necessarily require a jury trial." (Montana Co. v. St. Louis Min. Co., 152 U. S. 160.)49 The principles are well summarized by Mr. Robert J. Carey. In his view the decisions do not require trial by jury for the purpose of adjudicating a claim made by an employé against a government agency, for the payment out of a tax fund of a stipulated sum alleged to be due such employé as insurance. "Such right so vested in the employé is not a new private right against his employer. Thus it bears no resemblance to new substantive private rights akin to common-law rights, though created by statute. It is rather a right to share in a tax fund, and thus is necessarily a claim against the government, though the details of the law might be such that the claim is to be made against a government agency, as, for instance, a bureau, commission, or association. The fund against which such claim is made is collected admittedly in a summary proceeding; the right to an interest in such fund arises not for the purpose of recoupment in damages on account of a private wrong done the employé, but solely because the employé, being a victim of a prevalent evil, is to be protected by the state as a member of a class of society. The right, indeed, is in one respect akin to the right of a landowner in an eminent domain suit to compensation due him in lieu of his property appropriated. In the present instance the employe's chose in action against his employer for a person wrong suffered is taken from him, and in lieu of which he is paid a benefit for the appropriation of such right. Under such circumstances, even though a controversy arising over the payment of a fund take judicial form, we think it within the power of the government to determine the character of the remedy." 9950 , 119 Pac. 49 Northwestern Imp. Co. v. Cunningham, Mont. 554, citing Montana Co. v. St. Louis Min. Co., 152 U. S. 160. 50 Brief on Power of Congress in respect of Industrial Insurance § 99. Whether act may be optional.-It is well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States that if an act mandatory in form can be constitutional, it will likewise be constitutional if it is voluntary in form.51 This conclusion was reached in the bank deposit guarantee fund cases which came to the court from the states of Oklahoma, Nebraska and Kansas. The law of the latter state was voluntary in form in certain of its vital features. The laws of the former were obligatory in form. Speaking of these differences Mr. Justice Holmes said: "The most important of these is that contribution to the fund is not absolutely required. On this ground it is said, and was thought by the Circuit Judge, that the law could not be justified under the police power. We cannot agree to such a limitation. If, as we have decided, the law might compel the contribution on the grounds that we have stated, it may try to bring about the same result by the creation of motives less compulsory than command and of disadvantages in holding aloof less peremptory than an immediate stop. We shall not go through the details of minute criticism. urged by the appellants, in most if not all of which they are in no way concerned. "Perhaps the most striking of these subordinate matters is the preference of ordinary depositors over other creditors, a preference that seems to be overstated by the appellants. "This, obviously, is in aid of what we have assumed and the Law of Workmen's Compensation, p. 137, citing McElrath v. United States, 102 U. S. 426, 26 L. ed. 189; Guthrie Nat. Bank v. Guthrie, 173 U. S. 534, 43 L. ed. 798, 19 Sup. Ct. 513. 51 Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104, 31 S. Ct. 186, 299; Shallenberger v. First State Bank, 219 U. S. 114, 31 S. Ct. 189; Assaria State Bank v. Dolley, 219 U. S. 121, 31 S. Ct. 189. to be the one of the chief objects and justifications of such laws, securing the currency of checks. The ordinary deposits are those that are drawn against in that way."52 52 Assaria State Bank v. Dolley, 219 U. S. 121, 31 S. Ct. 189. Sec. CHAPTER IX. SUMMARY OF FOREIGN COMPENSATION LAWS. 100. Outline of foreign workmen's compensation laws. 101. Austrian schedule. 102. Belgian schedule. 103. British Columbia schedule. 104. Cape of Good Hope sched- 105. Denmark schedule. 111. Hungarian schedule. § 100. Outline of foreign workmen's compensation laws. By the term "workmen's compensation laws" are meant enactments which embody the principle that the workman is entitled to compensation for injuries received in the course of his employment. Such laws have been enacted in twenty-two foreign States. Usually the injuries must cause disablement for a specified number of days or weeks before compensation becomes due. The employer may usually be relieved. from the payment of compensation if he can prove that the injury was caused intentionally or by wilful misconduct, or in some countries by the gross negligence of the injured person or during the performance of an illegal act. The industries usually covered by the acts are manufacturing, mining and quarrying, transportation, build 1 The sources of this chapter are found in the 24th annual report of the Department of Commerce and Labor.-[AUTHOR.] ing and engineering work, and other employments involving more or less hazard. In Belgium, France, and Great Britain the laws apply to practically all employments. In Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Spain, and Sweden, only workmen engaged in actual manual work, and in some cases those exposed to the same risks, such as overseers and technical experts, come within the operations of the law. On the other hand, in France, Great Britain, the British colonies, and Hungary, the laws apply to salaried employés and workmen equally. Overseers and technical experts earning more than a prescribed amount are excluded in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Luxemburg, and Russia. Employés of the state, provincial, and local administrations usually come within the provisions of the acts. The entire burden rests upon the employer in all but five countries, Austria, Germany, Great Britain (since the enactment of the David Lloyd George Insurance Laws against sickness, invalidity and old age and out of work), Hungary, and Luxemburg, where the employés bear part of the expense. The laws in every case fix the compensation to be paid. Except in Sweden the compensation is based upon the wages of the injured person. It consists of medical and surgical treatment and periodical allowances for temporary disability, and annual pensions or lump-sum payments for permanent disability or death. In most countries employers may contract with state or private insurance institutions for meeting the payments. In a number of countries such transfer is obligatory. Provision is usually made for the protection of beneficiaries in case of insolvency of employers. The acts of nearly all of the countries are framed with the view of obviating the necessity for instituting legal proceedings. If disputes arise, the acts specify the |