When did he return to work?___ If not working, but able to work, when did disability end?__ (In days, weeks, and months.) Dates of beginning and end of subsequent idleness due to later effects of injury. Was death the ultimate result of accident?_ Partial disability. What proportion of his full week's wage was paid injured employee?.. Detail the changes, if any, in this proportion during period of disability (State here whether owner, lessee, superintendent, or who.) (Original and supplementary report to be printed with copying ink.) INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILLING OUT ACCIDENT-REPORT BLANKS. NOTE.-No statement contained in this report is admissible in evidence in any action arising out of the death or accident therein reported, and each report is to be regarded as confidential information furnished to the proper official for statistical and remedial purposes only and not to be divulged. (The above presupposes the inclusion of such a clause in the act making mandatory the reporting of accidents.) (1) Answer every question. Be careful not to omit address as well as name of employer and to give the number of employees. (2) The immediate report is to be sent within 48 hours, not counting Sundays and legal holidays, after occurrence of an accident. (3) In all correspondence be sure to mention the number of the report in question. (See upper left-hand corner.) (4) Each accident or fatality must be reported on a separate blank, accidents resulting in death to be reported immediately. This form is to be used in reporting all accidents. (5) Wages are to be given by the week. Where employees are paid otherwise than by the week, give average earnings per week. (6) If the injured has not returned to work at the time of making the main report. the supplementary report is to be detached, retained until the employee returns to work, or until the end of three months. If he has not returned within that time, then it is to be filled out and sent in. (To avoid error, fill in the name of the injured and the serial number of the accident before detaching the supplement from the main report.) (NOTE-The matter of a printed form for filing information purposes to go on the back of the blank is left to the judgment of the individual Federal official or State commissioner of labor.) The CHAIRMAN. If Prof. Wigmore is here, we will hear from him now. STATEMENT OF JOHN H. WIGMORE, ESQ., DEAN NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, CHICAGO, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM LAWS. Prof. WIGMORE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here to represent the national conference of State commissioners on uniform State laws by request of Mr. Hollis Bailey, of Boston, who is chairman of our committee on uniform workmen's compensation laws. I have no desire to express for our committee any opinion on any of the substantial matters entering into such an act, but only by request of the chairman to present the matter from the point of view of the desirability of a uniform law. Of course there is first the question of Federal and State conflicts, which this other body for the last two days has been wrestling with; and then, as we all appreciate, there is the tremendous difficulty of the increased cost of this proposed system to the extent that uncertainty exists in the burden that will be imposed on the employer. The insurance companies will, of course, raise rates to the highest degree necessary to protect them, and every uncertainty tends to increase that rate. Consequently we ask you to consider as a separate and important part of your task the enormous desirability, if possible, of some uniformity at this fortunately early stage of the work. There are now 8 or 10 acts. No two of them can be put together so that they will match at any point. If that thing continues, the primary stages of the new system will be in litigation almost as bad as what we are emerging from. From the point of view of uniformity, then, it appears to us that the work of the national conference of State commissioners may well be taken into consideration by your committee. That conference represents from three to five commissioners from each State, and it meets annually. It has been for technically one and substantially two years working on the subject, and the first tentative draft is now before you. I will mention, then, only two suggestions as to the ways in which with the good favor of your committee there could be some further emphasis placed on uniformity. If you will notice, for example, sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 in this act you will see that on one of the great questions which comes up in this matter, the question as to whether the act shall be compulsory or optional, that this is the only act out of the 15 serious drafts or studies that have been proposed in this country so far, with the exception of one other, which has now fallen into obscurity, I think, Mr. Sanders-with the exception of one other it is the only act which, when you take it to a legislature not knowing whether the majority of that legislature will be for a compulsory or optional act, can be turned into one or the other by simply dropping out the fourth section. I have, and I think all of the members of the committee which I represent have, been engaged in drafting for at least two different. commissions an act along these lines. We have always found when we came to that point that the hardest thing to secure, not knowing what the legislature would do, was an act which if the legislature on that point voted one way it could be cut into that shape without endangering the complete act and rendering obscurities and complications inevitable. That is just one sample, then, of the way in which if we can start with a uniform scheme of an act, and we come to the day when there are 50 States using it, we shall have a beneficent condition of things instead of a mere tangle. You will notice also that there are in this act several grand divisions, which is another vital feature in any attempt to secure uniformity. There are bound to be differences of opinion in the minds of the different legislators, and unless you are working on a uniform scheme, when you come to the amendment or changing of an important detail, that change should be able to be effected by investigating and inspecting that part of the act. If you want to find out what is to be done with independent contractors, for instance, it ought to be possible to take the first, second, and third grand divisions of all the acts for an insurance company, for instance, and figure out just how the 15 different acts stand on the question of contractors' or third parties' liability. Those are simply two ways in which, from the drafting point of view, uniformity can be secured. I beg leave to say, however, that your task is then only begunthat is, after you have made up your minds what the substance of your act is to be. I will venture then, merely as representing this national conference, to make, if it does not seem presumptious, this suggestion: On Saturday and Sunday, the 4th and 5th of November, in New York City, this committee will have a further meeting. If there were any way in which, by committee or informally, one of your honorable committee could attend, it would be of the greatest service to us in helping us to make up our minds; and possibly when the time came that your committee should come to the drafting stage, and it would not be asking too much, it might be possible for one of our members to attend your meeting, so that when your work is done and our work is done, all the things that your Federal act has will fit in and unite with all the things that our national conference act has, and in that way the representatives of both the States and the Federal Government will unite in the adoption of a uniform bill. REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE MATTER OF UNIFORM WORKMEN'S To the commissioners on uniform State laws in twenty-first national conference: The special committee on a uniform workmen's compensation law respectfully reports as follows: At the annual conference held at Chattanooga in August, 1910, at the suggestion of the president of the conference and on the recommendation of the executive committee, it was voted that the president appoint a special committee of seven to consider the advisability of forming a uniform law on the subject of workmen's compensation for personal injuries, and, if found expedient, to draft such a law. The president appointed as such committee the following: Vice Chancellor John R. Emery, of New Jersey; Hon. Peter W. Meldrim, of Georgia; Dean John H. Wigmore, of Illinois; Aldis B. Browne, Esq., of Washington, D. C.; Charles Thaddeus Terry, Esq., of New York; John R. Hardin, Esq., of New Vice Chancellor Emery being unable to serve, George Whitelock, Esq., of The committee met in Philadelphia October 22, 1910, and organized by electing Hollis R. Bailey, Esq., as chairman, and Charles Thaddeus Terry, Esq., as secretary. The committee has held a number of meetings and has done a very considerable amount of work in investigating the subject of workmen's compensation for personal injuries. The committee very early reached the conclusion that it was very desirable for the conference of commissioners to undertake the work of preparing a uniform workmen's compensation law. The committee was represented by three of its members at a conference held in Chicago in November, 1910. This conference was attended by members of six or seven different State commissions appointed to draft acts for their several States. The conference lasted for three days, and the proceedings were afterwards printed and copies can be obtained from the chairman of this committee. The committee was also represented by three of its members at a conference held in New York in December, 1910, under the auspices of the National Civic Federations. The committee was also represented at one of the hearings before the Federal commission appointed by Congress to draft a national act on this subject. The committee was also represented at hearings held in Boston by the commission appointed by the Legislature of Massachusetts to frame an act on the subject. The committee has had a considerable correspondence with different persons throughout the country engaged in framing acts, and has received and examined a large amount of printed matter. The committee has received much very valuable assistance from P. Tecumseh Sherman, Esq., of New York, a member of the legal committee of the National Civic Federations. The committee is also indebted to Charles Henry Butler, Esq., chairman of the special committee appointed by the American Bar Association to consider the matter of workmen's compensation. It has also received valuable assistance from Walter George Smith, Esq., president of the conference, and from Hon. William H. Staake, chairman of the executive committee. The committee early in April prepared a tentative draft of a uniform law, which was not printed and was distributed to only a few persons outside of the committee. This draft was made on the theory of compulsory compensation before the decision of the New York Court of Appeals in the case of Ives v. The South Buffalo Railway Co. holding the New York compulsory workmen's compensation act to be unconstitutional. The committee subsequently decided, after very full discussion and consideration, that in view of existing constitutional and other difficulties it was not expedient to frame its tentative act on a compulsory basis. It has framed a tentative act upon what is called an elective basis, requiring the assent of both employer and employee before its taking effect as to either of them. A copy of this tentative draft is hereto annexed. It is submitted in order that the commissioners of all the States may consider it and make suggestions. All the members of this committee reserve the right to change their views as to any or all of its provisions. The committee very carefully considered the question of framing a tentative act based upon the principle of State or mutual insurance. They were, how ever, led to the conclusion that the difficulties in the way of such legislation were so great that it was not expedient to frame their tentative draft along those lines. Ten States have passed general acts providing for compensation to workmen for personal injuries. These States are: New York, New Jersey, Washington, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Ohio, Kansas, California, Nevada, and Massachusetts. The law of New York, as already stated, has been declared to be unconstitutional. Of the civilized nations of the world 22, including all the principal European countries and most of the English colonies, have enacted workmen's compensation laws. Many of these are on the basis of insurance, but in none is the right to compensation confined to cases where the injury was owing to the fault of the employer. Some of these acts are based upon the principle of State or mutual insurance and some on the principle of payments by the employer to the employee and his dependents. A copy of each of the acts passed in the United States, not including Massachusetts, has been published by the United States Bureau of Labor in Bulletin No. 92, of volume 22. The work thus far done has made it very evident to the committee that the subject of workmen's compensation for injuries is of too great importance and involves too far-reaching consequences to be dealt with hastily. The committee invites suggestions from all the commissioners and from all others who are interested in this important subject. HOLLIS R. BAILEY, Chairman. CHARLES THADDEUS TERRY, Secretary. PETER W. MELDRIM, GEORGE WHITELOCK, JOHN H. WIGMORE, Special Committee. UNIFORM WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT. AN ACT To make uniform the law relating to compensation to employees for personal injuries sustained in the course of their employment. Be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives in general court assembled and by the authority of the same as follows: I. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES granted anD AFFECTED HEREIN. SECTION 1. Employments covered. This act shall apply to all employees engaged in industrial occupations. SEC. 2. Injuries covered. If an employee in any such employment receives personal injury arising out of and in the course of such employment, he shall be paid compensation as hereinafter provided. SEC. 3. Injuries not covered. If an employee is injured by reason of his own serious and willful misconduct, he shall not be entitled to compensation hereunder. SEC. 4. Compensation doubled. If an employee is injured by reason of the serious and willful misconduct of the employer, or of his superintendent, the amounts of compensation, hereinafter provided, shall be doubled. SEC. 5. Injuries not covered; time of incapacity. An employee shall not be entitled to compensation for any injury which does not incapacitate him for a period of at least two weeks from earning full wages. If such incapacity extends beyond the period of two weeks, compensation shall begin on the fifteenth day after the injury. SEC. 6. Right to compensation exclusive. The right to compensation and the remedy therefor, herein granted, shall be in lieu of all rights and remedies now existing either at common law or otherwise, and such rights and remedies shall not accrue to employees entitled to compensation under this act while it is in effect. SEC. 7. Election by employer and employee. This act shall not be binding upon any employer or any employee unless they have agreed in writing to come under the provisions hereof. Minors may make such agreement. SEC. 8. Duration of election. After an employer and an employee have so agreed, they shall remain so bound for at least one year if the employment shall last so long. After the expiration of a year either may give notice in writing to the other that he will not longer remain subject to the provisions of this act. SEC. 9. Defenses in case employer does not elect to come under this act. If an employee has notified his employer in writing that he desires to come under the provisions of this act, and such employer has refused so to do, or has omitted for seven days after receipt of such notice to inform the employee in writing that he also is willing to come under this act, then, if thereafter an action is brought to recover damages for personal injury sustained by such employee |