Cornell University Library HD7816.U6A3 1916 Accident compensation to government empi 3*1924 002 406 142 U. S, Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Accident compensation to government employees Hearing. CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS THE GIFT OF The Family of Dr. I M. RuBiNOW 1875-1936 ACCIDENT COMPENSATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE Iff' SIXTY-FOURTH CONGRESS II, FIRST SESSION ON S. 2846 A BILL TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTAL INJURIES TO EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES RESULTING IN DISABILITY OR DEATH FEBRUARY 26, 1916 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary t WASHINGTON 60VEEKMENT PRINTING OrPIOE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY. CHARLES A. CULBERSON, Texas, Chairman. I/BE S. OVERMAN, North Carolina. WILLIAM E. GHILTON, West Virginia. JAMES A. O'GORMAN, New York. DUNCAN U. FLETCHER, Florida. JAMES A. REED, Missouri. HENRY F. ASHURST, Arizona. JOHN K. filHIELDS, Tennessee. THOMAS J. WALSH, Montana. HOKE SMITH, Georgia. C. W. JuBHEY, Clerk. E. P. BowTER, Assistant Clerk CLARENCE D. CLARK, Wyoming. KNUTE NELSON, Minnesota., WILLIAM P. DILLINGHAM, Vermont. GEORGE SUTHERLAND, Utah. PRANK B. BRANDEGEE, Connecticut. WILLIAM E. BORAH, Idaho. ALBERT B. CUMMINS, Iowa. JOHN D. WORKS, Calitornia. -HOKE SMITH. 2 Subcommittee on S. 2846. HENRY. F. ASHURST, Chairman. GEORGE SUTHERLAND. W. J. J. Smitb, Jr., derltto^SMhcommittee. '•D Y'S/'r /9/t CONTENTS. Psge- Text of the bill (S. 2846) under consideration 7 Statement of George L. Cain 23 Statement of Clinton 0. Simmons 35 Statement of Arthur H. Deibert 40 Proposed amendment to compensation act of 1908 46 Statement of Lindley D. Clark 47 Statement of J. W. Thompson ^ 52 Decision of Comptroller of the Treasury 54 Supplementary statement of Edward W. Roe 56 Letter from Representative Tinkham 56 3 PROPERTY OF LIBRARY HEW YORK STATE "•."iTr, "^SNEUU UNIVERSITY "• The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924002406142 ACCIDENT COMPENSATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SATURDAY, FEBBTJABY 36, 1916. United States Senate, Subcommittee op the Committee on the Judiciaet, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary having under consideration the bill S. 2846 met in the room of the Committee on the Judiciary in the Capitol at 10 o'clock a. m. Present: Senators Smith of Georgia (acting chairman) and Suther- land. The hearing was held pubUcly. There appeared before the subcommittee Mr. J. W. Thompson, chief of the legal section of the Bureau of Mines, Department of the Interior; Mr. L. D. Clark, of the Department of Labor; Mr. Arthur H. Deibert, assistant chief clerk. United States Bureau of Labor Sta- tistics, Department of Labor; Mr. George L. Cain, of Washington, D. C, representing the National League of Government Employies; Mr. Clinton O. Simmons, representing the Panama Canal Employees' Association; and Mr. E. W. Roe, of the Washington Navy Yard Gun Factory, representing the Branch No. 4, National League of Govern- ment Employees. (The bill under consideration by the subcommittee is as follows:) ACOIDBWT COMPENSATION XO GOVEBNMENT EMPLOYEES. 64th congress, 1st SiESStON. S. 2846. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. January 4, 1916. Mr. Sutherland introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred the Committee on the Judiciary. A BILL To provide compensation for accidental injxiries to employees of the United States resulting in disability or death. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Bepresentor- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, .3 That on and after the passage of this Act the United States 4 shall pay compensation in the amounts hereinafter specified to 5 any civilian employee, including as well those employed under 6 the Isthmian Canal Commission and by the Panama Railroad 7 and Steamship Company, who sustain . personal injmry by 8 accident arising out of and in the course of his employment 9 or to the dependents, as hereinafter defined, of such employee 10 in case such injury results in his death; and for the pm-pose 11 of this Act any injury sustained whilovernments; That has no bearing upon the case, however. I merely offered that as bearing out the claim made that the Govern- ment should go into that business. The United Fruit Co. also do the same thing in their tropical interests, and the Guggenheims with their copper interests. Senator Sutherland. If we increase the maximum rate of wages upon which the compensation is to be computed to $150 or $200 a month, then what do you say as to this bill now under consideration bemg better for the men than the present Executive order ? Mr. Simmons. It is better. It is better in this way, that it increases the length of time that the men would benefit. I believe you have 66 months, as against 36 months under this order for the loss of a leg. Senator Sutherland. I ask you this question for this reason, that I have expressly included in this bill the employees of the Isthmian Canal Commission and the Panama Railroad & Steamship Co., ACCIDENT COMPENSATION- TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. 39 although the Secretary of War — and I am not sure but the Depart- ment of Labor — suggested that they should be left out, that they should be excepted rather than included, because they were covered by the executive order; but I included them because I believed that this bill treated them more generously than the present system. That was the only reason I had for including rather than excluding them. Mr. Simmons. If you put up your $100 limit the bill is very much to be preferred by the canal employees, and the canal employees should certainly protest against the Department of Labor or any- body else suggesting that they be eliminated. The nature of the work on the canal is such that we claim that we are not compensated down there as we should be. Senator Sutherland. I think you are right about it. Mr. Simmons. We get utterly out of touch with things up here. My personal experience last November in endeavoring to get located here was such that I found.it utterly impossible for me to get any- thing here to compare with what I would have had if I had stayed here instead of going down there and working on the canal for 11 years. Senator Sutherland. I came to the conclusion last year that it was inadequate. Mr. Simmons. Taking again the case of Mr. Chelf, the Executive order provides for the Toss by separation of one leg at or above the knee joint, or the permanent or complete loss of the use of one leg, 36 months. Your biU provides 66 months, which makes 2| years longer than the Executive order provides; and if the limit should be made $200 it would take in all these men here in the Panama Canal service, and the Reclamation Service, and the Alaskan Railway service, and any other Government employees I know of at the present time. Senator Sutherland. I see no reason why it should not all be fixed that way. Mr. Simmons. That would eliminate your high-raiced men and would do away with any chance of your Cabinet officer falling and getting injured and drawing too much money. Senator Sutherland. In the last bill I introduced (S. 4673), pro- viding compensation for employees of interstate railroads, I took the maximum limit off altogether and simply fixed a minimum that the wages should not be considered to be less than $50 a month; and if the Government is justified in compelling a private employer to be as generous as that to his employees it ought to be willing to be equally generous to its own employees. Mr. Simmons. With the substitution for $100 of $200 as the limit, I do not see but what the Panama Canal men would be particularly anxious to have this legislation passed. Senator Sutherland. So far as I am concerned, I agree to that ; but you will understand that I only speak for myself. Mr. Simmons. I understand. You said that the Department of Labor has recommended that the canal employees be excluded from the provisions ? Senator Sutherland. That is my recollection about it. I may be wrong. I know that the Secretary of War did. Do you know about that, Mr. Deibert ? 40 ACCIDENT COMPENSATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. Mr. Deibert. I do not know whether the Secretary of Labor rec- ommended that or not. Mr. Simmons. The Canal Employees' Association would certainly protest against the canal being isolated from the benefits of that par- ticular piece of legislation. I can not think of anything else that I would bring up from the viewpoint of the canal men. If the maximum was raised to $200, there are some instances — ^for instance, a locomotive engineer gets $210 and the conductor gets $205 — where men mighthave some idea that they were not getting what they should; but it was per- fectly agreeable under this Executive order, and it will be fair to the rank and file of the men; to the majority of the men it would be fair; so that I would say that with $200 as the hmit it would be very sat- isfactory to the canal workers. I would say that the date of this Executive order of President Wil- son was March 20, 1914. That is the present Canal Zone order. STATEMENT OF ME. ARTHUR H. DEIBERT, ASSISTANT CHIEF CLERK, UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. Mr. Deibert. The principal objection that we have to the biU is found on page 2, beginning on line 4. It reads: No compensation shall be paid under this act unless such injury shall continue for more than foxirteen days. The present act, approved May 30, 1908, contains the provision that incapacity must last for more than 15 days before compensation shall be paid; but in the actual administration of the act it has been demonstrated over and over again that that is a most vicious pro- vision, for the reason that it furnishes an inducement for a man to stay out longer than his incapacity in some cases would require him to stay. You find, for instance, that a great many men sustain in- juries that might keep them out for 10 or 12 days, and they are willing to stretch their consciences, and in a number of cases the official supe- riors of the men are wilhng to stretch their consciences, to keep them out longer than 15 days, so that they may receive some compensation; because if they are not out longer than 15 days they do not get a cent. If they are out over 15 days, they get the full pay for the period they are absent from work by reason of the injury, up to one year. Senator Sutherland. Do you understand that in that case, where a man has been disabled for 15 days, then he would reach back and take for the whole 15 days? Mr. Deibert. No; but the bill before the committee requires that the injury shall continue to incapacitate him for more than 14 days before he is compensated at all. Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Deibert. That seems to us too long a waiting period. If a man is injured, particularly one of the lower paid men in various branches of the service, we do not see any reason why he should not receive some compensation, after leaving a reasonable period to account for very minor injuries, injuries that may last for only one, two, or three days. Senator Sutherland. What time would you suggest ? ACCIDENT COMPENSATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. 41 Mr. Deibert. We have suggested a waiting period of four days after the inception of the disabihty on account of the injury. It would he very difficult, in some cases, if no waiting period were provided at all, to actually determine whether or not an injury had occurred. It would make the chance of simulating an injury on the part of an employee very much greater than if some waiting period were pro- vided. But there are many men injured who are incapacitated for 8 or 10 or 12 days, and the burden is sometimes very severe on them. They are men who get low wages, have large families to support, and have no credit at the stores, and it is almost impossible for them to make ends meet; and that is what provides the incentive for simu- lating and extending the disability, and makes them want to malinger, so as to bring the period over the 14-day limit. Senator Sutherland. There is one reason that always appeals to me for making a waiting period of more than three or four days, and that is this — of course, the argument does not apply so much in the case of the Government as it would in the case of a private employer, but then it does apply to some extent even in the case of the Grovern- ment: This sort of legislation is communistic in character. You are dealing with a whole class, and you have theoretically got a fund, which, however large it may be, is still limited, to be distributed among the injured and the dependents of those who are killed of that class; and the question of prime importance is, first of all, to take care of the serious injuries. It is more important to take care of a man who has lost a leg than to take care of one who has sprained an ankle. Statistics show — and if I am not correct you wiU be able to correct me about it — that the proportion of minor injuries far exceeds that of the graver injuries. There may be 10 cases where a man has sustained a trivial injury, the consequences of which will last for a week or 10 days, to the one that is more serious, the consequences of which will last a month or two, or a year or two. Now, if you provide that there should be no compensation paid for 14 days, the man who is injured, and whose disability exists only for that length of time is damaged to only a trivial extent, while the number of cases of that trivial character is so great that in the aggre- gate you have saved to the fund an immense sum of money, and you nave then more money to take care of the more important cases, and you can afford to make more generous arrangement for the more serious cases than you otherwise would be able. So that the one thought in my mind always is that to the extent to which you cut out these trivial injuries, which means very little to the individual, but which means a very great deal to the whole class, you will be able to much more adequately if not more generously take care of these more serious injuries. Mr. Deibert. Well, that is true; and yet the burden on some of these men is rather severe. Mr. Thompson. May I ask a question without interrupting? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Thompson. May I ask if it is not a fact that many of these trivial accidents that you speak of are taken care of sufficiently by way of sick leave ? Mr. Deibert. Some of them would be. Mr. Thompson. We had that difficulty in our bureau, and it was taken care of by sick leave in the main. 42 ACCIDENT COMPENSATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. Senator Sutherland. Do you say the bill requires medical attend- ance in all cases ; tlie payment for hospital service and medical attend- ance, ia any event ? Mr. Deibert. Yes. That, of course, lessens the burden to some extent if the men avail themselves of that medical attendance. Mr. Simmons. Suppose a man has not any leave, that he has utilized all his leave for the year; what are you going to do then? Mr. Thompson. That is a bare possibility. Mr. Simmons. It has been my practical experience in the mechanical and manufacturing establishments of the Government that where a man is given a low compensation it is a hand-to-mouth existence, and a mere matter of one day is a hardship on him, let alone 13 to 14 days; and that is the reason that I asked to have that made three days in the bill. I have come in touch with these men and I have been in their homes and I know just exactly what I state to you — that the hardship is there from the loss of even one day, let alone 14 or 15 days, Mr. E. W. Roe. Could we not all agree on some common measure of the period of time that a man ought to be out before he receives compensation before we proceed any further in the matter ? Senator Sutherland. The British law originally provided tor two weeks, and then I think they went to one week, and my recollection is that they have gone back to two weeks. I know that there has been very serious complaint at the cutting down of the period from two weeks to one week, but the theory of it is that a man will malinger for four or five days when he would not malinger tor two weeks. He can not malinger and escape detection as readily if he undertakes to do it for two weeks as he can for three or four days. All those things have to be borne in mind in making a law of this kind. I have found it to be a very difficult subject to deal with. Mr. Cain. Some of the foreign countries start right in with the compensation on the day of the injury. Senator Sutherland. Yes ; and I think that the hterature on the subject shows that they are unwise to do that. Mr. Deibert. It is exceedingly difficult to determine, if you begin to pay compensation from the day of the injury, whether any injury occurred. Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Deibert. Especially if the injury lasts for one, two, or three days. That would encourage malingering. very greatly, I think. Mr. Thompson. Is it not the intention of this bill that if the injury- does extend over the 14 days the payment then shall extend back to the time of the injury ? Mr. Deibert. No; the first 14 days are excluded. Senator Sutherland. No ; in cases where the injury is permanent and the payment continues for fife, then it makes little difference, or where it results in the loss of a leg it makes no difference at all, be- cause a period of time is provided over which the payment shall extend. Mr. Deibert. Yes. Senator Sutherland. In the more serious injuries, it really makes no difference. ACCIDENT COMPENSATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. 43 Mr. Deibeet. No; it does not make any difference, because it is taken care of by the practical lump-sum payment for a definite period. Senator Sutherland. It fixes a definite period of time. Mr. Deibeet. Yes. Senator Sutherland. But it does result in an immense saving to the fund in the way I have indicated. Mr. Deibeet. Yes. Senator Sutherland. And it enables you to deal more generously with the more serious cases; and then it does cut out to a very great extent the danger of malingering, which is a real danger. Mr. Deibert. Oh, yes; it is. It is a serious danger and a serious administrative difficulty; it causes more friction than any other feature of the law, without a doubt, and it tends to destroy discipline and the attitude that should obtain, in the various establishments that are covered by the law, on the part of the men to their official superiors. Some of them consider it an excuse for staying away for several weeks, and getting full pay for it. As «. matter of fact, at one of the navy yards on the Atlantic coast that I visited recently the assistant medical. officer said to me, "We have men coming in here every day and they laugh at me. They say, 'Well, Doc, we have come in for. some easy money.' " That is the way they refer to the compensation under this act. They realize the ease with which they can get compensation by malmgering. Such cases are, of course, in a small minority. The majority of claimants are honest and conscientious in statements affecting their claims for compensation. Senator Sutherland. I am a very strong believer in what is gen- erally designated as social-welfare legislation, but I do not permit my sympathy to run away with my judgment if I can help it. I know there are very real dangers in all social-weKare legislation, and one of the real dangers is that while you help the unfortunate, which is a good thing, you may reward idleness and deception, which is a very bad thing; and you are in constant danger of running against that in social-weKare legislation; so that a man's brain and a man's heart have always got to be cooperating in devising legislation of this character. Mr. Cain. But, Mr. Senator, no law is a good law that will raise a large sum of money by depriving the individual of the right to com- pensation if he is out for three days or over, because we believe that individual interests ought to be taken care of instead of getting a large sum of money in the hands of the Government. Senator Sutherland. That is true, liieasurably; but now let me illustrate this by putting it in a Mttle more practical way. Let us suppose you have 100 employees. That is a large enough number to enable you to deal with the law of averages instead of the doctrine of chances. Suppose you have 100 employees in an industry, and your industry is of such a character — the financial retiu-n is of such a character — that you can afford to set aside a half million dollars to compensate for personal injuries and deaths. That is all you can afford to do. If you go above that it means that your industry will go to pieces. It can not meet any expense of that kind above that and meet its other expenses. You settle upon that, and you set aside $500,000 a year. 44 ACCIDENT COMPENSATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. Then, if you were going to do the best thing possible with it, you would sit down and determine first of all who of these injured em- ployees were most in need of compensation. You would select the widows and the orphans and men who had sustained permanent injury resulting in absolute loss of an opportunity to earn a hvehhood and those sustaining the most serious mjuries, like those who have lost legs, arms, eyes, and so on. You would take care of those first; and you would want to conserve your fund so as to take care of them just as generously as you could, by not compensating, or compen- sating very little, the very trivial injuries. That is the point about it all, whether you had not better exterid larger compensation, or pay your compensation over a longer time," for the serious injuries, which you are enabled to do; and I think every man who investigates will be astonished by learning how much he will save by a few days of waiting period. Mr. Cain. Senator, would it be a good idea to reduce the percent- age up to a certain number of days — say a week or two weeks — and then after that provide that a man should get 66 § per cent of his wages? I believe that he should be protected to a certain extent, because I know that the man who gets a low rate of pay is not in a position to pay even for one day's loss of time; and that is the point there, to give that protection to those men, with whom I have come in personal contact, and in whose homes I have been, and whose home conditions I know. Senator Sutherland. It is a question that has two sides to it, very decidedly. Mr. Deibeet. Yes; and every waiting period that is fixed is of course an arbitrary period. The bureau nas prepared an amend- ment to the present law with the idea that it might be considered by Congress, perhaps, if none of the bills introduced to absolutely super- sede the present law were enacted, and that amendment provides for a waiting period of four days following the injury. It provides, however, that the right to compensation shall not accrue unless incapacity continues for seven days, so that unless a man is disabled for. seven days he does not get any compensation at aU. Senator Smith. Does he not get his salary during that time ? Mr. Deibeet. No; he does not get anything. Senator Smith. I am in favor of paying his salary right through the time — absolutely pajing his salary for 30 days. I would put the mind of every man who is hurt at rest for the first 30 days with the knowledge that his salary goes right along. It is one of tne best of economies, and I would i^^iake him feel secure of that. Senator Sutherland. If you adopted that rule with reference to trival injuries, you would find it would produce a great deal of ma- lingering. Mr. Deibeet. That is the trouble in administration. It would be a difficult tiling. Senator Smith. I would have a physician representing the Govern- ment go to the man's house when he was reported si^ or injured, and if he found that he was sick, his salary should go right along. If he found ho was not hurt or sick, he would not get anvthing. Mr. Deibeet. The difficulty is a man often does not" inform his oflScial superior that he has been injured. ACCIDENT COMPENSATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. 45. Senator Smith. I' administored a force of about 300 men on that principle for 10 years, and I never had anv trouble. I had my sur- geon who visited them. If they were oft duty, they notified the manager of the plant what their trouble was, and the physician called at once, and upon his report to the manager that there was a proper cause in line of duty their pay went right along, and we never had any malingering or any trouble. We had our own surgeon, though, who visited them at once. Mr. Deibert. Well, there is a practical difficulty there in having a surgeon at each place of employment. Some of these places are so isolated and there are so few employees at each point that there would be very great expense involved in having a surgeon employed by the Government if he were employed to serve the Governnient exclusively. Senator Smith. That would not be so at these plants of the Gov- ernment. Those plants are not so isolated nor so small that that would be true. Mr. Deibert. At the navy yards it would be a simple matter, or at the arsenals or in some of the other departments ; but there are various projects in the river and harbor work and in the Reclamation Service, etc., where that objection would apply. If I may be per- mitted, I would like to refer again to this amendment the bureau drew up. That would cut down the waiting period to four days, as I said, if the incapacity continued for seven days, and it would not compensate a man if he was not incapacitated on account of injury for seven days or more. That, of course, would cut out a great many trivial injuries, and would have the effect practically of cutting your 14-day waiting period down to 7 days, although if he was incapaci- tated for seven days then his incapacity pay, his compensation, would begin to rim from the fifth day, cutting out the fiirst four days of disability. And we have suggested this scale: That for the first 30 days of incapacity following the fifth day of incapacity the rate of pay should be the same as the rate of pay he was receiving when injured; That his compensation for the next 30 days of such incapacity should be at the rate of 90 per cent of his pay when injured ; That his compensation for the next 120 days of such incapacity should be at the rate of 80 per cent of his pay when injured; and That his compensation for the next 180 days of such incapacity should be at the rate of 75 per cent of his pay when injured. That covers, as you see, the first year of disability. Then it pro- vides further for his compensation for the next two years, making a total of three years, which, of course, is not as liberal as your bill; but we thought we would not ask too much and we would take what we could get in that respect rather than to ask for a limit of eight years, although that period would be very much more acceptable to us than a limit of three years. Senator Sutherland. Do you not agree with me as to the danger I indicated a moment ago, of paying full wages for disability? Mr. Deibert. Yes; there is a danger; and that is one thing we want to get away from absolutely under the present law, because the present law provides for the paj'-ment of full wages after the first 15 days and for the remainder oi the year, and that is one of the worst features of the whole piece of legislation. 46 ACCIDENT COMPENSATION TO GOVEBNMENT EMPLOYEES. Senator Sutiierland.- I think it is better to pay a man 50 per cent of his wages for two years than to pay him full wages for one year.' Mr. Deibert. I would prefer to cut it down not quite so much as that. That is a matter of opinion, however. Senator StrrHEELAND. Yes; it is, while speaking of an arbitrary limit. Mr. Deibert. Yes ; but I think it is essential to cut down from his full wages to some per cent of his W£i.ges. I think that is one thing that ought to be done above everything. May I be permitted to insert in the record this draft of an amendment ? Senator Sutherland. Certainly. (The manuscript referred to is as follows:) A BILL To amend an act entitled "An act granting to certain employees of the United States the right to re?eive from it compensation for injuries sustained in the course of their employment," approved May thirtieth, nineteen hundred and eight. • Be it enacted hy the Senate and Souse of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assevihkd, That the provisions of the act approved May thirtieth, nineteen hundred and eight, entitled "An act granting to certain e;iiployees of the United States the right to receive from it compensation for injuries sustained in the course of their employment," shall, in addition to the classes of persoD.8 therein designated, be held hereafter to apply to any artisan, laborer, or other civilian employee of the United States, except those employed on the Panama Canal. That the right to compensation under said act shall accrue after the incapacity has continued for seven days. following the date of its inception, but no compensa- 'tion in any case shall be paid for the first four days of such incapacity following the date of inception. That the compensation paid to the employee for the first thirty days of incapacity following the fifth day of such incapacity shall be at the rate of pay he was receiving when injured. That his compensation for the next thirty days of such incapacity shall be at the rate of ninety per cent of his pay when inured. That his compensation for the next one hundred and twenty days of such incapacity shall be at the rate of eighty per centum of his pay when injured. That his compensation for the next one hundred and eighty days of such incapacity shall be at the rate of seventy-five per centum of his pay when injured. That in case of permanent incapacity or incapacity lasting more than one year, compensation shall be paid the employee during the second and third years of such incapacity at the rate of sixty per centum of his pay when injured. That in computing compensation under this act, in all cases where the rate of pay is in excess of $100 per month, the rate of $100 per month shalbbe used. That no further compensation shall be paid for any incapacity occurring after the third year of such incapacity. That if the incapacity shall result in the employee's death during the period of three years following the date of its inception, then his surviving widow, children under sixteen years of age, or dependent parent or parents, if there be any, shall be en- titled to receive, in such portions and under such regulations as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe, the same amount for the remainder of said period of three years that said employee would have been entitled to receive under the provisions of this act had he lived and continued to be disabled during the whole of said period. That if the widow shall die during said period her portion of said amount shall be added to the amount to be paid to the remaining beneficiaries under the provisions of this act, if there be any. That all acts or parts of acts in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Mr. Deibert. So far as the maximum of $100 a month is concerned, I think it might be raised. Senator Sutherland. Yes; I agree to that. Mr. Deibert. I think it might be well to make it as high as $200, or even more than that, because there are some very vahiable and worthy employees in various branches of the service who get salaries of $175, $200, and $250 a month, and it would really be rather discrimi- ACCIDENT COMPENSATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. 47 natine against them to reduce their rate of compensation to IsO a month which the bill here proyides. Senator Sutherland. I quite agree with that. Mr. Deibert. I do not Imow that there is anything else I desire to say. Senator Smith. What is your position ? Mr. Deibert. I am assistant chief clerk of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mr. Cain. Might I ask right here if it would be a good idea to raise the age from 16 to 18? Mr. Deibert. You mean the age of dependent children ? Mr. Cain. Yes. Mr. Deibert. Sixteen is fixed by the present law, and, I suppose, with the idea that dependency lessens as the age advances. Sixteen years, I suppose, is rather universal, is it not, Mr. Clark ? Mr. Cain. No. Mr. Clark. Not all laws fix the age limit; some let the benefit run for a fixed period. But 15 States set 18 years as the limit, 13 have it 16, 1 has it 16 for males and 18 for females, and 1 stops at 15 years. Mr. Cain. The majority is 18. Senator Sutherland. We will hear from Judge Clark, who, I know, has made a very careful study of all these laws, because I have had occasion to read what he writes. STATEMENT OF ME. IINDIEY D. CLARX, IN CHARGE OF LABOR LAWS AND COURT DECISIONS AFFECTING LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. Mr. Clark. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that Mr. Deibert is the representative of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and I have no authority to speak for it at all. I speak simply because, as Senator Sutherland says, I have been interested in this subject for a number of years. Senator Sutherland. I wish you would state for the record what position you hold. Mr. Clark. Well, I have charge of the labor laws and court deci- sions affecting labor which come into the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We undertake to compile all that material from time to time. And I was connected with the administration of this act for some time, but have not been for two or three years, I think. Mr. Deibert has had it directly in charge since , that time. I am here, Mr. Chairman, simply as a free-lance. The questions that have been raised touch on some of the very vital pomts. My own opinion is in favor of a fixed waiting time of a very short period, three or four days, and starting the pay from that time with a percentage of the wages, without reference to the duration of the disability. I see the weight of Senator Sutherland's argument as to eliminating the numerous minor disabilities, and a great many of them fall out in the first five days. I think, from the statistics of the Watertown Arsenal, perhaps one-third of them or more will fall out in the first five days, and then, of course, it de- creases with the length of time for the various periods, each showing a smaller number; but under the present law, in the fourth period of 48 ACCIDENT COMPENSATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. five days, when they begin to get compensation, there is a tremen- dous amount of recovery. That is a very healthy week. The men can get full pay by staying out until the sixteenth day, since they get all their pay for the bacii 15 days, and the number of them that recover in that week is remarkable. In 1915, 37 of them recovered on the tenth to the fifteenth day, 101 in the next five days, and 34 in the next five days. Senator Sutherland. Indicating what, according to your opinion ? Mr. Clark. Indicating that the time when they can get their compensation is a good time to get well. This thing Mr. Deibert referred to we have been up against ever since the law started, tiying to get people back to work when they ought CO go. And yet they ought to have, I think, compensation in a reduced amount for the days following the first three or four or five; I am not particular about just how many it is, but a short period, shorter than 14 days; and then give them an incentive to return to work by making the compensation less than their wages. Senator Sutherland. This compensation ought not to be so high as to constitute an inducement for them to' remain idle. Mr. Clark. Exactly; it ought not to be so that they can lie out and draw the same pay as if they worked. Senator Smith's experience was an experience with a group that was in hand, but it is interesting, and is a generous proposition; and the Government intends to be generous. But, taking it all in all, it seems to me impracticable to pay full wages as compensation. Senator Smith. I suppose the feature of personal relationship to the men, and personal acquaintance with the men by their em- ployers, may have brought about a condition that would not apply in the average. Mr. Clark. I think that is very true. Of course, when this bill was drawn, the same thing was done that was done when I wrote the article Senator Sutherland referred to, that is, overlooking the Alaska Railway, which I suppose ought to be brought into the bill, in about the seventh line, perhaps, on the first page. Senator Sutherland. That is, we should say, "those employed under the Alaskan Railway, the Isthmian Canal Commission," and so on? Mr. Clark. Yes; or else it should come in after the words "Steam- ship Company." Senator Sutherland. I offered an amendment to the Alaskan Rail- way bill providing -that the Government should be liable in the op- eration of the railway in the same way as a private employer. Did that remain in the bill or was it cut out in the House ? Mr, Clark. No; the way it went through was, the President was authorized to make arrangements that would cover that liability, and he. issued an order — and that is something I have never been able to explain— that an order should be prepared containing similar provisions to those with reference to the Panama Canal — and when that order was drawn it embodied the provisions of the Act of 1908, instead of the provisions of the Executive order. It is none of my business how it occurred, but I tried to find out in an innocent way, and never found out anything. Mr. Simmons. Perhaps, in referring to the Panama Canal, it might be as well to strike out the title "Isthmian Canal Commission," as ACCIDENT COMPENSATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. 49 that commission went out of existence on March 4, 1915. It was oflftcially known as the Panama Canal Commission, and it ceased to exist on March 4, 1915. The title "Panama Canal" is all right; that is the official designation. Senator Sutherland. It is "the Panama Canal Zone"; and "the Panama RaUroad & Steamship Company" is right. Mr. Clark. I am free to say that my study of the compensation laws leads me to the belief that 50 per cent is a low rate. Most of the States pay that much as a minimum. Some of them go to 66f and 65 and 60 per cent. Massachusetts went to 66§ per cent after an experience of 50 per cent for two years. New York pays 66| per cent. California, I think, pays 65 per cent, which is practically the same thing. Senator Sutherland. But they cut down the periods, do they not ? Mr. Clark. No; the period is not shortened. Senator Sutherland. They limit it in some way, by saying that the amount paid shall not exceed a certain sum. Mr. Clark. There is a provision that the basic rates of wages to be considered shall be limited. Senator Smith. What is the maximum amount paid ? Mr. Clark. The maximum amount, of course, is 66% per cent. Senator Smith. I mean the maximum amount of the estimated monthly wages ? Mr. Clark. I am not able to say as to that. About 112 or $15 per week is the maximum that can be paid as benefits. ■ Senator Sutherland. It is generally settled upon by sajdng that the amount shall not exceed so much per week. In nearly every law I am famihar with there is a limitation of some kind, which amounts in the end to the same thing as fixing the amount of wages on which the compensation shall be computed. Mr. Clark. Speaking of the amoimt of wages, I fitnd I have a different opinion from some advances here as to the fixing of a maximum, and I base it upon this: The compensation idea differs from that of damages and that, by the way, is the reason why your railroad bill did not go through. The idea I have for compensation is that the man who is disabled ought not to bear, as he does now in the Government service, or did before this, and as some still do, the full burden. If you give him 50 per cent he bears half the burden and the Government bears half of the burden. There is a difference, of course, between a Government and a manufacturing company. The manufacturer bearing 50 per cent says, "Well, that 50 per cent goes into the cost pf production." If you add 65 per cent, the manu- facturer says, "That 65 per cent is part of the cost of production," and he distributes it. Of course the working man can not dis- tribute anything. Whether it is 50 per cent or 33 J per cent, whatever he has to bear he bears alone ; so that when you say you give a man 50 per cent, he bears 50 per cent alone, and it seems to me that is a pretty heavy burden for the man to bear. The idea has been advanced of raising the maximum limit so that a man would get, say, one-half of $200; that would give him $100 ^ttaximum. Suppose we give him two-thirds of $100; that is, 66§ per cent of the maximum; the man who gets $100 a month gets two- thirds of that. Then give the man who gets $50 a month his $33J 32078—16 i 50 ACCrDENT COMPENSATION TO GOVEBNMENT EMPLOYEES, instead of $25 that he would get under a 50 per cent basis; and that $8J is a lot more to him than the larger margin to the better salaried man. I would not give the man with a big income the full benefit of his large income during the time of his disability. Viewing compensation as a matter of relief, as a maintenance ia a case of misfortune, to tide a man over in case of accident, or his widow ia case of his death, then it seems to me thai; the broad pro- vision covering the larger number of small wage earners is really a benefit, rather than the provision for the man who is drawing $200 or $250 a month, who has a chance to take insurance on his lue and make other provisions which a man on a wage of $1.50 a da,y has not been able to do. That is my reason for preferring a raising of percentage instead of a raising of the maximum wage. Senator Smith. Do you think it is fair to regard it simply in the light of a contribution toward his support, and not also in the light of a Uabihty for what happened ? Mr. Claek. Not at all; but, as you said before, whatever is done is that much more than he would get without provision; and so, taking it from that point of view, of course, that is a benefit. But I think the Government ought to feel the same r^onsibility toward its employees that the private employer does. There ought to be a sense of liability and an idea of liability existing, and not, of course, a mere idea of benevolence or charity. There is a provision that I personally would like to see added, that I think would appeal, probably, to you. At the end of the fourth section, where it speaks of medical treatment, I would add a clause saying that where the man refuses to receive standard and usual medical treatment, thus increasing his disability or delaying his recovery, the Secretary of Labor shall have authority to reduce or withhold compensation during the time of such delay. We have had cases, in my knowledge — ^I do not know anything about last year, but they did come up — ^where a man was found living in an insanitary way, for instance with a lacerated or bruised hand wrapped with dirty rags, and using — ^well, Italian home treatment. It led to all sorts of dangers of infection, and he refused to accept any kind of attention; and then, of course, under the law, which says that the Government can make no rule exempting itself from liability, which provision is contained in the act of 1908, he was able to demand compensation for just as long as the disability could actually be prolonged by that neglect. Senator Sutherland. Would not that be taken care of now, if this bill should pass, under section 14, which gives the Secretary of Labor power to make necessary rules for administration? Mr. Clakk. That would, under the broader construction of that provision. Mr. Cain. That was the reason I asked you about authorizing the Secretary to give him power, there, for the vilation. Senator Sutherland. That section itself forfeits compensation as long as he refuses to comply with the rules. I tiiink that it would give the Secretary power to do it. As long as this law is to be ad- ministered by an officer of the Government who is supposed to be impartial, I do not see the need for so great particularity as in the case of a private employer. The Secretary, oi course, would be im- partial and could make rules that are impartial. ACCIDENT COMPENSATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. 51 Mr. Deibert. As long as the act gives the Secretary of Labor certain authority with respect to carrying out the rules and regula- tions that he does prescribe, I think that the bill is a very great improvement over the present law, because the present law provides that no agreement, rule, contract, or regulation shall have the effect withholdmg compensation from an injured employee; and that is another vicious feature, I think, of the present law. _ Senator Sutherland. Yes; I think that the Secretary should be given some discretion in these matters. Mr. Deibert. Yes, indeed. Mr. Clark. I think that probably would be sufficient. I had not taken the fuU effect of that into mind. One other matter that the biU provides for, I think I have a good deal of unity with. There is a very strong division of opinion as to whether permanent partial disability should be provided for in this fixed, automatic way, or whether it should be provided for on the basis of loss of earning capacity. I confess I have a good deal of leaning toward the form that has been embodied in this biU, that there should be a fixed amount paid a man for insistence, who loses an eye. He is at an economic disadvantage, ' even though he does not lose any wages. He goes back to the same machine and at the same pay, possibly, but ne goes back under the great disadvantage of becoming possibly, totally blind, and he also suffers imder a disadvantage, if he by any means loses the place that the has, in getting into a new place. He can not stand the required tests. Senator Sutherland. This gives him a fixed compensation? Mr. Clark. Yes; this gives him a fixed compensation. There is a biU before one of the House committees that has the other system, and that is the reason I spoke of the two, because they wUl come up for a comparison in the consideration of Congress if they are reported to this body. I do not think that I have anything particular to add, except that there could not anything happen that would not be better than the law we have. There are some points in which I do prefer the so-called Kem-McGillicuddy biU and some in which I prefer this bill. Senator Smith. Is the Kern biU here or before the Committee on Education and Labor ? Senator Sutherland. It is before the Committee on Education and Labor, I think. One of the, difficulties with that is that it covers occupational diseases, and we ought not to attempt to deal with that here. It puts the two together. It covers the whole scope of em- ployment. Mr. Clark. It gives 66f per cent and covers occupational diseases. Mr. Cain. I should like to ask a question of Mr. Clark. Senator Sutherland. Very well. Mr. Cain. On page 15, I should hke to ask if he thinks it is a good idea to take away all rights and benefits from the man, or whether it should be Senator Sutherland. What section is that? Mx. Cain. It is section 14, on violations. A percentage I think would be much better. Mr. Deibert. That still leaves it within the discretion of the Secretary of Labor to determine whether or not the conditions are satisfactory. 52 ACCIDENT COMPEN-SATION TO GOVEBNMENT EMPLOYEES. Mr. Cain. Yes; I agree with you on that, but I want Mr. Clark's ideas on the matter. Senator Sutherland. How are you going to specify percentage in the law ? Mr. Cain. It would not be necessary in the law; it would be only in the administration of the law. I wanted to ask him for his ideas. Mr. Claek. I would change that to read like this: Violation of any such rules by an employee or beneficiary shall work a forfeiture or reduction of rights and benefits within the discretion of the Secretary of Labor, unless satisfactory reasons therefor be made to appear. Then it would depend on the gravity of the offense. Mr. Cain. Personally I do not think it is a good idea to take aU rights and benefits away there. Senator Sutherland. That only lasts during the continuance of his disobedience. Mr. Clark. It can be punished if it is a gross violation, and par- tially if it is of less gravity, as the court might determine. Mr. Cain. That is a matter of administration. Mr. Clark. It is a matter of preference; but as this stands it would seem as though he might not have any discretion as to whether to reduce it or not, but would have to take it all or none. STATEMENT OF MR. J. W. THOMPSON, CHIEF OF THE LEGAL SECTIOir OF THE BUEEATJ OF MINES, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. Mr. Thompson. I had just one matter to suggest, Senator. I am from the Bureau of Mines. While we have a compensation act, it is feeble in more ways than one, and it limits the rignt to receive com- pensation to an employee injured in any hazardous work. Of course, that is out of this, but I want to call your attention to the first page, the first section. Your bill specifies that "any civilian employee who sustains personal injury by accident arising out of and m the course of his employment" shall receive compensation. We have had three deaths, and in no one of these cases was there any per- sonal injury, speaking, perhaps, within the meaning of this bill. That is, they were men who were using these helmets, the breathing apparatus, and who went into the mines and were overcome without any real personal injury. The only question I wanted to Suggest was whether this bill would cover that kind of a case. I presume the same thing would apply to life saving in case of drowning. Senator Sutherland. I suppose it should cover that kind of a case. Mr. Thompson. Yes; but whether it would under that language, "who sustains personal injury by accident arising out of and m the course of his employment'' Senator Sutherland. The object of using that language is to exclude mere diseases. Mr. Thompson. Yes; I understand that; but the question is whether it does. I have not thought of it irntU I came here; I had not seen this bill, and I just penciled out this, "or where such em- ployee sustains a disabiUty or is incapacitated or loses his life while engaged in any hazardous work." Senator Smith. "As a consequence of such work" ? ACCIDENT COMPENSATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. 53 Mr. Cain. Of his employment. Senator Smith. "As a consequence of such work." Mr. Thompson. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Of course, you know this is language that has been used in these bills over and over again, and has received judicial interpretation. That language has come to be classical. Mr. Thompson. I know. Senator Sutherland. And when you adopt other phrases, you open up another field. Mr. Thompson. My question was whether that would include a man who lost his life under those circumstances. Senator Sutherland. You must remember also that this law is to be administered by an impartial ofl&cer of the Government who is pretty certain to give it a broad interpretation. You can not go to the courts. Mr. Thompson. No; I appreciate that. Senator Sutherland. Aiid there is not the same necessity of refin- ing the language that there would be if it was a law affecting private employers where the courts would come after us. Mr. Deibert. Such remedial legislation is, of course, always liber- ally constructed, and I do not think there would be any difficulty about leaving such matters to the discretion of the Secretary of Labor. I have no doubt that such cases would be included. Mr. Thompson. That is the only point that I had. Senator Sutherland. I could not put my hand on the cases now, but my impression is that cases of that kind would come under that. The courts have been very liberal. Mr. Deibert. We have had cases of sunstroke, and, although the cases are not entirely analogous, I think there is sufficient analogy between them to say that a case of that kind would be covered by the act, because cases of sunstroke have been compensated under this law. Senator Smith. I think sunstroke would be covered under this bill. Mr. Deibert. I have no doubt about that. Senator Sutherland. I have no doubt about it in my own mind. Mr. Thompson.' I will look into it and see. So. far as we have examined we have no criticism to make. Senator Sutherland. Will you gentlemen do this ? We are all pretty busy, and it will be helpful to us. You have in mind the things in which you think this biU is deficient and ought to be amended. Will you not take one of these bills and write into it the language of the amendments that you think should be inserted, and then let the subcommittee have it back again so that it can be considered? I mean this to include you, also, Mr. Clark. Do you not think that would be helpful. Senator ? Senator Smith. Yes. I would be glad if each of the gentlemen who have discussed it here before us would take two copies of the bill, one for Senator Sutherland and one for myself, and go through it and make any kind of suggestions he has in his mind; and also add any- thing to this hearing that occurs to you, when the reporter has transcribed it. Mr. Deibert. There is only one thing I should hke to say now: Of course this biU would take in all Government employees and would provide for many more cases of compensation than there are now 54 ACCIDENT COMPENftiTION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. provided for, and we have only a limited appropriation, $3,000, to administer the whole law. The appropriation bill, of course, would carry an increased amount. Senator Sutherland. Certainly. Mr. Deibert. It would not amount to a very large increase, at any rate. Senator Slttherland. Not for the first year; it would increase, naturally. " Senator Smith. Who has the statistics of accidents to employees of the Government ? Mr. Deibert. That matter has all been compiled. I have a bulle- tin here containing the latest on that. Mr. Cain. I wish to have just one more word before the hearing closes. I trust that certain provisions will be made to offset a deci- sion of the Comptroller of the Treasury rendered on November 12, 1915, appearing at page 220 of the decisions of the Comptroller of the Treasury, October 1 to December 31, 1915. A man had an acci- dent and died before the 15 days were up, and his widow, before she was able to put in a claim, also passed to the other side; and the daughter put in a claim which, I believe, the Secretary of Labor finally allowed, but the Comptroller of the Treasury ruled against it. I think there ought to be "a provision in this particular bill which I hope you will report favorably, making due allowance for just such an occurrence as this, so as to prevent anything like this happening in the future. Are you familiar with that decision ? Senator Sutherland. I have not read it, but my attention has been called to it. I do not think, though, that a case like that is likely to arise under this sort of a law. Mr. Cain. Yes; it could happen under this kind of a law, regard- less of the conditions. Senator Sutherland. We do not say here "to the heirs or the dependents." We want it provided that a certain amoxint shall go to the children and a certain amoimt to the widow, in certain cases. The very object of particularizing that was to do away with these questions of doubt that are constantly arising when you mention dependents or simply "heirs." However, we can consider that. (The decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury referred to is as follows :) Payment of Compensation Under Act of May 30, 1908, in Case of Injury Re- sulting IN Death. Where an employee injured under conditions set forth in the act of May 30, 1908, dies without filing a claim for compensation under said act, the compensation provided under the act can be paid only to or for the use of the beneficiaries mentioned therein. Comptroller Warwick to the Secretary of the Navy, November 12, 1915: I have your letter of the 14th ultimo, submitting certain papers relative to the claim of Ann Conard for compensation under the act of May 30, 1908 (35 Stat., 556), as widow of Samuel F. Conard, former quarterman molder at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, and requesting decision as to whether any payment can be made thereon. The material facts appear to be as follows: Mr. Conard was injured in the course of his employment January 18, 1915, and died as a result of said injury January 28, 1915. As his death occurred within 15 days after the date of the injury he acquired no right to file a claim for compensation under section 1 of the act, and no such claim was filed by him. The widow's claim under section 2 of the act was filed in February, 1915, and on April 27, 1915, the Secretary of Labor derided that said claim "establishes a rieht to comnensation ACCIDENT COMPENSATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. 55 under the act of May 30, 1908," but in the meantime (on Mar. 27, 1915), the ■widow died. Thereafter a daughter of the deceased employee requested that the compensa- tion provided under the act be paid to her as a dependent member of the family. It is apparent that no payment can be made to this daughter as a beneficiary under the act, because she is 31 years of age, and the only beneficiaries, other than the widow and dependent parents, mentioned or recognized in the act are children "under 16 years of age." If the father, during his lifetime, had established a right to compensation for a period prior to the date of his death, payment thereof might have been made to this daughter, or some other person as his "legal representative." (16 Comp. Dec, 477; 20 id., 555.) But no such right was established in this case; and where no such right is established by the employee, payment under the act can be made only to, or for the use of, the beneficiaries designated therein, that is to say, widow, child or children under 16 years of age, ordependent parent. There being no such beneficiaries in this case, no payment is authorized. The.fact that the widow filed a claim and that the Secretary of Labor approved said claim for payment can not operate to give to her estate a vested right to payment under the act, because the evident purpose of the act with respect to payments after the death of the employee was to afford a measure of relief, in the nature of a gratuity, for a limited period to certain designated persons who had been dependent upon the employee's compensation for their support. When there are nosuch person to whom or for whose benefit the payments can be made, the conditions sought to be remedied by the act do not exist and no payments are authorized. The question submitted is answered accordingly. Mr. Cain. There was another point I wished to draw to your attention, and I secured it from a newspaper cMpping dated San Francisco, February 14, 1916. A certain individual was cleaning chemical tanks. Alter cleaning a tank he was about to corae out of it, when some one of the workmen played a hose on him, thinking he was playing cold water on him, and instead of that it was hot water and scalded the man, but that man received no compensation under the law. Senator Sutherland. Why ? Mr. Cain. I could not state. I should like to have this clipping inserted in the record. (The newspaper chpping referred to is here inserted in the record, as f oUows :) IWashington (D. C.) Times, Feb. 4, 1916.] employers' LIABILITT NOT FOB "DrCKBD" WORKMAN. San Fkancisco, Cal., February 14. Pagano Vittorlo was employed at the California Pottery Co., in Oakland, several months ago, cleaning out a kiln. Harry Frediani, a fellow- workman, conceived the idea of "ducking" Vittorlo, and when the latter emerged from the kiln he was del- uged with a stream of water, which, instead of being cool and refreshing, as the joker anticipated, was scalding hot. Vittorlo was disabled for a period of 45 days as a result of his burns. In denying his claim, the employers' liability commission held that he did not receive his inju- ries from an act growing out of his employment. Mr. Thompson. I think it was held to be negligence of a fellow servant. That would be eliminated in this bill. Mr. Deibeet. That does not apply to the present law. It may be that the man was not covered in any of the branches of the service enumerated in the act. There are a number of cases of that kind that have to be disapproved because the law does not authorize us to approve them. Senator Sutherland. I do not think it could occur under this bill. 56 ACCIDENT COMPENSATION TO GOVEENMENT EMPLOYEES. Mr. Cain. There is a point right there. The commission in deny- ing his claim for compensation stated that he did not receive Ms inmries from an act growing out of his employment. Mr. Deibert. Is that a State or a Federal case ? Mr. Cain. It is a State case. Mr. Deibert. Well, that does not come under this law at all. Senator Sutherland. It is impossible to tell upon what that decision is based. Senator Smith. The employee might have had no connection or no responsibihty, and there may have been no violation of the rights of a coemployee, and he may have done it just because he had a good chance to scald him. Mr. Deibert. Because he wanted to be funny, that was all. , Senator Smith. It may be that it was not done under the authority of anybody, he was not representing anybody, and nobody was hable for it any more than if he had been walMng along the street and some- body had squirted hot water on him. (At 12.30 o'clock p. m. the subcommittee adjourned.) (Supplementary statement of Edward W. Koe, representing Branch No. 4, National League of Government Employees, inserted in the record at his request:) I have for some years been a close student of the subject of compsnsation for acci- dents and deaths due to accidents; and I am thoroughly convinced that the present act under which the Government is now working is not only unfair to the great body of employees of the Government who do not come under the act, but that xt is entirely inadequate for those whom it does cover, both as to financial consideration and number of years. My reason for having it include the great body of workers of Uncle Sam instead of the selected trades classified as hazardous is that it is impossible to properly claeeify hazardous employment, and it was very nicely explained by Senator Sutherland when he stated that it was just as serious a problem for the man working in a store to lose his leg through an accident as it was for a man working in a so-called hazardous occupition to lose his. . I fully agree with all the speakers at this hearing that we should increase the per- centage and reduce the waiting period to not less than three days. If^ as Senator Smith has stated, we wish to make this a model law, we should follow the percentage adopted by New York, Ohio, California, Wisconsin, and other States that have 66§ per cent. The ground has been so well and carefully covered by our national president, Mr. Cain, Mr. Deibert of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, and Mr. Ckrk, the statistician of the Department of Labor, and Judge Thompson of the legal department of- the Bureau of Mines, that it would be almost useless for me to consume the time of the committee, but this I do wish to state that, with the number of good features included in the bill [S. 2846] and with the excellent suggestions as to amend- ments that have been made, if they are incorporated into any bill that the committee repDrts, J know that it will fill a long-felt want by protecting the rank and file of the Government employees as well as employees working for private corporations in the 35 States now having compensation laws. (Letter from Kepresentative Tinkham to Senator Ashurst, chairman of the subcommittee, inserted in the record at the request of Eepre- sentative Tinkham:) Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C, February 2i, 1916. Hon. Henry F. Ashurst, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. My Dear Senator: You have before your subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary Senate bill 2846, to provide for compensation for accidental injuries to employees of the United States. ACCIDENT COMPENSATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. 57 I desire to say that the bill in prinfeiple has my very strong indorsement. I do not say the bill could not be changed or some amendment made to perfect it; but a bill of its general character should be passed as soon as possible, in my opinion. I should appear before the committee in behalf of this bill if I were to be in Wash- ington at the time of the hearing; because I can not, I am writing this communication to you. Yours, very truly, Geoeqe Holdbn Tinkham. Tn fiiM ,,^^ate Due ■>ums4f^ 'iw4 1 -iftit*-.! J.. ■ ^