coal trade bulletin - Clpdigital.org

28 THE COAL TRADE BULLETIN.
that they were carrying on plans of their own
which they considered better.
The employer who complains of the law because
it requires him to pay compensation for an accident
in which he is clearly not to blame, or which
possibly may be due to the fault of the injured
person, will get a broader view of the law when
later he is relieved from a liability suit with full
damages in a case in which he has been wholly at
fault. Likewise, the employee who receives no
compensation, for the reason that his injury incapacitates
him for a time shorter than the legal
waiting period, will get a different and a better
idea of the law later when he or some fellowworker
meets with a permanent injury and receives
compensation promptly without controversy.
While at the outset the compensation acts were
not exclusive, but were given in addition to the
workmen's common law right of action for negligence,
the tendency to make the compensation
remedy the exclusive one has grown until now
the majority of the statutes furnish an exclusive
remedy, and it can be well said that the principle
of making the remedy exclusive, provided the
compensation is adequate, is now accepted by both
employers and workmen as the proper method.
In the absence of compensation laws, undoubtedly
there would have been a
EI'RTIIEII EXPANSION
of the employers' liability, with their defenses
removed and the adoption of strict safety requirements.
This is indicated by the recent decision
of the United States Supreme Court in reference
to the Federal Safety Appliance Act, under which
the railroad company is even held liable to an
injured employee for failure to keep safety appliances
in order. But it is recognized that under
the best liability law a large percentage of workmen
must be without protection, as many accidents
cannot be traced to legal fault on the part
of the employer and may occur where safeguarding
appliances cannot be installed.
The Commission found a growing satisfaction
with compensation laws among both employers
and workmen. All suggestions for changes related
to the Compensation Law, no one seriously
thinks of repealing it or going back to the old
liability system. Persons attended the conferences
who had originally opposed the compensation
plan, but who, after experience under it, expressed
their warm approval of its principles. Among
these, besides both large and small employers,
were workmen.
The workmen's compensation laws have improved
the relations between the employer and
workmen; they have had a marked effect upon
accident prevention by calling attention to the
subject and exciting interest in safeguarding ma­
chinery and in the organization of safety committees,
ancl they have created a general campaign
for accident prevention. The difficulties feared by
some employers and some workmen have not, to
any great extent, materialized under the actual
operation of the laws; while the commission
heard some statements to the effect that the laws
lead to fraud, deception and malingering on the
part of employees, and discrimination by employers
against certain classes of workmen, these complaints
have generally come from those who have
had little or no experience under such law, or
have had so few accidents in their establishments
that their opinion can hardly be considered
against those of men at the
HEAD OF ESTABLISHMENTS
who have had a large and active experience even
in the short time that the laws have been in effect.
The latter class of employers generally
stated that they have found little, if any, malingering
or deception; that that can be avoided, and
that the laws are easy in administration and fair
in their operation. However, it is claimed by
some that there has not been sufficient experience,
during the short time that the statutes have been
in force in the United States, for these troubles
to develop; that they do exist in European countries,
and that they will develop here unless the
administration of the laws is safeguarded in these
respects.
In the States where there are Industrial Accident
Boards, having power to pass upon settlement
agreements; to make rules and regulations;
to require the filing of receipts showing the actual
payments of cempensation to the men; and having
arbitrations and hearings before them in
cases of dispute, the law is being fairly administered,
and employees are receiving promptly their
full compensation under the law. It is evident
that danger of fraud and deception can be prevented
only when the law is administered through
a board or officials charged with powers and
duties similar to those of the existing State
Boards. For instance, in New Jersey, where
there is no duly constituted authority, not over
60 per cent of the amounts payable under the
statute are received by the workmen.
It is the general opinion both of employers and
workmen in the States covered by this inquiry
that all employments, with the possible exception
of farm labor, domestic servants and casual employments,
should be included, and that any restricted
classification is not only unjust but leads
to confusion and uncertainty.
The subject of medical attention to injured employes
is one of utmost importance. With a few
exceptions, the States require that the employer,
in addition to the compensation, shall pay the
medical bills of the injured workmen, with cer-