr. Whalet. That employment is based on the prevailing wage in the neighborhood— the wage that prevails around New York for that trade. STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY E. HULL. Mr. Hull. I will not take much of the time of the committee. Since I have been elected to CongresS the absurdity of this Govern- ment not having a proper compensation law has been brought to my attention. Like the gentleman across the table from me, I have an arsenal in my district, and I have to deal with the same sort of condition. I find that this peculiarity exists. It may be the law, as you have said, that the prevailing wages shall be given to Govern- ment employees. I believe it is the law. However, I questioned that statement when it was made the other day by Gen. Crozier, and I asked him to put into the record the prevailing wages that he 2'2 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. was paying for the ordinary avocations. I think that when these statements are presented the people of Davenport and Eock Islafld, and Moline — these people who, in the last analysis, are the judges- will see that the Government employees are not being paid as much as the civilians. In regard to compensation, you all know that this peculiarity does exist. It exists in your district and in my district. In the State of Iowa we have a compensation law. It has been re- cently passed. When it was passed the cry went up that it would put the contractors out of business. It has not done anything of the kind. It simply requires that a man who employs anybody else has to insure that man under the compensation law. When a man gets hurt he is compensated. He may be a painter or a common sewer contractor, but whoever he is, he will be compensated, as he should be. If he loses his life, the family gets the benefit of the compensa- tion law. Mr. Caraway. Did you say that your compensation act requires the employer to pay the compensation? Mr. Hull. It requires that he insure him or pay him. Mr. Cabawat. He has to provide for him? Mr. Hull. Yes, sir. I am not familiar with all the details Mr. Nelson (interposing). I think it is unfair to ask Members anything about details. [Laughter.] Mr. Carawat. Do you deduct anything from the wages of the laborer ? Mr. Hull. No, sir. I was going to say that a man might work at the Rock Island Arsenal, work there probably all of his life and give up the best years of his life to the Government service. Why he does that for less money than he could get elsewhere I do not know. He works for years and yet he has not a penny provided for his family in the event that he is killed. If he worked for the bankrupt Rock Island Railroad, he would receive $5,000, I think it is, or his family would receive it promptly. On the other hand, when he works for the Government he receives — well, he may receive $500 and perhaps $1,000, if his Congressman is able to persuade Congress to provide for him or his family in the next 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 years, or any time at all. I have some claims against the Government and I know something about that. Mr. Volstead. His chances are mighty poor if he is going to try to get a bill through Congress. Mr. Nelson. I once heard Judge Jenkins, who was formerly chair- man of this committee, say that he would rather have his back broken than to have an honest claim against the United States Government. [Laughter.] Mr. Hull. Yes ; I have a case that is a very pathetic one. A man was killed through the negligepce of another man. I do not know whether I am going to be able to get $500 or $1,000, or anything at all. Mr. Whaley. I understand you to make the statement that the employees are not receiving the prevailing wage of the neighbor- hood. , Mv. Hull. I said in my opinion they do not. Mr. Whaley. Did you ever go there to find out? Mr. Hull. You know that is a very hard thing to do. You Imow what a difficult matter it is to get to any wage board. ' FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 23 Mr. Whaley. Well, you can see what thej^ have there, can you not? Mr. Hull. Well, I can .say that they are not getting the wage that has been paid. In my town, the question of wages is always a matter of controversy. Mr. Whaley. I would like to have you say what is the prevailing wage in your part of the country. Mr. Hull. I want to say this, that there is not any law that com- pels the post office to pay prevailing wages. I make this statement; right here, that I can point to instance after instance in the Post Office Department where the wages are away down, and then if the man is hurt or killed he gets nothing. Mr. Whaley. That is not fixed hy the local post office ? Mr. Hull. No ; but it is endorsed by the post office. Mr. Caraway. I don't suppose you ever heard of anybody that wanted to resign ? / Mr. Hull. Oh; I have. Mr. Caraway. Have you ever known of anybody who resigned? Mr. Hull. Yes, sir. Mr. Caraw^ay. I wish you would give me his name. Mr. Hull. Well, there was a case in the mail service. A mart, resigned time and time again. I want to say to you gentlemen that in the mail messenger service they get some of these old men who haul mail from the depot up to the post office, and Mr. Nelson (interposing). That is under this administration? Mr. Hull. I am not going into politics, but I will say that it pre- vailed under the Republican administration, as well as this one. The Chairman. Gentlemen, I think we are digressing. I under- stand that Mr. Gainbr, president of the National Association of Let- ter Carriers, desires to be heard. STATEMENT OF MR. EDWARD J. GAINOR. Mr. Gainor. I am president of the National Association of Letter Carriers ; I reside at Muncie, Ind. Mr. Chairman, it is with some diffidence that I approach the dis- cussion of this bill that is before you for consideration for the reason that I am not exactly certain just how broad is the scope of the discussion permitted. If I talk in any way not germane to the proposition I trust that you will call me to order. At the last convention of our association, held in Omaha, attended by 1,500 delegates, a similar bill by the same author was considered and discussed, and it met with the enthusiastic approval of that vast body. I realize, however, gentlemen, that legislation ernanatmg from Congress can not be advocated upon the ground that it would be in favor of any particular class. In order to relie^^'e myself from the objection that might be raised that those who come within the purview of its beneficial provisions indorse this measure because of selfish interests, I would like to urge the passage of this pending bill chiefly upon the ground of sound public policy. I would like to approach it from the standpoint of whether or not it is good for society, whether it is good for the Nation, and whether through its adoption it will be calculated to do something in the future in a 24 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. better way than that same thing is done now. This is a broad propo- sition largely reflecting, as it does, the attitude of Congress toward labor in general. Originally we conceived labor as a commodity. It was supposed to be bought in the cheapest market, but with the pass-, ing of time the conception of man toward labor has changed, and we have begun to recognize labor as human souls and something more than a mere commodity. Thus a certain and growing altruism has revealed itself among the people, in State legislatures, and Congress has also reflected this changed attitude toward the workers. Thus workmens' compensation laws have been adopted by a number of States upon the principle that there should be constant and keen concern manifested for the producer in society as the chief asset of society. It has been further recognized that society can not shift the burden of its obligations, and so the principle of social insurance has been widely adopted, reflecting itself in progressive legislation until now when one of the vast armies of industrial workers is killed, wounded, or stricken in action, it is agreed that he should be com- pensated properly without leaving his care or the care of his de- pendents to his own personal initiative or to the caprice of chance. This .principle, so rapidly being accepted all over the land, trans- fers the entire problem, the entire burden of the injured workers' support to society, where it rightfully belongs and establishes a fixed policy of dealing with this question. Every reasonable man eventu- ally realizes that he can not depend upon his own initiative or upon his own resources to provide with safety for any unfortunate emer- gency that may arise during the course of his life. Men have learned through bitter experience quite often that they must cooperatively lean on each other. This is the idea and motive that lies behind all fraternal organizations, all labor organizations,* all sick and death benefit insurance associations, that collectively men can do something that the individual may not be able to do for herself or that he can not leave the doing to good fortune or to chance. Therefore the principle behind this, as in all compensation legislation, is to put upon the product, to put upon the industry, and to put upon society the burden or the expense of an injury that now falls upon the worker who was stricken in the act of production. How has this principle worked where it has been applied ? Judging from the op- eration of employees' liabilities laws and from what information and investigation I personally made upon the subject, I am irrevocably led to the conclusion that this proposed bill how before you for your consideration will do much better the thing intended to be done than the present planless method it supersedes. Mr. Nelson. If _ Congress gives your association this benefit, what will your association give back to Congress or to the country as an equivalent return ? Mr. Gainor. The association, or its members, are now, prior to the passage of the act, giving an equivalent return in the most efficient service furnished by anv institution in the country. Mr. Nelson. You will look upon it as something due you rather than something that will improve the service ? Mr. Gainok. No, sir. I don't want to put the question in that light either. Society must bear these burdens. Let us assume that you do not take care of the wounded or injured in society. What happens? We have learned that we can not shift this burden. We FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 25 know that it falls on society in the last analysis. A letter carrier, for instance, is injured, and there is no compensation law to take care of him or his dependents during the period of his misfortune. What happens then? His own resources becoming exhausted, the burden of his maintenace falls upon his relatives and friends. Thus the ob- ligation for his care falls upon a few certain members of society rather than upon society in general. Should these friends fail him he may end in the infirmary or the poorhouse and society in the last analysis pays the bill. It may be argued that he should economize to meet just such an emergency. Were this policy vmiversally followed by all workers, lowering the amount of their consumption, reducing their standard of living, taking from their meager salaries enough, if such a thing were possible, to provide against such misfortunes it would reduce the consuming ability of our people as to be almost fatal to prosperity and thereby completely defeating the very end that was sought to be obtained. Gentlemen, this burden can not be shifted. The only question, the fundamental question involved in this discussion is whether or not society should bear the burden of the injured worker in any industry. If society should, then the mat- ter of detail in framing a law should be readily settled. If society should not, then this law should not be passed. That is the one ques- tion of the issue. Mr. Volstead. I think that is not at issue. I think we have agreed that a compensation law should be in effect. Mr. Gainor. If that is the general opinion, then the whole question is made exceedingly simple. Then the only matter properly under discussion is the character of a bill that should be adopted. Then I want to put my strongest indorsement upon this pending measure. I want to say that I think it is practical, wise, and calculated to an- ticipate many contingencies that may arise in industry connected with Federal employment. It is a part and parcel of the natural evolu- tion taking place in legislation affecting the worker. Mr. Nelson. What is your official position? Mr. Gainor. Letter carrier. Mr. Nelson. You are president of the National Association of Letter Carriers? Mr. Gainor. Yes, sir. Mr. Nelson. Have any particular cases come to your attention of hardships in the service, where men have been injured and received nothing? Mr. Gainor. Hundreds of them. Mr. Nelson. Could you give the committee some instances? Mr. Gainor. I could from memory. Mr. Nelson. Could you give one or two from memory and then submit a list of them? Mr. Gainor. I would be very glad to do that. : Mr. Igoe. Under this last provision in the last appropriation bill which was adopted, were there any cases arising which affected let- ter carriers — were there any cases arose that you know of ? Mr. Gainor. What character of cases? Mr. Igoe. I mean carriers who have been injured while in the service and compensated under that provision. - Mr. Gainor. Yes, sir. At the present time there is a certain com- pensation law providing for the payment of compensation for in- 2& FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COltfPENSAtlON. juries received in the Postal Service. In the past year there have been five letter carriers killed in the performance of duty. Mr. Gard. That extends beyond the rural carriers? Mr. Gainor. It applies to clerks and rural carriers. Mr. Taggart. This is one of the things that appeals to me in this matter. There are undoubtedly rare and specific cases of great mis- fortune that should be relieved, and it seems to me that the expense- of such a bill as this would be inconsiderable as compared with th© propriety of relieving those cases. I am in favor of this bill for the reason that it is not going to cost the vast sum of money that some people imagine it will. If an injury in carrying mail is rare, and occupational disease is rare, we should be willing to pay for it. If everybody got paid, of course it would be a tremendous bill. That is; one of the reasons I favor it. I would like to have it, because the actuaries have given us this comparatively small estimate of the cost. Mr. Gainor. With your permission, I would like to say that, tak- ing a broad view of this question, I contend that the bill costs noth- ing. After all, the wealth of society is the wealth of its individual members, and the mere transferring of $1 from one man to another, man does not change the wealth of society. Mr. Volstead. I do not think there is much dispute as to the neces- sity for legislation. Mr. Gainor. Permit me to elaborate on this matter of cost. There has never been a movement of which the people to-day are proud that has come before Congress for consideration that did not have to meet this very same objection of cost. Now, we know that in the end they really cost nothing. Did the passage of the child-labor law cost anything? Did compulsory education? Did sanitation laws and the laws for the protection of life and limb cost anything in the end? Did the eight-hour day ? Now, we know they are sound investments,, judged from any reasonable business standpoint. The mere statement that a certain amount of money is necessary to be appropriated must be considered in the light of whether such an investment will or will not eventually operate for the welfare of the country, yielding divi- dends of better citizenship that outweighs any thought of the original cost. Mr. Nelson. I see that we have only 35 minutes remaining, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Meeker, of the Labor Bureau, is here, and he would like to make a brief statement. I understand there are also several other persons who desire to be heard. The Chairman. How much longer will you take, Mr. Gainor? Mr. Gainor. If we agree upon the fundamental proposition and upon the principle involved in this bill, and there seems to be no dis- agreement upon the principle that the injured or stricken workers should be compensated — if we are of one mind on that, then, I con- tend, in conclusion, that the problem and business of this committee is only to determine what method is the most just and equitable aiid what method is the most calculated to do the most good. I submit that the pending measure now before your committee comprehends a practical answer to that question better than any bill with wMch I am acquainted. Mr. Gard. Representing the letter carriers particularly, have you given any thought to what should be included imder " occupational diseases " ? FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 27 Mr. Gainoe. I heard the discussion on that point with a great deal of interest. Mr. Gard. I mean as aifecting letter carriers. Mr. Gainor. As affecting letter carriers, my reply to you is that I think Congress should make the Government" service a model for all other employers, instead of waiting to pattern after employers in civil life. Instead of waiting, the Government should lead the way. I would make the broadest interpretation of " occupational disease " that could possibly be made, realizing that in the last analysis society pays the bill. Mr, Carawat. Then you would want compensation for any dis- ease? Mr- Gainor. I do not believe I would put it in that way. Mr. Nelson. You do want it to be practical. You do not want such a burden upon the Government that it would provoke resent- ' ment on the part of the public. Mr. Gainor. I would not, sir. Last week a letter carrier from New York Oity wrote me in regard to his condition. He is blind, or practically so. He is collecting mail in New York and is compelled to almost feel his way around in order that he may perform his duties. He has been reduced $200 in salary. Twelve years ago he was struck by a wagon in the per- formance of duty. He traces the loss of his eyesight to that accident. Under a strict interpretation of " occupational disease " that man might not come under the provision of the act, and yet his need for help is most pitifully evident. I would recommend the broadest interpretation of the term " occupational disease." Mr. Nelson. Would you then leave it to the administrative oflficers to exercise their discretion? Mr. Gainor. Yes, sir; preferably. STATEMENT OF DR. ROYAl MEEKER, UIOTED STATES COMMIS- SIONER OF LABOR STATISTICS. Dr. Meeker. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, with your kind permission I would like to ask the privilege of sitting as I make my remarks. I have just come from a hand-to-hand tussel with the grippe, and I am in a rather weak condition. The Chairman. You may be seated. Dr. Meeker. I can speak from the administration's standpoint. The present law is so absurdly inadequate in most respects that those who are charged with the duty of administering it are heartily in favor of this bill. There has been no chance for me to arrange my remarks in sequence, or coherently, so I shall beg for the privilege of amending them and perhaps transposing them in the written record. The Chairman. What is your occupation, Mr. Meeker? Dr. Meeker. I am Commissioner of Labor Statistics. The Chairman. Do you represent the Bureau of Labor this morn- ing? Dr. Meeker. Yes, sir ; I may say that I do. Mr. Nelson. I would like to get into the record this fact: I find here, I think it is in the appropriation bill, that there is $25,000 given to pay for the injury of clerks in the Post Office Department. That was part of the appropriation bill, was it not? 28 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. Dr. Meeker. Yes, sir ; that is on^ of three acts that we are now •operating under. Mr. Nelson. As it is now, it is coming in piecemeal? Dr. Meeker. Yes, sir. Mr. Nelson. The first act was passed in 1908 ? Dr. Meeker. Yes, sir. Mr. Nelson. And what did that cover? Dr. Meeker. I would not like to answer that offhand, from memory. Mr. Nelson. Can you put it into the record ? Dr. Meeker. Yes, sir. Mr. Nelson. It covered mines? Dr. Meeker. No, sir. Mr. Nelson. Then, I suppose some other officer made the sugges- tion. Forestry came in, did it not? Dr. Meeker. I can not say as to the sequence. Dr. Clark will be able to answer those questions in detail. Mr. Nelson. I think the Appropriations Committee has put in another department. I just make it of record that this legislation is necessary ; that it is coming into our laws outside of the jurisdiction of the committee. "We have pending a request from Secretary Lane that we include his office, which shows that whether the committee acts upon this matter or not, the appropriation committees are act- ing upon it. Dr. Meeker. The first Federal act granting compensation to Fed- eral employees was passed May 4, 1882, and provided compensation not only for accidental injuries but for diseases contracted in the line of duty to certain employees in the Life-Saving Service. The com- pensation provided is full pay during the period of disability not to exceed one year, unless the period is extended by the Secretary of the Treasury. In case of death the compensation shall be paid to a surviving widow or children under 16 years. Since 1901 the Post Office Department has included in its appro- priation act a sum to pay for the services of acting clerks in place of clerks injured while on duty. The amount first appropriated for this purpose, in 1901, was $25,000. This amount has been increased from year to year until for the current fiscal year, 1916, it is $134,500, and the estimate for the next fiscal year, 1917, is $234,000. The Life-Saving Service and the Post Office Department em- ployees, as will be seen, do not come under the act of May 30^ 1908, at all. They are covered by specific acts, the administration of which is entirely independent of the Department of Labor and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The act of May 30, 1908, which went into operation August 1, 1908, covered artisans and laborers in Fed- eral "manufacturing establishments, arsenals, or navy yards, or in the construction of river and harbor or fortification work, or in haz- ardous employment on construction work in the reclamation of arid lands or the management and control of the same, or in hazardous •employment under the Isthmian Canal Commission." An act of March 4, 1911, took the administration of the workmen's compensation law, so far as employees of the Isthmian Canal Com- mission are concerned, out of the hands of the Departinent of Com- merce and Labor and placed it in the Isthmian Canal Commission. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 29' An act of March 11, 1912, extended the provisions of the act of May 30, 1908, "to any artisan, laborer, or other employee engaged in any hazardous work under the Bureau of Mines or the Forestry Service of the United States." An act of July 27, 1912, extended the benefits of the act of May 30, 1908, "to persons employed by the United States in any haz- ardous employment in the Lighthouse Service." There are at the present time, as explained above, three distinct and independent systems of workmen's compensation set up by Congress at sundry times and in diverse places, not to mention two other independent systems set up by executive orders, each of which differs radically from the other and from all the other systems in ■ operation. I think you will all agree that it is more sensible and economical to have one law covering all Federal employees rather -than, as we now have, three distinct laws and two Executive oi'ders with distinct standards that cover, as has been stated, about one-fourth of the em- ployees of the Federal Government. More are covered now, because of the recent inclusion of letter carriers. There is no head, no sys- tem, to the present Federal laws governing workmen's compensation. I did not have the opportunity to consult with Dr. Andrews. I simply jotted down the inadequacies of the present law as they oc- curred to me. I was pleased, however, to note that I had jotted down everything that Dr. Andrews had mentioned. I shall go over them briefly again to emphasize the points that Dr. Andrews has so well made. I think that the most glaring inadequacy of the present law is its failure to include all employees of the United States. Only certain selected services under the Federal Government, or certain selected occupations denominated hazardous occupations are covered. I submit that no man knows just what are hazardous occupations and what are nonhazardous occupations. Mr. Gaed. Are hazardous occupations pretty well defined by in- sufg,nce actuaries? Dr. Meeker. I do not think they are. I want to speak about haz- ardous as against nonhazardous employment. I suppose we are all acquainted with the theory that the workman is compensated not only for the work that he does but for the hazard he runs. That is the theory of the common law. The practice does not conform very closely to the theory, but that is the theory. In general, we may say that the man who is operating a dangerous machine will generally receive a higher compensation for the like kind of work requiring the same degree of skill than the man who has not a dangerous machine to operate. Take the case of a clerk who is not engaged in a hazard- ous occupation, and therefore is excluded from compensation for injury under the operation of the present Federal act. This clerk may meet with an accident — a heavy box of books may fall and crush his hand. It won't comfort this clerk while he is disabled and unable to work to say to him : " Oh, well, it is quite unusual for anybody in your line of work to be injured." That does not pay the butcher's and grocer's bills; that does not support his family while he is in- capacitated. When a man is disabled he is in need of compensation regardless of the hazardous character of his job. The inclusion of 30 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. all employments is a matter of simple justice, and of course the in- clusion of employments in which disabilities seldom or never occur will add little to the money cost to the United States. In the same way let us consider occupational diseases. That ^s the next greatest inadequacy of the present law. They are not in- cluded now. I think they should be included. What is the difference between being laid up for six weeks because of a broken leg and being laid up for six weeks because of pleurisy contracted during employ- ment, as the result of the conditions of that employment.^ For myself I can see no difference. The grocery bills are coming in just the same in the one case as in the other. The rent has to be paid, and the ex- pense of supporting the injured workman's family goes on in one case just the same as in the other. I see no reason for excluding oc- cupational diseases. Mr. Volstead. Suppose a man contracted consumption? Dr. Meeker. I do not think it would be included as an occupa- tional disease. I should not want an amendment that would exclude consumption, however, because it might be an occupational disease in some instances. Mr. Volstead. Do you realize that if you do that then the man would naturally make the same claim for rheumatism contracted in the same way. The same thing would apply to varicose veins, for instance. In other words, would this not practically make it a pension ? Dr. Meeker. I do not think so. Since the matter of cost has come up I shall take up that subject. Mr. Nelson. I think it is important that we should get this in- formation about occupational diseases. Dr. Meekee. Occupational diseases will be treated in the discus- sion of cost. I was going to take that up, but I did not suppose I would have time to discuss it. Mr. Clark has computed at my re- quest an estimate of what the cost would be under the McGillicuddy bill. He estimates — and it is the best possible estimate to be made — that the operation of this law would not cost in out-of-pocket pay- ment on the part of the Federal Government during the first few years more than is now paid out. The reasons for that have ,been indicated by Dr. Andrews. This compensation is limited absolutely to a salary basis of $100 per month. That means $66.66 per month is the upper limit possible. Mr. Volstead. Do you know whether he takes into consideration the fact that permanent or partial disability is to be paid for under this bill? Dr. Meeker. There is no means of estimating what will be the expense under this proposed bill 20 years hence. I limited my state- ment to the first few years. Mr. Nelson. Within 5 or 10 years? Dr. Meeker. I should say for a matter of four or five years that the out-of-pocket expense would not be greater than under the pt^s- ent law, but, gentlemen, I submit to you that that is a peculiar way ■ of viewing the matter. The point has already been made that here is a certam burden of cost resulting from industrial accident and from occupational diseases. Now, that cost has to be borne. Legis- lation enacted by Congress can do very little with the total amount of that cost. The only way the total amount of that cost can be FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 31 a,ffected is by legislation so w'isely drawn that it will tend to cut .■down the number of accidents and the number of cases of illness due to occupation and cut down the amount of malingering and simula- ition under the law, and that is exactly what this law does. The .law that we are now operating under, gentlemen, may, without much distortion, be termed " an act to promote malingering." Just be- ■cause the waiting period of 15 days is provided, and then full pay- .ment is given from the date of the accident, the period of disability is prolonged to extend beyond 15 days. Mr. Whalet. Doesn't the man have to have a doctor's certificate? Dr. Meeker. Yes, sir. Mr. Whalet. Do you think the doctor will put in a perjured cer- tificate ? Dr. Clark. A navy-yard surgeon told me that he Avould not put a man back in 12 days. Mr. Whalet. Well, I think he ought to be kicked out of the service. Dr. Clark. He said that he told men they would be better off if they waited three days longer. I know that other doctors do it who are outside of the service. Mr. Nelson. I want to say that I agree with you. I am for this legislation, but I realize that it has to pass severe criticism. I want to bring out the objections, or, rather, the answers to possible ob- jections. In this estimate that you have given, have you carefully considered the effect of the language covering occupational diseases ? Dr. Meeker. Oh, yes, sir. I might say that I studied this matter with the committee of the American Association for Labor Legisla- tion, and others, who know as. much or more about compensation tthan I do. We thrashed that point out thoroughly. I want to say that I have not the slightest objection to the amendment which was .suggested by the gentleman who sat over there [indicating] a mo- ment ago. It seems to me that it leaves the proper and necessary discretion to the commission in administering the law. Mr. Nelson. I think it does. Dr. Meeker. I think it does call the attention of the commission to the fact that the occupational disease must be traced directly to the occupation ; and that point is well taken. I want you gentlemen to consider that the commissioners are employees of the Federal Government; they are not employees of labor or labor unions ; they are not employees of employees or of em- ployers ; they are executive officers of the Federal Government. You can depend upon it that they will use judgment and discretion and sound common sense in the administration of the law. In regard to the question of occupational diseases, the British Government has listed some 24 occupational diseases. They find ■themselves very much handicapped, because they are tied up by that. I had a talk with a man day before yesterday. He contracted pleurisy in a laundry because of the extremely wet conditions due to the extractors. It has nothing to do with this compensation bill, but I maintain that that case of pleurisy was just as distinctly, in that case, an occupational disease as it woiild be an industrial accident if he had broken his arm in the machinery of that laundry. I would oppose including either consumption, pneumonia, rheuma- 'tism, or pleurisy in a list of legally designated occupational diseases. 32 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. because in the huge majority of cases these diseases would have no traceable connection with the sufferer's occupation. Only in rare instances could it be established that consumption, pneumonia, pleurisy, or rheumatism were contracted in the course of employ- ment. The same is true of most other diseases. This bill does not contemplate setting up sickness insurance, or health insurance, as the British prefer to call it. The subject of health insurance should be taken up seriously by Congress and dealt with as expeditiously as possible. But that is a tremendous subject in and of itself. In- surance against all diseases is one thing. Insurance gainst occupa- tional diseases contracted in the course of employment is something entirely different. The latter comprises but an insignificant part of all illnesses. The inclusion of occupational diseases would not add greatly to the money payments to be made from the United States Treasury for workmen's compensation. It is much better to leave the decision as to the inclusion of exclu- sion of a particular disease as an occupational disease to the commis- sion. If consumption were included in a named list of occupatioanl diseases, a presumption would be created in favor of granting com- pensation to all emploj^ees suffering from consumption. On the other hand, if consumption were not included in the legally desig- nated list, no case of consumption could be compensated, no matter how clearly the disease might be shown to be the result of the occupa- tion. The same is true of any disease that has anything to do with occupations. Mr. Caraway. You say that you think the commissioners will administer the law with caution. Dr. Meeker. That is what I try to with the present law. Mr. Caraavat. Now, if that is your idea, what is the objection to having a limitation? Dr. Meeker. Now, if that is your idea, what is the objection to having a limitation? Dr. Meeker. The limitation that was suggested awhile ago was all right. Mr. Caraway. That was not a limitation. That was only to find whether the man was sick. Dr. Meeker. Absolutely not. That was to find whether the ill- ness was due to the occupation — to trace the illness to the occupation. Last year the question was asked: Suppose a man on the Canal Zone was bitten by a mosquito and contracted yellow fever from which he later dies ; would that be an occupational disease ? I think in that case my answer was " Certainly not." That was not an oc- cupational disease, because the mosquito might bite the man any old time, whether he was working or not. This bill provides for both accidents and diseases contracted in the course of employment. , Mr. Nelson. I was going to ask if you have any data to show the number of injuries which this would include over and above what the law now includes. Dr. Meeker. I can not submit a statment up to date. I can sub- mit one down to 1912-13. I will gladly submit that to the com- mittee. Mr. Nelson. I would suggest that Congress is in favor of the Principle of this bill, but there are a good many watchdogs of the 'reasury that do not want to open wide the doors on this legislation. PEOEKAL employees' COMPENSATIOK. 33 We want to know approximately what the cost is going to be, and any information you may give us along that line will be very helpful. Dr. Meeker. I shall submit, with your permission, a statement similar to the one submitted last 3'ear as to the out-of-pocket cost, bringing it down to date, or as near to date as possible. Gentlemen, I want to refer again to the fact that the legislation of Congress can shift the cost, as it most certainly should, but it can not do much with the total burden of cost in the main. Accidents will happen. Some one has to bear the burden. At the present time the burden is borne by those who are least able to bear it, because they are least able to get out from under it. Mr. Volstead. We are coming to an old-age pension, just as they have in the other countries? Dr. Meeker. There is no old-age pension provided in this bill. Mr. Volstead. You are practically providing it in this bill. I do not understand that any State has adopted the provision that you have asked for, to the effect that occupational diseases should be in- cluded. The question is whether we should give to the employees of the Government more than they get anywhere else. When we come to the point where we are going to make a general provision, which I think will be made some day, I think they should be treated the same as the rest. Are we justified in adopting a policy radically different from that adopted as to other people in the ordinary occupations of life? If the others do not get the benefit of that sort of legislation, and simply help to pay the burden, they naturally feel resentment- They feel that the Government employees should not be specially favored above all others. We are willing to do justice, at least within the lines of social reform that is going on generally through- out the country, but yoii are asking us to go a great deal further than that. You are asking us to pay a man not only for injuries resulting from an accident but for sickness that may result from his occupation. I want you to realize the situation. If we are going to hold that occupational disease has to be paid for and is to be con- strued, as you claim, to cover every disease resulting from service or work, I think you are asking us to give to the Federal employees very much more than they can get under existing law anywhere else. Dr. Meeker. The bill does not call for anything more than it pro- vides for in the Massachusetts law and is now provided for under the California law. I might say that the tendency is to include oc- cupational diseases in all workmen's compensation legislation. Further, I think this is a question that should and must be set- tled on its merits. The question' for Congress to settle is this : Is it right, it is just, to give compensation to all disabled employees of the United States, whether they are disabled by accident or disease, whether they are engaged in occupations where many or few acci- dents occur ? Congress should not lose its judgment of the rightness or the wrongness of this proposed legislation on the judgments pro- nounced by the Legislatures of Delaware, Florida, Maine, Arkansas, California, or any other State. If this bill is right, make it law ; if it is not right, don't enact it. Mr. Volstead. We are told here that there is no law m force that provided for occupational diseases : that they had held that in some 26687— PT 3—16 3 34 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. cases diseases resulting from accident might be paid for, which would he perfectly proper. Dr. Meeker. I think the statement that was made — I do not "wish 'to speak for Dr. Andrews — was that no workmen's compensation bill ■ actually contained the occupational disease provision, but that the laws of Massachusetts and of California have been interpreted to vinclude them ; and they are operating in just the same way that the Federal Government would have to operate under this act if it be- •^^comes a law. Mr. Volstead. If you will furnish that information — ^that deci- sion of the court — we will be very glad to have it. Dr. Meekek. I can give you from memory one case that has been passed upon by the Massachusetts courts. In Massachusetts the janitor of a schoolhouse contracted pneumonia in this way : He went to the schoolhouse on a cold morning. Following his usual custom, -he went down to fix the furnace fires. Becoming extremely sweaty from his labor, he then went up to the top of the schoolhouse, throw- ing the windows open as he went. Later on, on his way down, he fell in a faint. He had to be carried home. He died of pneumonia, and the courts have held that that was a case of occupational dis- ease. It is not for me to say what interpretation the commission would put upon such a case. That would be for the commission to decide. Mr. Volstead. Can you give us that case? T)r. Meeker. I think I can do that without difficulty. Now, Mr. Chairman, am I through or am I not ? I can say a good many things yet. The Chairman. Dr. Meeker, if you have any further information that you want to give the committee and desire to put it in typewrit- ten form, we would be glad to have it published right along with the hearings. Mr. Volstead. Let him extend his remarks. The Chairman. That is what I am telling him now. Dr. Meeker. Very good. I would like to add one thing. You asked so many questions and made so many statements that I could- jiot think to answer them all at once. This law is no departure from workingmen's compensation legislation. It is not even similar to -old-age and disability pension laws. I want to impress that upon yon as forcefully as I can. There is not a feature of old-age or dis- ability pension laws in this bill as it is drawn. Perhaps that should *e provided for, but it is unwise to try to provide for it in a compen- jsation bill. This bill should eventually apply to the employees en- rgaged in interstate commerce, but it would be most unwise to incor- porate any such provision in this bill now, because it would kill the -bill. What we want to do is to get the greatest measure of relief to -employees in the Federal service that we think is practicable, to ■obtain. The proposed compensation is a part of the earnings of these men. This bill is not designed to hand out alms to anyone. The Scripture says that the laborer is worthy of his hire, and if that does not mean that he is worthy to earn enough or to be placed in a posi' tion so that he can maintain himself and his family without appeal- ing to the charitable societies and institutions of the country, I do not know what it does mean. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 35 I will exercise my privilege of extending my remarks. I am sorry I took up so much of your time. Mr. Danforth. Is not there a provision in this law, which I have not read since last year, that it makes no difference whether a man's injury is received on the first day of his employment or at the close of 10 years' employment, that he gets the same compensation in either case? Dr. Meeker. Mr. Danforth, I have not been able to refresh my memory, but I do not think you are correct, because the provision is made for calculating monthly wages. Dr. Andrews will be able to answer that question. Mr. Danforth. I have not had time to look it over, but if that is the case do you think it is a wise provision in the law ? Dr. Meeker. I do not think any compensation law should cover casual employment. Mr. Danforth. You could not tell whether it is casual employment in the query that I put to you. He may be injured on the first day of his employment, which may be a long period of employment. Dr. Meeker. I would have to refer that to Dr. Andrews. Mr. Danforth. Well, that being the case, do you think it a wise provision of law that the man who may be in good faith intending to serve as long as he can, as long as his health and life are preserved, should be treated equally well or on the same terms as the man who has actually served the Government for 10 years? Dr. Meeker. Mr. Danforth, I have worked at a good many differ- ent occupations and have run all sorts of risks, and the necessity for providing the workman against the hazards of industry appeals to me very strongly. I have worked with a buzz planer, a very dan- gerous instrument, indeed. I have almost had both of my hands cut off by a buzz planer, but I was just lucky enough to escape. Now, as I look at it, if I take employment under the -Federal Government to operate a buzz planer it makes no difference to me whether I lose my right hand the first day I enter employment or whether I lose it after I have been employed 20 years. Mr. Taggart. And it makes no difference to the Government, either ? Dr. Meeker. No. Mr. Taggart. It would not cost the Government any more, whether a man was working the first day or the last day ? Dr. Meeker. Well, I am not sure about the provisions of the bill ; yoii will have to ask Dr. Andrews. But I think it would be wise, to answer your question directly, Mr. Danforth, to provide for the injuries due to accidents and illness in the regular employment of the Federal Government, regardless. Mr. Danforth. I find, in the hearings of the last Congress, that you did furnish a statement in regard to cost. Dr. Meeker. Yes ; and I agreed to furnish that statement brought down as near to date as possible. Mr. Danforth. And you will bring it up to date ? Dr. Meeker. Yes, sir. Mr. Danforth. Now, I would like to suggest also, that when you revise your remarks you include a reference to the present compensa- tion bills which are now in force — the three different bills. 36 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COkPENSATIOK . Dr. Meeker. Yes, sir; they are extremely confused, with more or less difference in their standards, and almost in^possible to administer. Something should be done. We have waited for more than seven years now to have this act of 1908 amended. All that I can say m favor of the present act or acts is that the act of 1908 was the first compensation act which recognized the principle of compensation, and when you have said that you have said about all concerning it that can be said. Amendments must be made, or, rather, a new law must be drawn. Mr. Danforth. Suppose you set out in extenso those three bills. Dr. Meeker. I will do so. . Mr. Nelson. Dr. Meeker, we have two propositions before us now, one being the McGillicuddy bill and the other a draft of a bill that we received from Secretary Lane. The Secretary requests that we specifically put the Indian Service within the present law. Dr. Meeker. I beg your pardon. You mean the present law of 1908? Mr. Nelson. 1908; yes. The Secretary suggests that the provi- sions of the act approved May 30, 1908, granting to certain employees of the United States the right to receive from it compensation for injuries sustained in the course of their employment, in addition to the classes of persons therein designated, include employees of the Indian Service of the United States. Now, what I am trying to get at is this. Is the artisan and laborer included under the word " hazardous " ? Dr. Meeker. Not always. Mr. Nelson. Or is " other en;iployees " a separate division ? Dr. Meeker. I would have to study the language in order to answer you. Mr. Nelson. Here are two interpretations. You can say, " any artisan engaged in the ^ervice^" no matter whether the employment is hazardous or not, and a "laborer," and then a third division, " other employees engaged in hazardous occupations." Do you get the point? Dr. Meeker. Yes; I do. Mr. Nelson. Or, is it " laborer and artisan and other employees " engaged in such work ? Dr. Meeker. My idea is that " artisan and laborer " is, willy-nilly, classified as engaged in hazardous occupations and any other em- ployee engaged in hazardous occupations would indicate anybody not a laborer and artisan. Mr. Nelson. Then, if that be true, what is the use of saying " laborer and artisan," when " any employee engaged in a hazardous occupation" would cover it, would it not? Dr. Meeker. Surely. It is an example of very bad l^slative drafting, I think, Mr. Nelson. The Chairman. Have you concluded. Dr. Meeker? Dr. Meeker. I would like to call the attention of the committee to the fact that I have here the latest report on the operation of the compensation laws, but I have only 10 or 11 copies available. I would be very glad to put them at your service. The Chairman. Leave them with the clerk and those who want a copy can get it from him. We are very much obliged to you, Dr. Meeker. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 37 Exhibit A. CONGBESSIONAI, ACTS AND EXPXUTIVE OkDEKS NOW IN POBCE GbANTING COM- PENSATION TO Workmen in Cbutain Specified Services in the Employment OF THE United States. LIFE-SAVING SERVICE. The act of May 4, 18S2 (22 U. S. Stat. L., p. 57), introduced a system of com- pensation not only for accidental injuries but also for disease contracted in the line of duty for certain employees of the Life-Saving Service. Sections 7 and 8 of this act read as follows : " Sec. 7. If any keeper or member of a crew of a life-saving or lifeboat sta- tion shall be so disabled by reason of any wound or injury received or disease contracted in the Life-Saving Service in the line of duty as to unfit him for the performance of duty, such disability to be determined in such manner as shall be prescribed In the regulations of the service, he shall be continued upon the rolls of the service and entitled to receive his full pay during the continuance of such disability, not to exceed the period of one year, unless the general superintendent shall recommend, upon a statement of facts, the extension of the period through a portion or the whole of another year, and said recom- mendation receive the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury as just and reasonable; but in no case shall said disabled keeper or member of a crew be continued upon the rolls or receive pay for a longer period than two years. " Sec. 8 (as amended by act of March twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred and eight). If any keeper or member of a crew of a life-saving or lifeboat station shall hereafter die by reason of perilous service or any wound or injury re- ceived or disease contracted in the Life-Saving Service in the line of duty, leaving a widow, or a child or children under sixteen years of age, or a de- pendent mother, such widow and child or children and dependent mother shall be entitled to receive, in equal portions, during a period of two years, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, the same amount, payable quarterly as far as practicable, that the husband or father or son would be entitled to receive as pay if he were alive and continued In the service : Provided,, That If the widow shall remarry at any time during the said two years, here portion of said amount shall cease to be paid to her from the date of her remarriage, but shall be added to the amount to be paid to the remaining beneficiaries under the provisions of this section, if there be any ; and if any child shall arrive at the age of sixteen years during the said two years, the payment of the portion of such child shall cease to be paid to such child from the date on which such age shall be attained, but shall be added to the amount to be paid to the remaining beneficiaries, if there be any." The system of compensation provided for in this law grants full pay in case of disability, for a term not exceeding two years, and compensation equal .to two years' pay to the widow and children In case the injury or disease termi- nates fatally. All cases of injuries or diseases contracted in line of duty are compensated. No provision is made for raising any question of negligence to which the Injury may be due. railway mail SERVICE. A compensation system in general similar to the above exists In the Post Office Department for the benefit of railway postal clerks. The Post Office Department appropriation act for 1901, approved on .Tune 2, 1900 (31 U. S. Stat. L., p. 259), contained for the first time the following Item : " For acting clerks in place of clerks Injured while on duty, $25,000." This permitted the continuance of salaries to injured clerks during the term of their disability, the maximum period for such payments being in practice restricted to one year, virtually establishing a system of compensation for non- fatal Injuries. In the next (second) session of the Fifty-sixth Congress the ap- propriation for the same purpose was increased to $35,000. The Post Office Department appropriation act for 1903, passed in the first session of the Fifty-seventh Congress, extended the system to include a lump- sum benefit of $1,000 to the survivors of railway mail clerks fatally injured while on duty by the following language : "For acting clerks in place of clerks' injured while on duty, and to enable the Postmaster General to pay the sum of $1,000, which shall be exempt from the payment of debts of the deceased, to the legal representatives of any rail- way postal clerk or substitute railway postal clerk who shall be killed while ou 38 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. duty or who, being injured while on duty, shall die within one year thereafter as the result of such injury, $45,000." . ' The amount appropriated was found insufficient, and a deficiency appropria- tion of $40,000 was made during the second session. The amount appropriated for the fiscal year 1904 was $75,000, following which was another deficiency appropriation of $20,000 made during the session of 1903-4, and the sum of $110,000 was appropriated for the year ending June 30, 1905. Since that date the appropriation has been made at a uniform rate of $100,000 until the ap- propriation for the year ending June 30, 1912, when $120,000 was set aside for the two purposes of employing acting clerks and of paying compensation for accidents. The appropriation act for the year ending June 30, 1913, set aside $130,000 for these purposes and provides that when disability continues for a part or all of a second year after injury 50 per cent of the injured clerk's salary shall be paid him during such continuance. Sea post clerks are by the same act granted the same benefits as are allowed railway postal clerks. The appropria- tion act for the fiscal yeai- 1911, approved May 12, 1910, increased the amount payable in case of fatal accidents to $2,000. The present system therefore provides for disability compensation equal to full pay for the period of disability, but not to exceed one year; for half pay for a second year if disability continues, and in case of the Injury resulting fatally a lump-sum payment of $2,000 to the legal representatives of the de- ceased. Under the existing legislation the following regulations have been promul- gated by the Post Office Department : " Sec. 1424. Whenever a railway postal clerk shall be disabled while in the actual discharge of his duties by a railroad or other accident beyond his power to control he shall send to the division superintendent a certificate of his attending physician or surgeon, sworn to before an officer authorized to ad- minister oaths, who ha.s an official seal, setting forth the nature, extent, and cause of his disability and the probable duration of the same, and such further evidence as to the character of the disability as may be necessary shall be furnished. "(2) The division superintendent will forward the certificate, with his recommendation, to the General Superintendent of the Railway Mail Service, who will submit the matter to the Postmaster General, who may, in his judg- ment, the facts justifying such action, grant such disabled clerk leaves of absence with pay for periods of not exceeding sixty days each and not exceeding one year in all. "(3) A sworn statement from the attending physician must accompany every application for additional leave." The appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1917 reads as follows : •" That hereafter the Postmaster General shall have authority to employ acting employees in place of all employees or substitutes hereinafter mentioned who are injured while on duty, who shall be granted leave of absence with full pay during the period of disability, but not exceeding one year, then at the rate of fifty per cent of the employee's salary for the period of disability ex- ceeding one year, but not exceeding twelve months additional, and the Post- master General is authorized to pay the sum of $2,000, which shall be exempt from payment of debts of the deceased, to the legal representatives for the benefit of wife, children, or dependent relatives of any railway postal clerk, substitute railway postal clerk, supervisory official of the Railway Mail Service, post-office inspector, letter carrier in the Oity Delivery Service, rural letter carrier, post-office clerk, or special-delivery ines.senger who shall be killed while on duty or who, being Injured while on duty, shall die within one year there- after as the result of such injury : Provided, That no compensation shall be paid any such employee for any injury occasioned by his own negligence. To enable the Postmaster General to carry out the provisions of the above (same acts), $234,000." DEPARTMENT OF LABOK. [Federal compensation act of May 30, 1908,^ and amending acts. Public, No. 176 H R 21844.] AN ACT Granting to certain employees of the United States the right to receive from it compensation for injuries sustained in the course of their employment. Jie it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That when, on or after August first, nineteen hundred and eight, any person employed by the TTnited States as an artisan or FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 39 laborer in any of its manufacturing establishments, arsenals, or navy yards, or In the construction of river and harbor or fortification vi^ork or in hazardous employment on construction work in the reclamation of arid lands or the management and control of the same, or in hazardous employment under the Isthmian Canal Commission,* is injured in the course of such employment, such employee shall be entitled to receive for one year thereafter, unless such em- ploype, in the opinion of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor," be sooner able to resume work, the same pay as if he continued to be employed, such payment to be made under such regulations as the Secretary of Commerce and Labor may prescribe : Provided, That no compensation shall be paid under this act where the injury is due to the negligence or misconduct of the employee injured,. nor unless said injury shall continue for more than fifteen days. All questions of negligence or misconduct shall be determined by the Secretary of Commerce- and Labor. Sec. 2. That if any artisan or laborer so employed shall die during the said' year, by reason of such injury received in the course of such employment, leav- ing a widow, or a child or children under sixteen years of age, or a dependent parent, such widow and child or children and dependent parent shall be en- titled to receive, in such portions and under such regulations as the Secretary^ of Commerce and Labor may prescribe, the same amount, for the remainder of the said year, that said artisan or laborer would be entitled to receive as pay if such employee were alive and continued to be employed: Provided, That if the widow shall die at any time during the said year her portion of said amount shall be added to the amount to be paid to the remaining beneficiaries under- the provisions of this section, if there be any. Sec. 3. That whenever an accident occurs to any employee embraced within- the terms of the first section of this act, and which results in death or a prob- able incapacity for work, it shall be the duty of the oflicial superior of such employee to at once report such accident and the injury resulting therefrom to the head of his bureau or independent office, and his report shall be imme- diately communicated through regular official channels to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. Such report shall state, first, the time, cause, and nature- of the accident and injury and the probable duration of the injury resulting therefrom; second, whether the accident arose out of or in the course of the injured person's employment ; third, whether the accident was due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the employee injured ; fourth, any other matters required by such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Commerce and Labor may prescribe. The head of each department or independent office shall have power, however, to charge a special official with the duty of making such reports. Sec. 4. That in the case of any accident which shall result in death, the persons entitled to compensation under this act or their legal rein-osontatives shall, within ninety days after such death, file with the Secretary of Commerce and Labor an affidavit setting forth their relationship to the deceased and the ground of their claim for compensation under the provisions of this act. This shall be accompanied by the certificate of the attending i)hysician setting forth the fact and cause of death, or the nonnroduction of the certificate shall be satisfactorily accounted for. In the case of incapacity for work lasting more than fifteen days, the injured party desiring to take tlie benefit of this act shall, within a reasonable period after the expiration of su<-h time, file with his official superior to be forwarded through regular official channels to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, an affidavit setting forth the <.'roun It is a well-known fact in accident reporting that in the absence of penalty for failure or reward for performance the reporting is likely to be defective. This defect tends to remedy itself as the law is better understood, as may be inferred from the annual increase of accidents reported. Taking the per- centages of those apparently esfluded as shown in the foregoing table, theyi are found to be for the different years 28.4 22.9, 26, and 20.6 per cent, respectively-, or slightly above one-fourth of all accidents on an average. EXTEiMSION BY KEDUCTION OF WAITING TIME FROM 15 DAYS TO. 3 DAYS. Not all of these apparently excluded persons indicated above would be eli- gible to present claims, however, as a considerable number would fall in the class suffering not more than three days' disability. The tables do not show this number, but a special count was made for the years 1911-12 and 1912-13; showing 543, or 11.6 per cent,' of the total for 1911-12 as disabled for not more than' three days; the result for 1912-13 was practically the same. The number of accidents excluded from consideration under th6 present act by reason of the fact that disability did not continue for more than 15 days was 38.56 per cent in 1909-10; 39.19 in 1910-11 ; 40.19 per cent in 1913f-ia; and 40.56 per cent in 1912-13. But if those falling below three days are excluded: (above 11 per cent, as appears above), it seems that an estimate of an addition on account of a reduction of waiting time would be liberal if placed at one- third of the number of cases now subject to consideration. Combining this 33 per cent with the approximately 26 per cent found to be added by the inclusion to cover all employees, it appears that the number of claims might be increased about 60 per cent. If, then, allowance be made for more accurate reporting when compensation benefits would be available for short-time disabilities. It becomes clear that an assumption that the present, number of claims would be doubled is unquestionably liberal. It is to be remem- bered, too, that the larger portion of this addition is due to the inclusion of short-term disabilities, which require the smallest amounts of compensation and involve no cumulative effect. ACCIDENTS AND CLAIMS. A table setting forth the number of accidents reported, and of claims sttb- mitted, approved, and disapproved, will indicate the present status and afford another suggestion as to the increase to be anticipated in case of the enactment of the McGillicuddy bill into law. The Canal Zone is excluded throu^out, since comparable data for it are not available to the full period. Aecidents and claims, 1909-10 to 1914-15. Items. 1909-10 1910-11 1911-12 1912-13 191^^4 1 tem-iB 3,755 1,436 1,372 64 3,787 1,677 1,695 ' 82 4,680 2,062 1,979 83 5,333 2,467 2,380 87 5,773 2,658 2,462 98- 6,709 3,140 3)078 60 1 This percentage is not offered as an accurate one for general use, as there is, no doubt thajt the reports on whiich- it wm based were particularly defective for the shorfr-tlmft peilods. W is, available: for vise In eoumectioitt with the data under eo^nslderation, FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 51 Reverting to previous statements, it appears tliat of tlie 4,680 accidents re- ported in 1911-12, 1,215 were to persons not included under the act, of which 40 per cent were of not more thiin 15 days' duration, leaving 739 to add as pos- sible claimants if the law were general in scope; 1,338 cases of short-time disability would be added if the waiting time were reduced from 15 days to 3 days, making the apparent possible number of claims for the year 4,139, or just above double the number actually submitted. In 1913 there were 2,467 claims ; adding increases as above, approximately 2,300 additional persons might have submitted claims, falling somewhat short of doubling the number. It must be borne in mind that by far the larger number of these increases are due to the addition of short-time disabilities (1,338 out of 2,077 added in 1912, and 1,464 out of 2,316 added in 1913), so that the individual amounts for com- pensation would be small. It is also true that the defects in reporting are most numerous In cases of brief duration. INCLUSION OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES. But little experience is available as to the probable cost of including occupa- tional diseases under the act. The first distinction to be enforced is that be- tween occupational diseases properly so-called, 1. e., sickness or functional dis- order caused by the specific nature of the employment or the materials handled, and the results of debilitated conditions due to traumatic injuries, exhaustion, etc., exposing one to germ diseases or other maladies of a general character which are not covered by the term, though they might be classed as injuries of a more general nature. Lead poisoning in shipyards, and the Government Printing Office, and eczema, due to the constant handling of wet materials in the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, are strictly classifiable as Industrial diseases ; compressed-air illness in the engineering department, and synovitis and hernia charged to the nature of the work in certain establishments, may be classed as of traumatic origin, and 'have been so regarded and compensated for under the present act, though sometimes classed as diseases. From all data at hand covering Government employment it would appear that the cases of occupational disease would be comparatively few, and of far greater importance to the small number of in- dividuals afEected by such diseases than to the Government, whose burden for compensating them would seem to be slight. INCREASE DUB TO CONTINUING PAYMENTS. As the present law pays compensation for but a single year, the data as to prolonged disabilities is not at all complete. Reports of the nature of the in- juries involve reports of maimings, however, and disabilities continuing beyond one year are also noted. Payments of death benefits would be prolonged under the act being considered. Data derived from a comparison of various experi- ences leads to the conclusion that not more than 8 per cent of all accidents give/ rise to fatalities or continuing disabilities of any kind. Deaths and permanent! disabilities, including those amounting to above 60 per cent disability, constitute xmder 2 per cent of the total number of injuries ; while many of the maimings classed as causing permanent partial disability are losses of fingers or parts of fingers, which in many cases lead to no reduction in wages, and therefore do not actually require continuing payments after the healing of the wound. On the foregoing basis, therefore, there would be an annual Increment of con- tinuing cases considerably under the 8 per cent above mentioned, and as the act of 1908, the Life-Saving Service acts, and the postal employees provision all provide for full pay for the first year, while the McGillicuddy bill contemplates but two-thirds pay, it is obvious that the 8 per cent addition would require some years to offset the 33i per cent reduction in the amount of individual competfsation. The fact that no payment may exceed $66f per month effects another saving, since under the present law full salaries, ranging to $2,000 and above are paid. (In 1910-11, of 2,818 compensated cases, 810 were of workmen receiving from $900 to $2,500 per annum.) , . . , . The method of full payment for brief disabilities and restricted terms for serious injuries or death Is contrary to all compensation theory and of proved undeslrabillty It Is therefore not to be regarded as Inflicting hardship to re- 52 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES^ COMPENSATION. duce the compensation payments as proposed, since the true purpose of afford- ing relief and preventing distress is more effectively met under the proposed act than under those now in force. Thus, though the widow of a postal em- ployee would receive not In' excess of $800 per annum for the death of her husband, instead of $2,000 in a lump sum, she would continue to receive com- pensation until her death or remarriage, while an injured man would receive not in excess of this sum annually, regardless of his working salary, plus, how- ever, medical treatment as provided in the bill. MEniCAL TREATMENT. The Inclusion of the cost of medical treatment in all cases of injury (to be furnished immediately and "for a reasonable time" after the injury) is con- templated by this bill, and is in accord with the provisions of nearly all the State laws. Prompt attention tends to early restoration of working capacity and reduces the liability of protraced disabiliies or even faal results. There is no experience in the field of Government administration to guide in any esti- mate as to costs. However, in the principal establishments and places of em- ployment under the Government, a medical officer is provided, who uniformly gives first-aid treatment and frequently dresses slight injuries. Under the New Jersey law, of the 6,635 accidents reported during the year ending October 31, 1912, 2,365 were classed as trivial and not requiring medical aid. The average cost of medical aid for cases of less than two weeks' dura- tion was $4.04, while for cases receiving compensation the average was $21.17. The total number of accidents thus accounted for is in excess of the number reported during the year 1913 in the entire Government service with the excep- tion of the Isthmian Canal. A report of the California accident board cover- ing the year 1913 gives $37.99 as the average cost for medical treatment In 3,114 cases. These two States probably represent as wide divergencies In cost as may be anticipated, but there is after all little to guide in any attempted estimate. CONCLUSION. It is obvious that the discu.ssion hitherto is suggestive rather than conclusive, and one must hesitate to name exact figures in such a connection. Payments under existing laws averaged nearly $.570,000 for the three years 1910-11 to 1912-13, and with recent extensions, can hardly be less than $600,000 per annum at the present time. Though it is no more than an estimate, it is be- lieved that the considerations set forth above warrant the conclusion that this sum is in excess of the probable obligations which the McGlUicuddy bill v^ill create, at least until an accumulation of continuing payments accrues. The fact that the present payments come largely out of wages appropriations and are scattered through numerous appropriation bills and paragraphs of such bills does not alter the fact that the Government is making payments in the amounts set forth. The bill under consideration proposes the sum of $500,000 as a com- pensation fund, which would relieve all services now affected from payments from their separate funds. Better administration would also be possible under the proposed law, tending to economy, the present laws being extravagant for slight injuries, tempting to malingering, and entirely inadequate in cases of serious injury or death. Emphasis must be placed, however, on the need of a fair and adequate com- pensation law rather than on the expense, which if not met by the Govern- ment must be borne by the injured employees, who are many of them utterly without redress in the absence of such legislation as the present bill contem- plates. Exhibit C. OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WORKMKN's COMPENSATION ACT. The Massachusetts vi'orkmen's compensation act provides for compensation for " personal injuries " to employees which arise out of and in the course of their employment, not specifying that they must be accidental injuries. The pav- FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 53 ment of compensation iu these cases is under tlie jurisdiction of tlie industrial accident board, and tlie board during tbe course of the last year for which reports are available received many claims on account of " personal injuries " which were occasioned by reason of the nature, circumstances, or conditions of the employment. Early In the history of the workmen's compensation act the board inter- preted the words " personal injury," as used in the act, to be " any injury or damage or harm or disease which arises out of and in the course of employ- ment, which causes incapacity for work and takes from the employed his ability to earn wages." The board's interpretation was sustained by the de- cisions of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Since the decisions referred to were handed down by the court, insurers have almost Invariably paid compensation to all employees who were incapacitated for work by reason of occupational diseases arising out of and In the course of their employment. One important case held by the supreme court to be entitled to compensation was that of a paint grinder who, after many years' work, became physio- logically unable to stand the influence of the poison due to lead, constantly in- troduced Into his system during his employment, culminating In a condition of anemia and inability to work. In a case of pneumonia, developed as an effect of exposure in a leaky boat which was furnished by the employer, com- pensation was also held to be payable under the act. A case of pneumonia following a surgical operation necessitated by the employee's injury was also held to be entitled to compensation. In cases somewhat similar, where no causal relation between the physical condition of the injured and the employ- ment could be shown, compensation was denied. A brief study of the reports of such diseases made to the industrial accident board during the year ending June 30, 1914, as given in the report of the board, may be of interest. In all, 362 were registered — 354 nonfatal and 8 fatal cases. They are grouped into three main divisions: (1) Those due to harmful sub- stances causing constitutional disturbances; (2) those due to. harmful condi- tion; and (3) those due to Irritant fluids and substances resulting in local affections. In the first group 36 nonfatal and 4 fatal cases. Of the nonfatal, 1 resulted from the use of arsenate of soda in a chemical plant. Dusty trades were responsible for 3. A man 37 years old, employed as a grinder in a machine shop, developed tuberculosis, and a miller was incapacitated for a month by the Inhalation of dust. An employee of a sand mill died as a result of stone grinder's phthisis. Physical impairments from the inhalation of gases, vapors, or fumes occurred to workers In various industries ; for example, a lumper iu a dry-color factory suffered from nitric-acid fumes, a wire temperer from gas, and a worker In a leather factory from gas and odors evolved during the manu- facture of the product. The six cases of anthrax were divided evenly among longshoremen and employees in leather factories. The incapacity resulting extended over periods varying from three to seven and a half weeks. From such a standpoint, therefore, these nonfatal cases for the year were not as serious as others reported in the past, and in which incapacity extended over a period of two years. There were, however, two deaths reported from anthrax, one of an employee in a tannery and the other of a longshoreman. The num- ber of cases of lead poisoning were 19, distributed as follows : Painters, 9 ; typesetters, 2 ; printers, 1 ; machinists, 1 ; plumbers, 1 ; color matchers, 1 ; workers in white lead, 1; employees In storage-battery forming rooms, 1; jewelry workers, 1; tree sprayers, 1. The most serious case was that of a painter, CA years of age, whose hand, arm, and shoulder were partially para- lyzed, and who has been unable to do any work for a year. A fatal case was that of a paint grinder in a paint factory. The other death in this group was that of a man engaged in mixing paint and who inhaled corrosive sublimate. Taken as a whole, this group of nonfatal cases shows a wage loss of $4,325, and a total disability of 2,013 days. In the second main group are included cases arising from exposure to the elements as well as those due to harmful conditions arising from the manner In which the work is performed and resulting in injuries to nerves, muscles, or bones. For example, it was reported that an inspector in a plant in which elec- trical goods are manufactured suffered eye strain from the constant use of a jeweler's glass. Two elevator attendants had neuritis; a machinist and a coppersmith synovitis; and a stenographer, arthritis. There were 325 nonfatal 54 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. and 2 fatal cases due to extreme cold and 20 nonfatal cases and 3 deaths due to extreme heat. As a result of the nonfatal accidents In this second general classiflcation the total number of days' work lost was 3,587, with an accompanying wage loss of 9!7,036. In the third group are 165 cases of local affections due to the nature of the materials used in the occupations involved or to the manner of performing the work in question. They are distributed as follows: Brass, 3; chrome, 25; cyanide and plating solutions, 6; dust, 16; hides, 15; lime, 6; oil, 6; paint, 4; poisonous vines, etc., 7 ; raw wool, 11 ; washing and .cleansing fluids, 6 ; local irritations, 17 ; miscellaneous, 43. Polishers of brass used in the manufacture of various articles were the ones reported as having brass poisoning. Of the 25 cases of chrome poisoning, tanneries contributed 16; leather factories, 5; dye houses of textile mills, 3 ; and the etching room of a newspaper plant, 1. The workers in jewelry, wire and metal factories were the ones exposed to cyanide and plating solutions. All but three of the poisonings by dyestufEs occurred In textile plants. The remainder was distributed as follows : Millinery salesgirl, 1 ; shoe welter, 1 ; employee in a color department of a tannery, 1. All those affected by the handling of hides or raw wool were employed in tan- neries or leather factories as were those who suffered from the use of lime, with the exception of one wire drawer in a steel mill. Five of the six cases of oil boils occurred In steel and wire plants. The four cases under the head- ing " paint " were infections and were not associated with lead poisoning. Those who came Into contact with poisonous vines, etc., such as ivy and dog- wood, were naturally laborers and carpenters whose work exposed them. In the miscellaneous group are Included such cases as can sores, poisoning from the vanilla bean, wood alcohol as used by tip repairers in shoe factories, or from copper grease as used by wire drawers. In this group as a whole the total disability days amounted to 2,533, and the loss in wages to $4,221. Regrouping in a general way the occupational diseases under the Industries in which they occurred we get the following results : From the manufacture of leather and Its finished product, 72, Including anthrax, lime, raw wool, ■ chrome, hides, dyes, and extreme cold ; from trade, 42, the great majority being frost bites ; from iron and steel mills and other metal trades, 46, including lead, dusts, strains, oil, gases and fumes, lime, plating solutions, and extreme cold; from textiles, 28, due, for the most part, to dyes, chrome, and washing jQuids ; from building and hand trades, 17, including lead, gases, paint, and miscellane- ous ; from food preparers, 12, all except 2 being due to extreme heat or cold, as were most of those in construction and maintenance of streets, street rail- ways, and ice harvesting. Other industries reported 6 cases or less. For all the 354 nonfatal diseases It works out that 8,133 days' work was lost, or that 22 people were constantly disabled for the year. The total wage lost was $15,582. During the year the board was called upon to give hearings Inseveral cases involving occupational diseases. That of employee No. 872 brings out the con- nection between occupation and tuberculosis. The employee was engaged in grinding material used in a sand mill. By Inhaling small particles of stone and dust he contracted fibroid tuberculosis, usually called stone grinder's phthsis ; because of this his lungs became consolidated, and as a result he died. Compensation was awarded his widow. A rather unusual case was that of employee No. 390. She worked In the ■■ cool room " of a candy factory. In which the temperature was kept at from 60° to 65°. She developed facial paralysis — a peripheral-nerve affection — ^the only cause for which in a girl of her age could be cold or exposure. On a report to that effect by medical experts, a finding was made for the employee. In other contested cases compensation was awarded a wlredrawer who had eczema and a cigar maker who suffered from neurosis. A tabulation of the cases of occupational disease under the Massachusetts act, which follows, shows somewhat in detail the industries in which cases, arose, the days lost, and the wage lass on account of such cases. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATIOIf. 55 'Personal mjuries, by diseases of oceupation, July 1, 1913, to June SO, Wl/f. Industry. Other chemical workers Marble and stone cutters Cases. Nonfatal cases. Classiflcation. Non- tatal. Total. Fatal. Total. Days lost. 12 Total. Wages lost. Total. HAEMFXTL SUBSTANCES. 1 1 12 $19 $19 Dusts 1 Do Flour and s;i'ain mills Founderies and metal work- ing. Building and hand trades . . . 1 1 21 365 . .. 196 1 386 42 954 Do 2 1 996 1 1 1 1 1' 1 1 1 280 2 fumes. Do Do Other chemical workers Automobile factories Other iron and steel workers. Printing and publishing es- tablishments. Do 85 6 isi 12 Do Do Do 31 2 321 "ihi' 63 7 Do Construction and mainte- nance of streets, roads, sewers, etc. 8 ...... ...... 505 Hiaes Canthrax) Do 3 3 1 1 132 69 158 142 Water transportation Building and hand trades . . . Lead 3 2 1 17.5 18 26 96 30 67 472 3S 66 272 49 145 Do 1 Do Glassmakers, workers Car and railroad shops Founderies and metal work- ing. "Wagons and carriages Do Do Do Do Do Printing and publishing es- tab ishments. Electrical supplies . . 176 42 45 390 28 i,m' 418 63 108 827 60 Do . Do Construction and mainte- nance of streets, roads, sewers, etc. Do Do Wholesale and retail trade. . . 19 1 1 2,505 MBTtury 1 HAEMFDL CONDITIONS. Extreme cold S t 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 3 364 336 137 660 447 232 Do Building and hand trades . . . 1 Do Do Do T ish curers and packers Flour and grain mills Slaughter and packing houses. Sugar makers and refiners. . - Foundries and metal work- intj. Ship and boat building 70 63 120 108 Do Do Do 2 3 6 88 6 5 10 138 Do Do Do 1 Do 1 2 3 1 2 4 4 6 15 7 11 4 1 1 30 21 4 ' 66 ' 13 ' 8 26 8 106 18 16 Do Do Woo'en and worsted mills. . . Electric light and power companies. ' 20 ' 203 ; 474 ! 407 54 346 970 794 238 112 7 104 975 Water transportation... . Construction and mainte- nance of streets, roads, sewers, etc. Truck, transfer, cab, and hack companies. Tin 128 58 4 42 Telegraph and telephone — Wholesale and retail trade. Do 507 56 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ' COMPENSATION. Personal injuries, Jiy diseases of occupation, July 1, 191S, to June 30, 191Jf — Con. Industry. Cases. Nonfatal cases. Classification. Non- fatal. Total. Fatal. Total. Days lost. Total. Wages lost. Total. HARMFUL CONDITIONS— continued. Warehouses and cold-storage plants. Other persons in trade Professional service .. 3 Do. 19 14 3,'667' J68 28 Do Fertilizer makers 126 2 S5,493 Extreme heat 4 30 6 6 39 10 Do Bakeries Do Sugar makers and refiners . . . Do 1 Do Printing and publishing es- tablishments. 5 6 Do 1 Do Woolen and worsted mills... 3 2 3 2 2 1 Do 7 8 13 20 Do Gas and electric light com- panies. 1 Do Do 6 7 4 77 12 13 ■7 Do Wholesale and retail trade.. Occupations not in indus- tries. Do 20 1 3 128 ■ 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Btrain, fatigue, cramp, faulty positions, ''occupational neuroses," blows, vibration, pressure, etc., causmg injuries to nerves, 'muscles, and bones. Do Building and hand trades. . . Foundries and metal work- ing. Ship and boat buildin? Other Iron and steel workers . Shoes 365 6 23 17 37 7 "454" ""78" 1,300 9 18 24 58 10 Do Do Do Do Wholesale and retail trade . . 7 1,417 lERITANT FLWDS AND . - SUBSTANCES. Brass 1 1 1 38 38 2 73 38 5 Do Other metal workers Do 3 116 21 1 1 2 320 30 390 HI Do . . Printing and publishing es- tablishments. Cottonmills Do Do.. Woolen and worsted mills... Other iron and steel workers. Other metal worl-ers .- Other miscellaneous indus- tries and occupations. Wholesale and retail trade . . 25 350 501 3 1 1 1 32 38 solutions. Do Do 3 24 ■■■59" 4 31 Do 6 73 1 1 1 6 7 1 14 21 Do. Tanneries . Do rotton mills 28 157 98 18 "sis" """ei" ""34" 46 202 134 18 Do.. . . . Do Woolen and worsted mills... Wholesale and retail trade Shoes Do 16 421 Hides 3 12 16 45 26 71 Do Tanneries . . ... Other iron and steel workers. Harness and saddle makers and repairers. Shoes 15 97 1 1 1 3 4 7 4 19 7 13 - 5 27 Do Do Do Tanneries 6 S2 KEDEKAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 57 Personal injuries, by diseases of occupation, July 1, 191S, to June Su, 191Ji — Con. Industry. Cases. Nonfatal cases. Classification. Non- fatal. Total. Fatal. Total. Days lost. Total. Wages lost. Total. IBBITANT FLUIDS AND SUBSTANCES— con. Oil Iron and steel mills 1 5 Do Other iron and steel workers . Building and hand trades . . . Electrical supplies . . 45 ■■■45' ■ 9i "iie' 14 ■■i62' t93 6 $93 Taint 2 2 84 7 205 16 ■ Do Building and hand trades . . . Foundries and metal work- ing. Other liquor and beverage workers. 4 221 Poisonous vines, trees, 1 1 1 1 2 1 32 19 14 3 44 4 96 23 21 5 71 8 shrubs, etc. Do Do Do Do Construction and mainte- nance of streets, roads, sewers, etc. Do Tanneries.. 7 U 224 24 Kaw wool . . 11 1 3 2 14 17 136 9 24 33 178 11 Washing and cleansing fluids. Do Woolen and worsted mills. . . Banking and brokerage Building and hand trades. . . Foundries and metal work- ing. Other iron and steel workers. Shoes Do 6 222 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 constant vibration, blows, pressure, etc. Do 76 176 28 21 5 13 14 35 31 25 423 299 342 56 33 6 33 19 69 42 43 Do. Do Do Jewelry factories Do Cotton mills Do... Do Other miscellaneous indus- tries and occupations. Do Do.. Do Laundries and laundry work. Forestry 17 942 Miscellaneous 1 4 3 1 3 5 1 8 1 2 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 Do Building and hand trades. . . Other chemical workers Other food preparers Foundries and metal work- ing. Other iron and steel workers. Leather belt, leather case, and pocketbook makers. 15 52 28 7 74 9 343 31 91 48 10 104 15 553 Do Do.. Do Do Do Do Do Do 27 58 37 9 77 79 49 47 22 154 Do Do Printing and publishing establishments. Do Do Do other miscellaneous indus- tries and occupations. Workers in "not specified" manufacturing and me- chanical industries. Wholesale and retail trade. . . Occupations not in indus- tries. rift Do 49 32 43 10 785 1,235 354 8,134 15,582 58 FEDERAL EHarpLOYEES^ ODMPEKSATIOlir, STATEMENT t)F ME. MIDDLETON BEAMAN, OF THE LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING RESEARCH FUND OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NEW YOEK. Mr. Beaman. The amendm^t which I have to offer, Mr. Chair- man, on behalf of Mr. McGillictiddy, is to cover objections made two years ago and renewed this year by the governor of the Paiiafna Canal. Two years ago he had, with the chairman of the c'omiftittefe and with Mr. McGillicuddy, through the Secretary of War, some correspondence relating to objections which he then pressed, of two classes: First, objections going to the administrative features of the bill owing to peculiar conditions on the Isthmus; he wanted to make the act easy to administer and more just as applied on the Isthwug. For instance, the bill provides for a minimum compensation of $33.33 a month ; in case the wages of the employee are less than that sum he is to get the full amount of his wages. There are probably very few employees in the Government service who are getting a less compensation than that, but a large number of canal employees from Jamaica are, so that the effect of this bill would be to give t'hem their full pay while they were disabled, and it would be quite an inducement to take a little time off, if the compensation was equal to their wages. The governor also wished that the administration of the act, so far as it affected the Canal Zone, should be transferred to him, instead of being in the hands of the commission, the reasoB for that being their distance from the United States and thf fafct that it would take about 10 days for papers to go back and Sortli, resulting in delay for the employees, and it seemed to Mr. McGilli- cuddy and the labor association that these were desirable amsaid-- ments. The amendment which I am now submitting covers those points and one or two other minor details. It also covers a similar point in relation to the Alaskan Engineering Commission. In that case, as I understand, it would take about 28 days for papers to go back and forth, so that as to this class of employees it seems out of the question to have the act administered by the ceiitral commi^ion. As I have said, the governor of the Panama Canal had two classes of obiections, the first of which is met by this amendment. O'ttier objections which he had were of a general nature and amounted to nothing more than his opinion and the opinions of his subordinates as to what a compensation schedule ought to contain. It seemed to Mr. McGillicuddy and the labor association that there was no reason why the canal employees should be treated oti anv different basis than the other Government employees, and therefore this amend- ment does not meet these objections. I conferred, at Mr. McGilli- cuddv's request, with the canal officers and the Secretary of War. and I am informed that there is now on the wav to the committee a communication from the Secretarv of War inclosing a letter from Gov. Goethals stating all of his objections to the bill, the first class of which are met by this amendment, and other objections of the second class relating to general questions. I understand that the letter- which Gav^-Goethal s has sent states that this amendment coY.ers all the obiections of the first class, and make the comment that as to the objection of the second class the letter of Gov. Goethals is before the committee for whatever action they may take upon it. FEDEBAL EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION. 59 Oh behalf of Mr. McGillicuddy and the labor association I desire to state that as to the objections of the second class they see no neces- sity for having an exception made as to the canal employees. I have nothing further to say, except that I will be glad to answer any ques- tions as to the bill which any of the committee may desire to ask me. Mr. Nelson. You will be available for the subcommittee to go over the bill? Mr. Beaman. Yes, sir. X should be very glad at any time to assist the committee or any of its members. Mr. Gard. Under the broad language of the bill, could you give us an idea of how far that would extend ? The bill covers civilians, civil ofiScers, and employees of the Panama Eailroad Co. Would that be held to include the judiciary ? Mr. Beaman. Well, that depends on whether they are civilian officers of the United States or not. Mr. Gaed. Well, they are. Mr. Beaman. I think it probably would include them ; but might I say that as to all those questions there is a provision in the bill which automatically takes care of it, namely, section 8, which provides that if a man takes his compensation he does not get any salary while he gets his compensation. In the case of the judiciary and men in high official positions their salary goes right along whether they are injured or not, so that they would never make a claim. Mr. Nelson. The retirement provision takes care of that, of course,. to a large extent ? Mr. Beaman. Yes, sir. Mr. Dale. Section 31 provides for the appointment of a commis- sion. Do you consider that section as meaning that the commissioners shall hold their commissions for life ? Mr. Beaman. Yes, sir. Mr. Dale. For life? Mr. Beaman. Yes, sir ; it was so intended. In other words, I think it was the idea of the backers of this legislation that probably one of these men should be an expert in the prevention of accidents and diseases, and another should be an expert in occupational diseases, and that they should by long and continuous service grow in wisdom and knowledge, and this matter being entirely nonpartisan it should be removed from politics. Mr. Volstead. That is, you appoint just three Democrats and let them stay nonpartisan ? Mr. Beaman. If the President so desired, he could do so. Mr. Dale. There is nothing in this bill to show that it is a non- partisan board ? Mr. Beaman. Except that there is no term of office laid down. Mr. Dale. Except, as you just stated, it is for life. Mr. Beaman. I mean there is no term of years. That usually goes along with political appointments, and it is usually fixed at four years. Mr. Dale. I do not know about that. When you appoint a United iStates judge, the one who is appointed by a Democratic President is generally a Democrat, and the one appointed by a Republican Presi- dent, with the exception of President Taft, is a Republican. Mr. Beaman. The proponents of this bill have not considered poli- tics at all. It makes no difference to them whether the commission 60 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. is Republican or Democratic. They hope and trust that the President will appoint the proper men. Mr. Nelson. Well, in case of inefficiency Mr. Beaman (interposing). They could be removed. Mr. Neely. You think it perfectly safe to assume that the present incumbent of the White House will appoint the proper men? Mr. Beaman. We hope so ; we expect so. Mr. Dale. But President Taft said he was the titular head of the Eepublican Party. Do you not think the Republican Party ought to take care of the head? Mr. Beaman. That is a matter of opinion. The Chairman. Suppose a man employed in one of the Governr ment departments should be on his way to work, either on a street car or crossing a street, at 9 o'clock in the morning, and should get injured in a street-car wreck, or should get shot, or if a brick should fall on him from an adjoining building, would that come within this law ? Mr. Beaman. No, sir. That phrase " in the course of his employ- ment " is contained in every act of this kind that I have knowledge of, and it is uniformly construed that way. The Chairman. What is the difference between " in the course of his employment " and " in the line of his duty " ? Mr. Beaman. I am not familiar with what "in the line of duty" means, but the expression " in the course of employment " is not con- strued in that way. There is a statement in the hearings two years ago (p. 23) setting out the details on that point. Mr. Dale. Suppose a Federal judge contracted tuberculosis, would he be entitled to compensation under this act ? Mr. Beaman. It is a question whether that would be an occupar tional disease. I should say that in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a thousand he would not be ; and any commissioner who would hold that he would be entitled to compensation ought to be put in jail, because he wuld be clearly violating the law. Mr. Dale. Mr. Andrews seemed to think he would be. Mr. Beaman. No; I think Mr. Andrews had something else in mind at the time. Of course on account of the peculiar conditions of the court room — I do not mean the ordinary stuffy court room, but if the United States deliberately furnishes the judge with a court room that is known to be full of tuberculosis germs and forces, liim to work there — it might be construed to be an occupational dis- ease, since it was caused by conditions peculiar to his employment. Mr. Dale. Is not a Federal judge supposed to be on duty all the time? Mr. Beaman. I think so. Mr. Dale. Then if he caught it at any time, going to the court- house or coming away or in his own home, that would be in the line of his employment. Mr. Williams. Or he might catch it from a draft from an open window while holding court. Mr. Beaman. From what I have heard here it seems to me that the gentlemen raising these questions fail to read the word " occupa- tional" in the proper way. You rather talk as if the word "occu- pational" was not there. According to the ordinary principles of FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 61 statutory construction the word " occupational " has got to be given some effect, and the moment you give effect to that word you must be led to only one conclusion — that those cases can not be held to be occupational diseases under any proper construction of the term. Mr. Nelson. In preparing this bill did you run down the defini- tions of courts and various officers of the term " occupational dis- ease"? Mr. Beam AN. I do not know where the term occurs in any statute. Mr. Dale. I know a case wherein a verdict was given against a railroad company where a man had tuberculosis from an accident on the railroad. I tried the case myself and got a verdict. Mr. Beaman. Well, you have got to distinguish between an occu- pational disease and a disease which is a result of an injury or an accident. Under the law of 1908, while they have denied compensa- tion to a man who got lead poisoning by working in the hold of a vessel, yet they hold that where by reason of an injury he is in such a weakened condition that the disease gets hold of him he can get his compensation. I remember one case where a man fell from a ladder and severely injured himself. It was the unanimous testi- mony of the attending physician and Government physician that his weakened condition, due to the fall and the injuries he received, was the direct cause of the typhoid fever which he contracted and which laid him up for a long time, and he was awarded compensation. The same is true in all States of this country which limit the com- pensation to personal injury by accident. For instance, where blood poisoning sets in from a cut, or if blood poisoning sets in after any injury, if it is the natural and proximate result of the accident, as the lawyers say, then he is entitled to his compensation, not because it is an occupational disease, but because it is the direct result of his injury. Mr. Dale. Now, Mr. Williams says that he had a case where a letter carrier got bunions and corns on his feet. Would you call that "in the line of his service," and would he be entitled to compensa- tion? Mr. Beaman. No, sir. Mr. Dale. That would not be an occupational disease? Mr. Beaman. No, sir. Mr. Williams. Simply because a man might contract it in the same character of service anywhere ? Mr. Beaman. Yes. Mr. Williams. And yet it was an incident to his particular service in this case, walking and daily carrying his burden of mail ; but it is not an occupational disease within the interpretation of the law? Mr. Beaman. I should say not. Mr. Williams. If you ever had one, you would think it was a disease. Mr. Beaman. I am sure that no one could be more anxious than Mr. McGillicuddy and the labor association to include a definition of this term, if it could be done. Mr. Nelson. What is the effect of Mr. Neely's limitation ? Mr. Beaman. I do not think it has much effect. Perhaps it would have an educational value in directing the mind of the commission to that point, but my opinion is that if they did not direct their minds to that point anyway they ought to be put out of office. ^ FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. Mr. Steele. You define the term " employee " to include all civilian oflGicers and employees of the Government. Does that term, " civiliaa officers," include elective as well as. appointive officers of the Governr ment? Mr. Beaman. I think the term has been very generally construed in this way, that Members of Congress are not officers of the United States within the terms of such a statute. Mr. Steele. Then the term " civilian officers " is contradistiti- guished from naval or military officers? Mr. Beaman. Yes, sir. Mr. Williams. Some of these gentlemen are concerned as to whether elective officers, such as Members of Congress, would come within the terms of this bill. Mr. Beaman. I think there has been a pretty uniform constructioa of statutes of this kind, that they do not include Members of Con- gress. Mr. Steele. Would jt not include judges and cabinet officers? Mr. Beaman. Yes ; I think it would. But they would never make a claim for compensation, because they get their salary, anyway. Mr. Steele. I should think they would. Mr. Beaman. But this bill cuts them out. >. Mr. Nelson. They would have to have $67 and some cents a month. Mr. Beaman. Yes, sir. Mr. Volstead. Well, if a man had only a short term, he would get that for life. The Chairman. If the injury occurred at the close of his term, he would receive it for life after his term expired. Mr. Beaman. No ; because he has to make a claim within 60 days. Mr. Volstead. He could make his claim within 60 days after his term was expired. Mr. Beaman. If it happened to be the last day of his term, he might do it, in which case I do not see why he is not entitled to it. But the committee should bear in mind that the number of cases of permanent total disability (which is the only case where a man can get compensation for life) is less than two-tenths of 1 per cent of the whole number of injuries. Mr. Dale. Well, four years ago we would have had the whole place sick. Mr. Nelson. Suppose it is a matter of fact that it is known that a man is very wealthy., by a bequest, if you please, and yet he would get this compensation if he was disabled- Would you think that just? Mr. Beaman. Well, that is a question a little outside of my sphere. Mr. Nelson. But you are not only preparing the bill; you have given the merits of the bill some consideration. Mr. Beaman. Well, that is one of those cases like any other class of legislation where the strict' application of the law may result in a situation which, if you had your say about it, you would like to change; but it is almost impossible to take care of that by general language in a bill. There may be some cases arising under this laar fuage where some rascal would get money out of the Government; ut there is no way of avoiding it by any provision in the bill. Mr. Nelson. That would not be in the discretion of the commi.s» sion ? PEDEKAL employees' COMPENSATION. 63 Mr. Beaman. If the iiiaia proves that he received the injury in the course of his employment, and if he is disabled, the commission has ao discretion in the matter. The man may happen to have a million dollars ; but, of course, such instances are not frequent in the Govern- in«»t service. The higher grade employees are the ones to whom the risk of injury is almost infinitesimal. The people who get the lower salaries are usually the ones who are exposed to the risks. The Chairman. Who drew this bill, Mr. Beaman? Mr. Beaman. I drew it for the American Association for Labor Legislation, that association deciding all questions as to what policies the bill should contain. The Chairman. That is Dr. Andrews's organization? Mr. Beaman. Yes, sir. The Chairman. We are very mueli obliged to you, Mr. Beaman. The chairman understands that Mr. Clark desires to merely register his approval of this bill. Mr. Clark. I think you are mistaken about that, because I wanted to answer several of the questions that have been raised, if you can give me about five minutes' time. The Chairman. Well, Dr. Andrews said there were two gentlemen who simply: desired to register their approval. STATEMENT OF MR. L. D. CLARK, OP WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. Clark. I would like to say, with reference to the question of hazardous employment, that the construction of the act is that " artisan, laborer, or employee in hazardous employment " is the way in which it has been construed where that qualification is inserted. I was in direct connection with the operations of this act of 1908 for five years, and all those questions were thrashed out for five years and we found out all the holes in the act. The question of hazardous employment is a stumbling block, as it is now in New York State. I hiive just compiled a volume of decisions of the courts for last year, and I find four or five decisions on hazardous employment. A man who was killed by falling over a bucket while delivering meat at ni^t was not engaged m hazardous occupation, the court said, although if he was driving his wagon in the daytime he would have been. Nevertheless, he is dead and his widow has nothing, because it was not hazardous. Mr. Nelson. Are you still engaged in the administration of this law? Mr. Clark. No, sir ; but I was for five years. Mr. Nelson. Secretary Lane wants us to include the employees of the Indian Office. Suppose we strike out the word " hazardous " and apply it to the Indian Office, what effect would that have? What would we take in and what would we leave out in the Indian Service? Mr. Clark. It would simply bring in all, just as it does in the Lighthouse Board. The Lighthouse Board is all included, and also the Bureau of Mines and the Forestry Service. Those have all come in by amendments of the original act. Mf. Nelson. Would it be practicable for an employee to know beforehand whether he was employed in hazardous employment, by means of the Secretary or some one else having classified the em- 64 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. ployees in such a way that they would know which employment was hazardous and which was not? Mr. Clark. I do not think so; because I remember a case on the Canal Zone where a man was cutting grass with a scythe and he was not held to be engaged in a hazardous employment, while an- other man cut himself with a machete, or a corn knife, as I would call it, while he was cutting brushwood in a ditch, and he was held to be engaged in a hazardous employment. Mr. Nelson. Then the whole thing is variable? Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. Mr. Nelson. It all depends on the circumstances? Mr. Clark. On the circumstances and on the turn the commission may give to the construction of the language. Mr. Nelson. It is in the discretion of the men who pass upon it ? Mr. Clark. Yes, sir ; whereas if you say " in the course of his em- ployment" there is no question about it, because if he is hurt he gets his compensation and if he is not hurt he does not. It is just as important to one injured man to get his compensation as it is if 50 or 100 men were injured in the same occupation. Mr. Nelson. When an injury occurs and the administrative officer has to pass upon it, the law simply says "hazardous work" and he has no precedent to go by and he has to guess from his experience and from the circumstances, whether that employment was haz- ardous. Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. Mr. Williams. Does the question of assumed risk come up under this bill? Mr. Clark. No, sir ; that is absolutely eliminated. Mr. Dale. Do I understand you to say that the Lighthouse Service is not included in the bill? Mr. Clark. It is included, whether it is hazardous or not. The Lighthouse Service has a separate provision. I would like to call your attention to a little article that gives the history of all com- pensation attempts by this Government from 1882 down to 1908. In this article also are various arguments relative to the inadequacy of the present law. As an example of its unfairness and expensive- ness, there is a case on record where a workman earning more than $2,000 a year remained out of work for 51 weeks and drew $2,008 as compensation. Mr. Nelson. I request that that article be printed in the record. Mr. Taggart. Let it be printed in the record. Mr. Volstead. Is there any difference between the expressions " in the course of his employment" and " in the line of duty "? Mr. Clark. Well, I would say that " line of duty " seems to have been dropped out entirely except in certain special instances. Mr. Gard. You never saw "in the line of duty" in any compen- sation act? Mr. Clark. No, sir. Mr. Gard. That would be an adoption of the words of the pension law. Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. There may be cases where " line of duty " would be restrictive, but I can not pick them out now. Cases of lead poisoning have been reported on naval vessels, and also cases of eczema and synovitis, and I think in some of these cases there have FBDBBAL EMPLOYKEs' COMPENSATION. 65 been compensations paid under the present law. I do not know that eczema has been, but synovitis and hernia have been so construed and have been compensated for under a construction of the law which i call broad, and which I do not make. As to the liberality of the liEiw, in New York it is two-thirds for life. Mr. Nelson. Two-thirds of their wages irrespective of the amount? Mr. CiiAEK. In Massachusetts it is for 10 years, and in New York and Ohio it is for life. Mr. Nelson. If a man draws a salary of $1,500 a year, he gets $1,000? Mr. Clark. No. There is a maximum in some cases. It is a two- third rate with a limitation. Mr. Nelson. Not two-thirds of the full wages? Mr. Claek. No, sir. Mr. Beaman. In New York it is $20, and in other States it is 40 per cent for life. Mr. Clark. Now, as to the attitude of the departments to this law, I think it is safe to say that they are all in favor of it. We consulted them two years ago, and if they have changed their opinion since, then we do not know it. Another disease is caisson disease or " the bends." In that case the Engineer Department insisted that we let men who are suffering from caisson disease be compensated, and when the matter was taken up with the solicitor for the department, first he said that they did not come in, but I argued that they did come in, and finally he revised his opinion, though on statements from the Engineer Department, and not from anything that I said. Mr. Taggart. Explain that disease. Mr. Clark. "The bends"? Mr. Taggart. Yes, sir. Mr. Clark. It is also called caisson disease. A man works under heavy air pressure under water. He goes down in a bell under very heary air pressure, and he is in there a few hours and the capillaries become charged with air and they swell up. If he comes out too soon those capillaries burst and produce tiny hemorrhages all over the body, and they are very painful inside the body. If the men come out gradually, there is a gradual readjustment and the air is expelled slowly under a reduced pressure, and injury will not take place; but it sometimes happens that there is an injury that disables a man. Mr. Taggart. What was the question about that disease? Was it whether it was an occupational disease or accident ? . Mr. Clark. Yes ; it was brought in by the Solicitor of the Depart- ment of Commerce and Labor as an accidental injury. The British law calls it an occupational disease and lets it in on that basis. Our solicitor let it in as being an injury by accident. -Mr. Taggart. It might be defined as either one. Mr. Clark. I think so. Now, I have here a few amendments which I think would help the bill. I will leave them here and Mr. Beaman will meet the subcommittee and talk them over. Mr. Gaed. Tell us briefly what they are. Mr. Claek. The first relates to cases of injury causing partial disability. The amount of compensation should be 66f per cent of the monthly pay for a period of 30 months in the case of the loss of 26687— PT 3—16- 66 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. an eye or the sight of one eye, and in the case of loss of hearing of one ear, compensation to be at the rate of 66§ per cent of the monthly pay for 20 months. Of course, in many occupations a man can lose one eye and not lose any wages because he can go back to his old pay, but he has suffered an economic injury, because if he changes his employment it may make a considerable difference because of that disability. A Michigan court recently decided that a man could not f:et anything over nine weeks because that was all the time it took or his eye to get well and he went back to his old wages, though his vision was seriously impaired. But everybody knows that a man with only one eye can not get any job he wants. I think there ought to be some compensation for the loss of an eye or loss of hearing of one ear not expressed in terms of compensation. I also recommend that if any injured employee shall persist in insanitary or injurious practices which tend to either imperil or re- tard his recovery, or shall refuse to submit to such medical or surgical treatment as is reasonably essential to promote his recovery, the com- mission may, in its discretion, reduce or suspend the compensation of any such employee during the continuance of such practice or refusal, but that this provision shall not apply in case of injuries resulting in death. We have had cases under the act of 1908 in which a man refused to accept any kind of medical treatment or to take any kind of surgical treatment and demanded that he receive his full compensation, and under the act nothing could be done be- cause that act provides only for the paying out of the award provided by law. Mr. Taggaet. You have reference to those who are conscientiously opposed to medical treatment? Mr. Clark. Well, I had not any thought of that before. Mr. Taggaet. Well, say in the case of occupational diseases. Mr. Claek. I know there are such people in the world. Mr. Taggaet. There are certainly a great many of them, but would you want to put in an amendment here providing that the commission in determining his compensation shall take into consideration the fact that a man did not believe that there was any particular virtue in medicine and conscientiously refused treatment, when he con- tracted an occupational disease? Mr. Claek. I should say that the attitude of society on that ques- tion is such that he would have no right to come to society and ask it to humor him in that notion, which was making himself a burden, when he could be relieved by accepting approved medical treatment. Of course, I would not say that a man should be forced to submit to • an operation which might result in loss of life or limb. Mr. Taggaet. Of course, there would be no case of imaginary com- pensation. Mr. Claek. I suppose you are speaking sarcastically. I do not think he would smell a check and say he was paid. In reference to payments to children, we have cases where a stepchild received noth- ing because the surviving widow had no interest in the child. In one case there was a guardian and we were able to divert a part of the money to the guardian. One of the amendments that I would suggest is, on page 6, line 24, insert the words " if any such child has a guardian other than the surviving widow or widower, the payment in behalf of siich child shall be made to his or her guardian." COMPENSATION. 67 Mr. Taggart. I suggest that you insert those amendments in the record. Mr. Clark. I will. Mr. Andrews. I think it also ought to be made plain that Mr. Clark's amendments are merely submitted by him as an individual, and not as a representative of the administration, which is in com- plete agreement with the bill that is before you. Mr. Taggart. That is, the administration favors the bill as drawn, and these are suggestions offered by Mr. Clark individually. Mr. Clark. They are purely personal. If they fall, all right. Permit me to add that I have made a study of the question of com- pensation for a period of about 10 years, involving careful attention to the principal European laws and an analysis of every law passed on the subject in the United States, together with their operations and their construction by the courts; I was also directly connected with the administration of the Federal law of 1908 for some 5 years; and in the light of the experience and knowledge thus gained, I heartily urge the enactment of the McGillicuddy bill as an excellent measure — ^by far the best in sight in its field. The amendments pro- posed by me are in the nature of " counsel of perfection," as I view it personally, and while I believe they would add to the merits of the measure, my chief concern is to see the enactment of the proposed law at the earliest possible moment, believing this to be to the best interest of all parties concerned. Amendments Pkoposbd to H. R. 476. Strike out the period in line 14, page 2, and add : " .• Provided, hoioever, That in case of the loss of an eye or of the sight ofone eye, the amount of compensation payable shall be not less than sixty-six and two-thirds per centum of the monthly pay for a period of thirty months ; and in case of the loss of hearing of one ear, compensation shall be at the same rate for twenty months." These are disabilities that may not find their expression immediately in a reduction of wages, but are none the less absolute disadvantages from an economic standpoint. Return to work with but one eye after the few weeks spent in recovery from the disabling condition of the wound, and with no com- pensation payable under conditions of perhaps brief duration, leaving the work- man to seek new employment with such a handicap, is leaving too great a share of the burden on his shoulders. A Michigan court recently determined in a specific instance that the law of that State did not allow any payment beyond the nine-weeks pay for total disability, in a case where the vision was seriously impaired ; and such cases are not infrequent under the present law of 1908. The States of Ohio and Wisconsin adopted a schedule of awards for maiming after two years under a percentage law ; while the majority of States have schedules by original enactment. Add at the end of section 10 : " If any injured employee shall persist in insanitary or injurious practices which tend to either imperil or retard his recovery, or shall refuse to submit to such medical or surgical treatment as is reasonably essential to promote his recovery, the commission may, in its discretion, reduce or suspend the com- pensation of any such employee during the continuance of such practice or re- fusal ; but this provision shall not apply in case of injuries resulting in death." This provision will enable the commission to deal with cases, the like of which have occurred, in which an injury was neglected willfully, and compensa- tion still recovered under the present act, which lacks such a provision; it is found In a number of States (Illinois, Indiana, Washington, Wyoming). Following the period in line 24, page 6, insert : " If any such child have a guardian other than the surviving widow or Widower, the payment in behalf of such child shall be made to his or her gtiardian." 68 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. This win provide for Hie interests of stepcliildren, wliicli may not otlierwise be attended to, as shown in experience with administration. t The entire section (11) is overburdened with detail, which is afterwards thrown out by subsection (J). Distribution to classes of dependents, where more thdn one class exists, would better be left to the commissioners to be determined according to the circumstances, as also for partial dependents. A new subsection should be added to section 30, subrogating the United States to the right of action of the injured employee or his personal repre- sentatives where the latter fail to enforce their right against the third person legally liable to pay damages for the injury. I would name the commission " The Federal Compensation Commission," and anticipate the administration by it of a law for interstate carriers, which seems an inevitable development in the light of progress in the legislation of the States of the Union ; also of a law covering employees in the District of Columbia, both private and of the District government — a much needed law. since only the common law without mitigati6D is the basis of recovery for employees here, while a majority of the States (31) give their citizens the benefit of a compensation law, generally of fair liberality. Respectfully, L. D. Clark. EXTENSION OV LAW TO COVER ALL EMPLOYEES. The following brief table shows the whole number of accidents reported as occurring to Government employees, other than on the Isthmian Canal, for the years 1909-10, 1910-11, 1911-12, and 1912-13. The classification is not a per- fect one, but is based on the reports from departments, services, and estab- lishments as shown In Table I of the department's report on operations of the act (pp. 83-91) and later corresponding data. Year. . Apparently included in act of 1908. Apparenth excluded from act of 1908. Total. 1909-10 . ... 2,688 2,916 3,457 3,913 1,066 867 1,205 1,420 3 754 1910-11 3,783 4,662 5,333 1911-12 1912-13 be liberal. The number of these cases in which disability continued for not more than three days is not known, but the number continuing for not over seven days in 1909-10 was 24.45 per cent of the total; in 1910-11 it was 26.22 per cent, in 1911-12, 27.35 per cent, and In 1912-13, 27.58 per cent. The number excluded from consideration by reason of the fact that disability did not continue for more than 15 days was 38.56 per cent in 1909-10, 39.19 per cent in 1910-11, 40.19 per cent in 1911-12, and 40.57 per cent in 1912-13; but if those falling belOw three days are excluded, It seems that the estimate of an addition of one-third to the number of cases now subject to consideration would " ADJUSTMENT PERIOD " PAYMENTS. The number of cases of loss of limb or other part of the body in 1909-10 was 202, of which 170 were compensated and 32 noncompensated. Employees of the Canal Zone furnished 117 of the total number reported. Assuming that all would have been compensated under the type of law contemplated, this number forms less than 8 per cent of the total claims allowed during this period. In 1910-11 there were 200 such cases reported of which 155 were compensated and 45 were not. Assuming again that all should have been compensated, they form less than 7 per cent of the compensated cases for the year. This seems to meet fully the criticisms that in most cases the adjustment bonus wbuld be recieived In addition to other benefits. (Kept., pp. 75, 76.) CASES EXTENDING BETOND ONE TEAK. The data for this subject can not be given the degree of weight that would be possible If the law were of a type calling for the following up of disabilities beyond the year in which the injury was received. Omitting the Cana.1 Zone, FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 69 there were 146 deaths, or 3.92 per cent of all Injuries reported in 1909-10, and in 1910-11, 101, or 2.08 per cent. In 1909-10, 40 cases, or 1.08 per cent were reported as over 365 days, but not permanent, and 14 cases, or 0.38 per cent as permanent. In 1910-11, 28 cases, or 0.74 per cent of the total were for above 365 days, but not supposed to be permanent, while 29 cases, or 0.77 per cent, were classed as permanent. These are cases of total disability, and must be added to the cases of maiming above mentioned, which would usually call for partial disability payments. " The Kern and McGillicuddy bills are the most comprehensive ; they make provision for beneficial payments to Federal employees suffering from occu- pational diseases, and for the appointment of a Federal commission to ad- minister the act when passed." (Report of the Proceedings of the Tliirty- third Annual Convention of The American Federation of Labor, held at Seattle Wash., Nov. 10 to 22, 1913, p. 51.) "A number of bills are reported as having been introduced in the Congress for the purpose of extending the Federal comp'ensation act to all employees of the Government and for the further purpose of increasing their benefits." " The executive council recommends the Kern and McGillicuddy bills as being the most comprehensive. Your committee recommends that the activity of the executive council in the matter of furthering the principle of worlimen's com- pensation through the several States and through the Congress be indorsed and approved, and that the executive coimcil and the legislative committee be in- structed to continue their efforts in support of the Kern and McGillicuddy bills, and further, to aid, as far as is possible, in the passage of laws in the several States for the purpose of providing adequate compensation and relief to vic- tims of industrial accidents. The report of the committee was adopted bs unanimous vote." (Report of the Proceedings of the Thirty-third Annual Con- vention of the American Federation of Labor, held at Seattle, Wash., Nov. 10 to 22, 1913, p. 295.) " A large number of bills were introduced in the House and Senate as amendments to the Federal employees' compensation law, S. 738, by Senator Blern, of Indiana, and H. R. 15222, by Representative McGillicuddy, of Maine, are very complete, comprehensive compensation bills, both of which were ap- proved by the Seattle convention, and strongly advocated because of the fact that they make provision for beneficial payments to Federal employees suffering from occupational diseases, as well as those directly injured while in the em- ployment of the Government. No action has been taken in the Senate Com- mittee on Education and Labor on the bill by Senator Kern, but the bill by Representative McGillicndy was reported out of that committee favorably on April 21, 1914, and is now on the ITniou Calendar. It was called up in the House June 15, 1914, but no decisive action taken upon it. This is an excep- tionally meritorious measure and its passage through Congress should be urged by our membership." (Report of the I'roceedings of the Thirty-fourth Annual Convention of the American Federation of Labor, held at Philadelphia, Pa., Nov. 9 to 21, inclusive, 1914, p. 79. ) Resolution No. 36, by Delegate Hugo Ernst, of the California State Federa- tion of Labor (introduced by instru(ftion) : " Whereas within the past few years public opinion and sentiment lias become much awakened to the Justice of adequate compensati(jn to workmen in- jured by industrial accidents, and during that time marked progress has been made in favorable legislation providing compensation for injuries or deaths of employees and giving recognition to the rightful liability of an employer for the safety of workmen in his employ ; and " Whereas the United States Government should properly l)e foren\ost to set a high examijle and take the lead over the several States in humanitarian measures of this character, the scope of which is world-wide ; and " Whereas the provisions of the compensation acts of the United States Gov- ernment applying to accidents and injuries of its employees are inade- quate and not lip to tlie standard of similar Ijiws in a number of the States: Therefore be it " Resolved, That tlie American Federation of Labor, in thirty-fifth annual convention assembled, hereby pledges fullest support to secure congressional enactment of laws for compensation of injuries to the Government employees in keeping with the best of the recent State laws. ' We urge that such Govern- ment laws embody provisions (1) compensation of every day of injury; (2) a more adequate death benefit instead of one year's pay as at present; (3) com- 70 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. pensation to extend for a greater period than one year if injuries are serious, and partial or total disability results ; and be it further "Resolved, That these resolutions be submitted through proper channels to the Congress of the United States, with a request for favorable action by that body." "The committee recommends the adoption of the resolution as amended. The report of the committee was adopted." (Report of the Proceedings of the Thirty-fifth Annual Convention of the American Federation of Labor, held at San Francisco, Cal., Nov. 8 to 22, inclusive, 1915. ) EXTBACT FROM EEPOET OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF I.AJ50R EXECUTIVE COUNCIL. Efforts will be renewed during the next Congress to secure the passage of the best principles contained in the McGillicuddy bill, which is practically a reconstruction of the Federal employees' compensation act. Notwithstanding our most earnest endeavors it' was impossible to get consideration of the Mc- Gillicuddy bill In the House after it was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. (Report of the Proceedings of the Thirty-fifth Annual Convention of the American Federation of Labor, held at San Francisco, Nov. 8 to 22, in- clusive, 1915, p. 97.) STATEMENT OF MR. FRANK T. ROGERS, OF WASHINGTON, D. C, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POST- OFFICE CLERXS. Mr. Rogers. I am president of the United National Association of Post-Office Clerks, representing 28,000 post-offices clerks in first and second class post offices. My only purpose in coming before you at this late hour is to advise you that our association at its last con- vention, held in September, unqualifiedly indorsed the McGillicuddy bill as it was pending at the last session of Congress. This question has been taken up by the various State asociations of our body. The post-office clerks are coming to have a greater interest in legislation of this kind because of the rapid growth of the parcel post. Labor- saving devices are being rapidly installed, particularly in the larger offices, and as a result accidents and injuries have increased, and we earnestly hope that your committee will see its way clear to make a favorable report on the McGillicuddy bill. Mr. Nelson. Have you any data on the injuries in the Postal Serv- ice that you are prepared to submit? Mr. EcGEEs. No, sir; I have none now, but I can submit it. Mr. Taggaet. I suggest that you do so. You are at liberty to sub- mit a reasonable amount of matter for the record. Please typewrite it and submit it to the committee, and it will be printed in the record. The First Assistant Postmaster General in his annual report states that during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1915, claims for compensa- tions for injuries had been allowed to 30 clerks employed in first and second class post offices. In the same report it is stated that one death claim in the sum of $2,000 had been approved in the same fiscal year. The death claim was allowed in the case of G. E. Grutch- field formerly a clerk in the Oakland (Cal.) post office, who was killed by an elevator. These particular claims were allowed under the provisions of the law passed by Congress March 9, 1914. This act of March 9, 1914, applies only to certain employees of the Postal Service, and is what might be termed a very limited com- pensation act. Compensation for injuries under this act are not paid beyond a period of two years. Neither does this act provide for any FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 71 compensation to the widow or other dependant relatives beyond the flat sum of $2,000. This act of March 4, 1914, relieves the Government of any re- sponsibility in the event that the injury sustained, or death resulting from such injury was due to the negligence of the employees. Be- cause of the interpretation placed upon this proviso in the law, the Post Office Department had declined to allow any of the claims sub- mitted for injury by rupture, incident to the lifting of heavy pouches or sacks of mail by post-office clerks whose duty it is to perform such tasks The pending bill under discussion before your committee (the McGillicuddy bill) provides for compensation for all injuries and deaths unless '•' caused by the employee's intention to bring about the injury or death of himself or of another." I wish to bring to the particular attention of the committee the case of Mr. Arthur Rump, formerly a clerk in the St. Louis post office. Mr. Rump was forced to resign from the service more than five years ago because of total disability arising from an injury received while on duty in the St. Louis post office. A form of paralysis resulted from the injury and Mr. Rump is now ankylosed in all joints and . is unable to move any part of his body except his arms. As long as he lives he will be totally disabled. Another case in mind is that of a post-office clerk who is totally blinded because of poisonous dust getting into his eyes off of tinsel souvenir post cards which he was obliged to distribute. As stated in my opening remarks, our association is deeply in- terested in the enactment of this legislation because of the increasing liability to injury to post-office clerks with the increasing installation of labor-saving machinery in post offices. STATEMENT OF MR. EDWARD J. CANTWEIL, SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS. Mr. Taggaet. State your name. Mr. Cantwell. Edward J. Cantwell, secretary of the National AssociatiQn of Letter Carriers. Mr. Taggart. And your residence ? Mr. Cantwell. Washington, D. C. Like the gentleman who has just spoken, I do not care to occupy the time of the committee further than to say that the National Association of Letter Carriers, repre- senting 34',000 letter carriers employed in the City Delivery Service, have indorsed this compensation bill introduced by Representative McGillicuddy, and as the representative of that organization I come to add my testimony and urge the committee to give its earnest and serious consideration to this bill. The Chairman. If you have anything further to submit, you may send it in in writing and it will be inserted in the record. Mr. Gard. I suggest that those who have spoken or who have been here may have the right to amend and extend their remarks. Mr Taggart You may loolt over your remarks and add to them and insert any further remarks that you see fit. Of course, this privilege is given broadly and you will be discreet in putting m a reasonable amount. 72 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATIOBT. (Mr. Dyer offered the following letter, and asked that it be inserted in the record:) Januaby 13, 1916. Hon. L. C. Dyee, Washington, D. C. My Dear Me. Dyee : Keplylng to yours of the 11th instant inclosing copy of H. R. 476, being the Federal employees' workmen's compensation law, I am very favorably impressed with this bill, and believe that if passed without amendment it will make one of the best laws ever enacted. There are, however, a few changes which it might be well to consider : 1. Section 11 (B), page 6, line 16, change " her " to " his." 2. Section 3. A standard for total disability ought to be fixed in the law, as the loss of two eyes, two feet, or two hands. 3. Section 4. This establishes the standard for measuring compensation for partial disability on the basis of impairment of " wage-earning capacity." This standard is all right for temporary partial disabilities, but I believe a better one for permanent partial disabilities can be found. Most States have adopted the New Jersey plan of having the law prescribe a ilat-rate compensation for certain specified injuries, irrespective of age and occupation, injuries not speci- fied to be proportional to those specified. The defects of this plan are that no account is taken of age or occupa*^ion, and the large number of unspecified injuries produce much uncertainty and lead to mahy disputes. The better plan is that adopted in the California law, which delegates the subject to the commission, subject to the requirement that the percentage of disability to total disability shall be determined, taking into account the nature of the injury and the age and occupation of the injured, and the compensation is then two-thirds of this percentage of disability times the wages for the compensation period. If the committee is interested in changing this feature of the law, I will be glad to send you a copy of a paper which I have written suggesting certain modifica- tions in the California plan. Retention of the injured employee in the service could be provided for by allowing the Government credit on the compensation for two-thirds of wages subsequently paid which are in excess of the percentage of disability times the wages on which the compensation is based. 4. Section 5. This seems to be contrary to the spirit of the construction. A man should be free to choose his own employment, without any compulsion or penalty. He may have good reasons for refusing a proffered employrdent. It would be better to reduce the compensation by a flat rate — say, by 20 per cent — during such refusal. The initiative of the injured employee and his right to better his condition ought not to be stifled, and it must not be forgotten that he still bears the injury for which the Government is paying him compensation. 5. Section 8. See under sections 4 and 5. 6. Section 11 (D) , page 7, lines 10-11 ; section 12, page 10, line 19. The expenses of guardianship and administration should be avoided, if possible, by paying direct to the person entitled thereto, or to parents of children, or allowing the commission to appoint a guardian in the compensation proceedings. 7. Section 16, page 12, line 14. Forty-eight hours is too short a time for notice. It should be not less than a month. 8. Section 22. Organized labor will fight the bill as long as it contains thi^ provision. The few cases of fraud which such a provision might discover (gen- erally cases of hernia) do not make up for the large number who may be kept out of employment by it. 9. Section 30. Where the injury is caused by circumstances for which an- other is liable, allowance of a claim for compensation should subrogate the Government to the employee's cause of action against the third person. You will note that section 1 makes the Government liable for all injuries sustained in the course of the employment, irrespective of whether due to a cause arising out of the employment. The Government would have to pay for the injuries of a messenger boy struck by a street car while running an errand, and should be subrogated to his cause of action. If any of these suggestions appeal to the committee, I will be glad to amplify them and draw the necessary amendments. With kindest personal regards, I remain. Very truly, yours, Alroy S. Phillips. FEDEBAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 73 STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. FLAHERTY, SECRETARY-TREASURER NATIONAL FEDERATION ()F POST OFFICE CLERKS. I am grateful for this opportunity to place before the Judiciary Committee of the House the views of the organization I have the honor to represent, the National' Federation of Post Office Clerks, upon this most important legislation you are considering. This McGillicuddy measure, which seeks to provide compensation for employees of the United States suffering injuries or occupational diseases in the course of their employment, has not only the unan- imous support of the classified civil-service workers of the Govern- ment but the organized-labor movement of the country, as repre- sented in the American Federation of Labor, has repeatedly urged its enactment. In order that the committee may learn of the inter- est the workers of the country, in and out of the Government service, have in this measure I will incorporate in my statement the action taken by conventions of the American Federation of Labor and the National Federation of Post Office Clerks upon the subject matter you are discussing in this bill. At Indianapolis, Labor Day, 1913, and again in San Francisco, Labor Day, 1915, the National Federation of Post Office Clerks in convention assembled unanimously adopted resolutions asking Con- gress to enact the Kern-McGillicuddy bill, the same legislation that is now before this committee. In my report to the San Francisco Convention of the National Federation of Post Office Clerks, I said: "This convention should record its views in favor of the enactment of the Kern-McGillicuddy compensation law and instruct its legislative representative to ac- quaint the Sixty-fourth Congress with the necessity of a compre- hensive, scientific measure of this character for the protection of civil- service employees injured in or by the performance of their duties. " The present law affecting injured postal employees is admittedly inadequate. It affords no protection to supervisory employees and only partial protection to substitute employees. In justice to all civil-service workers an adequate compensation law, in line with modern thought on this subject, should be enacted by the Sixty- fourth Congress." The convention adopted this portion of the report, and I therefore stand instructed to urge this committee to report to the House the McGillicuddy bill, a measure which will give needed protection to thousands of postal workers who now have no relief in those numer- ous cases of incapacitation through occupational diseases. The desire of the post-office clerks for more ample protection than was accorded them by the legislation enacted by the Sixty-third Congress was communicated to the Postal Department in a memo- rial submitted after the San Francisco Convention of the National Federation of Post Office Clerks, reading: We sincerely appreciate the department's effective advocacy of the legisla- tion enacted by the Sixty-third Congress to provide relief for certain postal employees injured in the performance of duty. We feel however, that this legislation should be amplified to include em- ployees not now coming within its purview, and we therefore ask the depart- ment's aid in securing the enactment of the legislation sought in the Kern- 74 FEDEBAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. McGillicuddy bill, a comprehensive and scientific compensation-for-injury meas-, ure, which will afford proper prptection to all Government employees In the classified civil service. The post-office clerks stand in particular need of legislation which provides compensation for disability caused by diseases contracted in the course of their employment. Our work is not hazardous, though the installation of overhead convej'ors and numerous other labor- saving mechanical devices has increased the hazards to the distribut- ing force which must work with and around this machinery. Unlike the letter carrier, we do not have to meet the dangers incidental to trafveling the crowded streets or the icy pavements, neither do we have the risks of the train travel of the railway mail clerk. The chief danger arising from the occupation of the post-office clerk, how- ever, comes from the fact that he must, in too many cases, work in basements, poorly lighted and poorly ventilated; in overcrowded workrooms, in an atmosphere heavy with dust and germs. He must handle mail equipment reeking with the accumulated filth of years, sacks and pouches heavy with grime. Because of these working conditions, which prevail behind the costly exteriors of many of our largest post offices, the dreaded tubercular ailments are not uncommon among the clerks. That tuberculosis is an occupational disease among post-office clerks has frequently been contended. There are on file in the post offices throughout the West and South- west thousands of applications from post-office clerks in the larger eastern offices who want to transfer to a less rigorous climate. The reason assigned in most cases is merely " for my health." But behind these words there usually lies the pitiful tragedy, the story of the young man in the full bloom of health entering the service, the years of night work, the days of nerve-racking toil, the unhealthful surroundings, the body susceptible to disease, the physical breakdown, and then the feverish desire to " get out West " where priceless health may be won back. In Los Angeles, San Diego, and other post offices in southern California, throughout Arizona and New Mexico, the postmasters in self-defense have established rigid rules to prevent transfers into their offices. They claim this is necessary to prevent the office from being filled with men who are suffering from serious tubercular ailments. The legislation provided in section 10 of this bill is in line with what the postal employees' organizations have attempted to accom- plish in the past. We want the Government to open up the Army hospitals to emploj'ees disabled by injury or occupation in the civil service. We have long contended that some arrangement could be made to at least care for the tuberculosis patients at the Army hos- pitals in the Southwest. ; The National Federation of Post Office Clerks is at present investi- gating the feasibility of establishing quarters in Arizona where treatment can be given to members afflicted with tuberculosis. In my report on this subject to the San Francisco convention I said : SICK LEAVE. It is my opinion that iu lieu of attempting any serious agitation for a 30-day annual vacation, we should aim to extend to the postal employees the statutory enactment which now enables other Government employees to enjoy the privi- lege of a 30-day sick leave in every year. Postal workers who are ill and FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 75 olerks working nights amid unwholesome surroundings are susceptible to sick- ness should not be made to suflfer the additional hardship of loss of pay. In many instances no substitute is employed to take the place of the stricken one, his fello^v• workers by additional efforts fill the gap, and the deducted pay is reckoned as an economy and diverted to other uses. This practice is not in accord with the present humanitarian method of many private employers, who seek to afford protection to employees during the stress of sickness. It is true that the employees through their organizations are able to assist one another during periods of sickness, but this does not absolve the department fi-om its responsibility in endeavoring to minimize the hardships incidental to an employee's incapacitation. The present departmental regulation which limits sick leave in any one cal- endar year to loO days is particularly reprehensible, and every effoi-t should be made by this organization to acquaint our employers — the American people — with its cruelties. This convention should consider the feasibility of securing accommodations for tubercular treatment for afflicted members. I made some investigation int(i this subject when in Arizona and believe it is within the financial resources of the federation to establish comfortable quarters where competent treatment can be given. I suggest the appointment of a committee for further investigation of this most vital matter. Enlightened trade unions are giving thought to the care of their sick mem- bers. Two large international unions, the Typographical and the Pressmen's, have suitable homes for this purpose. Two other international unions, tlio Carpenters' and the Barbers', are at work now on the subject. This organiza- tion should not be remiss in its duty toward those brothers who are in need of the help when sorely afflicted. The American Federation of Labor*has for a number of years been urging Congress to improve the Federal workman's compensation act. The Seattle convention of the organized workers, held in November, 1913, specifically indorsed the Kern-McGillicuddv bill, the identical legislation that is now before you. The resolutions read: Kesolution No. 13, by Delegate Thomas F. Flaherty of the National Federa- tion of Post Office Clerks: Whereas a measure has been introduced in Congress, known as the Kern- McGlllicuddy bill, which provides adequate compensation for Federal civil- service employees who are injured while on duty ; and Whereas this bill is of paramount importance to. postal clerks and letter car- riers, who have heretofore been without redress in the event of injury or death while on duty ; therefore, be it Resolved, That we, the American Federation of Labor, in convention as- sembled, recognizing the urgent need of this humane legislation, instruct our legislative committee to do all in its power toward securing the enactment of the Kern-McGillicuddy bill. In its report to the Philadelphia Convention of the American Federation of Labor, held in November, 1914, the executive council made this reference to the Kern-McGillicuddy bill : A large number of bills were introduced in the House and Senate as amend- ments to the Federal employees' compensation law, S. 738, by Senator Kern, of Indiana and H. K. 15222, by Uepresentative McGillicuddy, of Maine, are very complete, comprehensive compensation bills, both of which were approved bv the Seattle convention, and strongly advocated because of the fact that they make provlsfon for beneficial payments to Federal employees suffering from occumtXal diseases as well as those directly injured whde in the employ- ment of the Government No action has been taken in the Senate Committee "n Mucat^on and L^for on the bill by Senator Kern but the bill by Uepresent- ative McGUicuddy was reported out of that committee favorably on April 21, 1914 Sis now on the "union" calendar. It was called up in the House June 15 1914 b^t no decisive action taken upon it. This s an exceptionally memo, i'ous measure and its passage through Congress should be urged by our 76 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. membership. The subject matter of this bill should be particularly called to the attention of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor of which Hon. Hoke Smith, of Georgia, is chairman. . . j At the last convention of the American Federation of Labor, held in San Francisco in November, 1915, the executive council reiterated its ideas on what a model compensation law should contain. It will be noted that these model sections are incorporated in the McGilli- cuddy bill. The report reads: The convention adopted the report of the committee on education, which con- tained the following specific recommendations in connection with the subject of compensation legislation coming before the several State legislatures : 1. Endeavor to bring the basis of compensation rates to a minimum of 66J per cent of the wages of the injured. 2. Endeavor to obtain an extension of time during which benefits should be paid for accidents resulting in amputations. 3. Widows whose husbands are killed In industries to receive compensation during widowhood. 4. Increase of benefits on the basis of the number of children under 18 years of age. 5. Administration of compensation laws in future to be under the supervision of State commissions appointed for that duty alone. 6. The elimination of employers' liability insurance companies and the estab- lishment of State insurance companies, the funds of same to be administered by the State compensation commission. We recommend that the following additional provision be added : 7. Compensation to be paid for dftith or illness from occupational diseases. During the legislative period since our last convention eight more States and the Territory of Alaska were added to the States enumerated in our report at Philadelphia, the additional States enacting compensation laws during the ses- sion of the legislatures in 1915 being Colorado, Indiana, Maine, Montana, Okla- homa, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wyoming. Favorable action toward the en- actment of a compensation law was taken by the Legislature of Utah, which created a commission to investigate the question and report a bill for the con- sideration of the next legislature. In New Mexico a workmen's compensation bin was passed by the house, but it was defeated in the senate. In Idaho the bill was vetoed by the governor because it was claimed that the measure passed by the legislature was weak in many particulars and generaly ineffective. The Alaska compensation law Is elective, and applies only to mine and related haz- ardous occupations. Several State legislatures, among them being Connecticut, Michigan, New York, and Rhode Island, revised their former compensation laws in response to the demand of our membership in order to insure more efficient and liberal op- eration. Efforts, without success, were made by our members to make com- pensation laws in other States more liberal. We cooperated with our member- ship in Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New York, Okla- homa, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming and other States in their efforts either to secure Initial legislation on the subject or to improve such legislation already in existence. The Missouri Legislature refused to act upon the report of the third com- pensation commission appointed in that State. We regret to report that the Kejitucky law was declared unconstitutional on the pretense that " the State constitution prohibits any limitation of awards " by the supreme court of the State. The constitutionality of the compensation law of California and other States has been upheld by their State supreme courts. A constitutional amendment will be submitted In Pennsylvania so as to make It possible to secure a compulsory compensation act Instead of an elective act. More uniform and definite standards as to the manner in which compensation shall be awarded and the method of administering the law have been adopted in the measures enacted this year. Lack of uniformity Is a feature of the several laws previously enacted In other States, and which is clearly outlined in Senate Document 419, Sixty-third Congress, second session, which contains the report of the special committee appointed by us to investigate and report on the subject matter of workmen's compensation. There are 17 States still without compensation legislation or effective em- ployers' liability laws, viz, Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. 77 Jdalio, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Nortli Cai-olina, NortVi Dakota, Soutla Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utali, and Virginia. "We feel greatly encouraged, however, witli tlie progress we luive made in 31 States, the Territories of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Philippine Islands where we have secured compensation laws in some form since our original effort before Congress in behalf of Federal employees in 1908, and we feel sure that as time goes on aud new experiences are obtained, the compensation laws of the States now possessing them will be materially expanded and improved so that the backward States above mentioned will have the benefit of established, uniform standards upon which to shape their compensation laws, whenever our member- ship in those States shall become sufficiently aggressive to insist upon their enactment by the State legislature. Efforts will be renewed during the next Congress to secure tlie passage of the best principles contained in the McGillicuddy bill, which is practically a recon- struction of the Federal employees' compensation act. Notwithstanding our most earnest endeavors it was impossible to get consideration of the McGilli- cuddy bill in the House after it was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. The committee reporting on this executive council's report to the convention had this to say : Upon that portion of the report of the executive council the connnittee re- ported as follows : Tour committee recommends that full indorsement be given to this portion of the report, and that approval be given to the additional provision which has been prepared by the executive council. Vice President Duoan. The additional provision is that compensation be paid for death or illness from occupational diseases. This is a very important sub- ject, and it is a very valuable addition. The committee may have something of a general nature to recommend to the convention upon the sub.1ect of work- men's compensation and employers' liability after it has been further discussed by the committee. I may state in connection with this addition to the list that recently a decision was given in the State of Massachusetts which is very far-reaching and affects a great many trades where they have consumption that is attributed to occupa- tional diseases. Some of the compensation laws will not permit of the decision that was rendered in Massachusetts, and I mention it so that it will be in the minds of the delegates for what it may be worth. A member of my own trade in Milford, Mass., died from consumption. The consumption was traced to what is known as stonecutters' consumption, an affection of the bronchial tubes be- cause of the dust the men breathe, which irritates their throats. This man died from consumption traceable to the breathing of dust in the granite indus- try, and about 10 months after he died, the fight having been made in the courts, consumption was decided to be an occupational disease, and the amount of money warranted by the law in the State of Massachusetts was paid to the man's family. The report of the committee was adopted. The San Francisco convention further recorded its views upon the subject of adequate workmen's compensation by the adoption of these resolutions : Whereas within the past few years public opinion and sentiment has become much awakened to the justice of adequate compensation to worl!;men injured by industrial accidents, and during that time marked progress has been made in favorable legislation providing compensation for injuries or deaths of employees and giving recognition to the rightful liability of an employer for the safety of workmen in his employ ; and Whereas the United States Government should properly be foremost to set a high example and take the lead over the several States in humanitarian measures of this character, the scope of which is world-wide ; and Whereas the provisions of the compensation acts of the United States Govern- ment applying to accidents and injuries of its employees are inadequate and not up to the standard of similar laws in a number of the States : Therefore be it Keiolved That the American Federation of Labor in thirty-fifth annual con- vention assembled hereby pledges fullest support to secure congressional enact- ment of laws for compensation of injuries to the Government employees in 78 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION. keeping with the best of the recent State laws. We urge that such Government laws embody provisions: (1) Compensation of every day of injury; (2) a more adequate death benefit, instead of one year's pay, as at present; (3) compen- sation to extend for a greater period than one year If injuries are serious and partial or total disability results. And be It further Resolved, That these resolutions be submitted through proper channels to the Congress of the United States, with a request for favorable action by that body. Whereas the Illinois State Supreme Court has made a decision interpreting the Illinois State compensation law and the Federal liability law as applied to the workers in the transportation industries in such a manner that where the injured worker or his dependents have no case under the liability law it must be settled under that law, and where he has a good case and could collect large damages under the liability law that it must be settled under the compensation law; and Whereas various States have compensation laws, either elective or compulsory, while the workers engaged in transportation or in interstate commerce are governed by the Federal liability law, which is confusing and gives judges great latitude in construing compensation and liability legislation in favor of the corporations: Therefore be it Resolved, That this convention of the American Federation of Labor instruct its officers to draft and present to the next Congress and use all their influence to have enacted a compulsory workmen's compensation law, to be applied to all industries, or as far as it is practical to apply it, within the Federal juris- diction. I trust that the committee will heed the wishes of the Government employees and the organized labor forces of this country by report- ing to the House this McGillicuddy bill. The remedial legislative features it contains means much to the postal and other workers not now protected against occupational disease nor enjoying the benefit of an annual sick leave. Early action on the part of the committee, so that the bill can get an advantageous position on the calendar, will bring renewed hope to the hearts of thousands of postal employees who have seen their brothers torn and broken by a disease contracted in the service summarily separated from their positions by the rigid efficiency laws operating in the Postal Service. Cornell University Library HD 7816.U6A3 1916a Federal employees' compensatlon.Hearings 3 1924 002 552 465