the Empire, as the third interested party, takes a share on itself. To raise the requisite funds, however, it has been found desirable to substitute for the assessment system of the Accident Insurance the procedure of covering the capital value of the annuities (formerly for certain periods, now by average premiums), since the solidarity between the present and the future contributors in the particular industrial groups of the Accident Insurance here no longer exists.

The expenses for the entire workmen's insurance are reckoned according to the experiences hitherto made.

The contributions of the workmen's insurance are fixed for the Invalid Insurance (since January 1, 1900) according to the procedure by average premiums; thus the contributions of this branch of insurance probably remain equal. It is the same in the case of the Sick Insurance (irrespective of the benefits now enlarged, see p. 7), whilst in the Accident Insurance the contributions correspond to the actual yearly expenses (assessment system) and rise still further, according to the increasing number of pensioners, up to the state of permanence (see p. 26). The annual contributions of the Accident Insurance are reckoned according to the procedure by average premiums as follows:

Industry 12.36 marks, agriculture 2.54 marks, in the average 6.00 marks per head of insured persons.

Therefore, the charges of the entire workmen's insurance on the year's average would be the following:

Thus the workmen on their part do not pay even the half of the whole charges (i. e. only 14.95 out of 33.71) and generally they get more back as compensations than they pay in as contributions. These conditions of insurance are

so favorable both to employers and employed as to exceed anything that could even be offered by private companies, which are compelled to earn a profit and which as a rule expend for management at least three times as much as compulsory insurance. The average results for the 50th year on Table C and D (p. 35-36) have been calculated according to the previous valuations during the preparations of the workmen's insurance laws, and as regards the Invalid Insurance according to the former system of covering the capital value of the annuities for certain periods. (Compare the statistical "memoir" to No. 93 of the prints of the Reichstag, Session 1898-1900, p. 81 foll. and the stenogr. reports, 3rd supplement p. 1798 foll.)

CONCLUSION. (SHE TABLE A.) The three branches of the German National Workmen's Insurance - Sickness, Accident, and Invalidity Insurance — supplementing one another mutually, form a complete organization, and have result in the formation of a new workmen's code, which in the inevitable fluctuations of modern industrial life will afford to all those in need of assistance a welcome aid, and in its further development carrot fail to exercise a great ad salutary influence on the econon ical and social condition of the working people, indeed, on the entire nation. Thus, in the years 1885 1993, on THE GROUND OF THIS LEGISI ATION, the following compensations Lave already been granted to the work

so that until the end of 1993 about 69 millions of persons (sick, injured, invalided or their families) have received 4 milliards of marks as compensation. The workmen, however, have paid in orly the small half of the contributions and have got alrody 14 illiards - - 1,500 millions of marks more as compensations than they have paid in as contributions. At present 14 millions of marks are experded daily in Gorway for this branch of provisions for workmen alone, whilst the accumulated funds alrely amount to 1 milliard marks, about 400 millions of which have been spent ia constructing workmen's dwellings and special establisheerts for sick, injured, invalided and convalescent workpeople, public baths and the like institutions for the bend it of the working classes. (See Table A and the Summary in the "Amitliche Nachrichten des Reichs-Versicherungsamts" year 1899, p. 661 and year 1991, p. 221 foll.)

As, however, the circumstances which tend to disturb the good relations between employers and employed are everywhere much the same, the hope is

natural and well justified, that the consideration and forethought which the German laborers owe to the beneficent initiative of their magnanimous Emperor and to the ready sacrifice of their employers will find an echo in other civilized courtries, for the welfare of the human race and the consolidation of social peace and concord!

BASED ON MUTUALITY AND SELF-ADMINISTRATION

is compulsory for all Wage-Earners' in Germany irrespective of Nationality and, unlike mere Poor-Law Relief, confers on every Insured a legal Claim, - proceedings free of expense- to certain Assistance in case of Sickness, Accident, or Invalidity (infirmity and Old Age).

REMARKS.

'Wage-workers professional workmen and laborers on wages; Wageearners all persons working for wages or salary (up to 2,000 marks per annum), as well as workmen and laborers as industrial and agricultural officials, commercial assistants and small emplovers (masters and farmers). The numbers are taken from the financial statement 1902 (1). Persons employed for wages or salary (see note 1) in Trade and Commerce, partially in Agriculture (Forestry) and Domestic Service: see Table B. Persons employed (see note 1) in Industry and Agriculture (Forestry) - not in Commerce, Handicraft and Petty Trades-, including about 4,800.000 small farmers (with areas under 10 hectares) and 1.500.000 persons insured in additional or double employment; see Table C. 'Persons having received legal assistance in money for the or in kind (free medical or hospital treatment, medicines, etc.) provided by the workmen's insurance laws for disability caused by sickness, accident, invalidity or old age; see Tables B. C. D. III. Excluding balance in hand at the commencement of the year and interest on investments. $1 Mark 100 Pfennigs has the money value of about 1 Shilling or Dollar, but the same purchasing power in Germany as about 2 Shillings in Great Britain or Dollar in America • Including State Subsidies; see Table C. I. "Excluding the year's addition to the funds. "Including the current costs of the whole organization. 12 Provided by law in order to secure the payments named (note 6). 'Average amount paid out for each case of sickness, accident, invalidity at old age; see Table B. C. D, II. Average amount paid in per head of insured; see Table B, C, D, II. 15 Established by Imperial laws embracing the whole Empire.

14

13

APPENDIX XIV.

REMARK:

- British Workmen's Compensation Acts: in particular the texts of the "Workmen's Compensation Acts of 1897 and 1906" (Bulletin of Bureau of Labor, May 1907) including historical sketches of legislation leading up to their enactment and the practical operation of the same by Launcelot Packer. See also the opening remarks of the Chairman at the Hearings held in Cleveland, Toledo and Columbus, and in particular the brief of Emery, presented on November 30th, 1910, at the hearing in Columbus, Ohio. There follows also below a digest of the Compensation acts of:

Austria, Belgium, British Columbia, Cape of Good Hope, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Queensland, Russia, South Australia, Spain, Sweden, and Western Australia.

BRITISH WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.

[By Launcelot Packer, LL. B.]

HISTORY OF LEGISLATION AND ATTEMPTED LEGISLATION LEADING UP TO THE BRITISH WORK MEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.

CHANGING ATTITUDE OF PUBLIC OPINION AS TO RELATIONS OF MASTER AND SERVANT. The attitude of public opinion in England toward the relations of master and servant, of which the latest law regulating the accidents of industry is an outcome, is shown by the current decisions of judges, by attempted legislation, and by the legislation adopted.

That this attitude has changed greatly with the times is illustrated by Parliament's expression of view in 1825, that "all combinations of workmen are injurious to trade," while in 1875 a diametrically opposite view was held, and legislation was enacted in accordance with that view, it being then admitted by the Conservative leader, Lord Beaconsfield, that "for the first time in the history of the country employer and employed sit under equal laws." Again, in 1837 it is said that "principles of justice and good sense" require "that a workman should take on himself all the ordinary risks of his employment," while in 1897 the legislature said, "sound economic doctrine requires that the employer should take all the ordinary and extraordinary risks involved in the carrying on of his industry." a

Examination of the workmen's compensation act of 1897, as amended in 1900, of the parliamentary steps by which it became law, and of its working, leads at the outset to the inquiry into judicial decisions of sixty years before, and the measures subsequently introduced into Parliament dealing with accidents which were the result of the growth and concentration of industries.

COMMON LAW OF NEGLIGENCE.

In 1837 the general principles of the common law of negligence formed the only basis of recovery by a workman from his employer for an accident. Under these general principles a man was held to be responsible to others, includ

a See lectures by A. H. Ruegg, K. C.

ing his servants, for injuries resulting from his own negligent acts, or from the negligent acts of his agents in the scope of their employment.

FELLOW-SERVANT DOCTRINE.

A decision rendered by Lord Abinger in 1837 under the common law of negligence, in the case of Priestly v. Fowler (3 Mees. & W. 1, Murph. & H., 305), is largely responsible for subsequent attempted legislation and for legislation enacted affecting a master's responsibility to his servant in case of negligence. In this decision was enunciated the doctrine "that a master could not be held responsible for an accident to his servant if such accident were caused by the negligence of a fellow-servant," this being called "the fellow-servant doctrine," or "the doctrine of common employment." This doctrine, whether rightly or wrongly expounded in this decision, has operated as a defense to actions by servants against their masters for damages for injuries resulting from the negligence of their master's agents, if such agents were fellow-servants, and has thus left the workman no redress in many cases where a stranger would have had redress.

The fellow-servant doctrine has been supported on the ground of its ex pediency (as preventing accumulation of alarming liability), on the ground of "its tending to prevent accidents" (by making each servant watch his fellowservant), and on the ground of "contract" (it being held to be one of the "implied terms" of the contract of employment). On the other hand, it has been the subject of bitter attack ever since it was enunciated, the statement having been made that it was an exception to the general law of negligence, putting workmen in a worse position than strangers to their employer; that it tended to make employers less careful in the selection of their employees, and that it was founded on a legal fiction, not on a voluntary contract.

The doctrine was entirely repudiated in Scotland until imposed on that country by a House of Lord's decision in 1858 (Bartonshall Coal Company v. Reed, 3 McQ., H. L. Cas., 266). Though it remains operative to a certain extent, as modified by the employers' liability act of 1880, the practical workings of the workmen's compensation acts have largely counteracted its effect in the trades to which these acts apply. From allusions to it in debates in 1897 on the workmen's compensation act it seems likely to be soon entirely extinguished by Parliament.

Opinions of lawyers have differed as to the soundness of the decision, some holding that it rightly interpreted the existing common law, and others that it entirely without warrant engrafted a new doctrine into the law, but it is now according to high English legal authority almost universally admitted to be not only unjust, but also based on illogical reasoning.

DOCTRINE OF ASSUMED RISK.

The doctrine of assumed risk was another defense against an employer being held liable for accident, a doctrine generally based on an "implied term" in the contract of service. It was laid down in the case of Priestly v. Fowler (supra) that a servant "assumes all the ordinary risks which are incidental to his employment." (An important corollary of this doctrine of assumed risk is the aforementioned doctrine of fellow-service, namely, that one of the risks incident to the service which the workman agrees to assume is the risk from the negligence of a fellow-servant.) This implied term of his contract of service left the workman to bear the risks he knew or ought to have known, including the burden of dangers inherent in the business, such as unavoidable accidents, etc.