of want of care on the part of railroad companies is extended to all other companies which use engines, locomotives or cars propelled by steam, electricity, gas, gasoline or lever power and running on tracks, and the company is declared directly responsible. (C. 215. In effect, March 6, 1912).

New Jersey.-Actions begun by an executor or administrator, as well as other actions resulting from injuries caused by neglect, default or wrongful act of a railroad company, must be brought within two years after the death of the injured person. (C. 175. In effect, March 27, 1912).

Virginia. Railroad corporations, by an amendment to the liability act, are made liable in damages for injuries resulting from acts of a coemployee, not only on another but also on the same train, and on or about an engine, even if the party injured had the right to direct the services of the coemployee. The provisions of the act are restricted in their application so as not to conflict with any provisions of the constitution or laws of the United States. (C. 291. In effect, June 13, 1912).

B. COMPENSATION ACTS AND AMENDMENTS.1 Arizona.-The Arizona law was enacted in obedience to a mandate of the constitution of that new state. The constitution requires, in substance, that the legislature enact a compulsory compensation law applicable to workmen engaged in manual or mechanical labor in especially hazardous employments, to compensate them for accidents arising out of and in course of the employment and due to a necessary or inherent risk thereof or to a failure of the employer to exercise due care or to comply with the laws; it leaves it optional with the employee, however, either to settle for such compensation or to retain his right to sue the employer as provided by the constitution. The constitution further directs the legislature to enact an employers' liability law for all cases in which death or injury is not caused by the negligence of the employee himself, and it further abrogates the fellow-servant doctrine and provides that the defenses of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk shall be left as questions of fact to the jury. It thus appears that under the constitution the employer is exposed, at the

'For the criticism of the four new compensation acts the Association for Labor Legislation is indebted to Prof. Ernst Freund of the Law College of the University of Chicago.

option of the employee, either to the liability to pay compensation or to an employers' liability for damages of the severest type. On examining the act, however, we find that it provides, in section 14, that "if after the accident the employer or the workman shall refuse to make or accept compensation under this act, or to proceed under or rely upon the provisions hereof for relief, then the other may pursue his remedy or make his defense under any existing statutes, the state constitution, or the common law, except as herein provided, as his rights may at the time exist". This peculiar proviso seems to leave it as optional with the employer as with the employee to stand upon his common-law rights, and one wonders how such a law can be called a compulsory compensation law and how it can be accepted as a compliance with the constitution. Perhaps the supreme court of the state will find some way out of the difficulty. (Special Session, C. 14. In effect, June 8, 1912).

California. The industrial accident board is directed to collect and compile statistics in regard to industrial accidents and their probable causes, and to investigate methods and devices for their prevention and the comparative merits and relative cost of the various forms of liability insurance and workmen's compensation. Employers and liability insurance companies must furnish the board, on written request, with any information in their possession or under their control. But the board and its employees are forbidden to divulge any such information without written consent, under penalty of from $10 to $100, or imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both; and no such information may be used, without written consent, in any action against an employer or a liability insurance company. The board is directed to report the results of its investigations during 1912 to the governor not later than February 1, 1913, and is authorized to publish, whenever and however it deems best, all the results of its investigations and any other information which it considers essential for full acquaintance with the purpose and operation of the law. Members of the board and examiners appointed by it are empowered to enter places of business during reasonable business hours for the purpose of making these investigations. Maximum penalty for employers or companies, $10. Appropriation, from funds already appropriated for the board, $15,000. (C. 39. In effect, March 2, 1912).

Maryland. The act of Maryland may be disposed of in a few

words. It is almost a literal copy of the bill which was introduced in Illinois in 1907 but failed to become a law. The act is purely permissive, making it lawful for employer and employee to agree upon a scheme of compensation, the details of which are laid down in the act, whereupon the employer becomes relieved of the common-law liability for injuries. A voluntary law of this type does not satisfy present-day demands. The experience of Massachusetts and New York, where such laws have been on the statute books for several years, goes to show that it may be expected to remain a dead letter. (C. 837. In effect, April 15, 1912). The law of 1910 in regard to the miners' and operators' cooperative relief fund of Allegany and Garrett counties is amended so as to increase the tax upon operators and employees in Garrett county from twenty-seven to thirty-eight cents a month, leaving the tax in Allegany county twenty-seven cents a month as before. (C. 445. In effect, April 8, 1912).

Massachusetts.-The workmen's compensation act of 1911 is amended in many details. The provisions relating to injuries for which extra compensation must be paid are slightly changed. Employers are given the right to defend claims for double compensation on account of their own misconduct and to demand examination of the injured person. Slight changes are made in the provisions in regard to the notification of injuries, the form of claims, the time limit for making claims, and the duties of arbitration committees. The sections relating to the review of claims and appeals are changed so as to allow appeals to the superior court of the county. Employers who cease to be subscribers to the employees' insurance association must notify their employees in writing or in print on or before the day on which their policies expire, and copies of such notices must be filed with the industrial accident board. The provisions in regard to insurance in private liability insurance companies are somewhat strengthened. The number of members of the industrial accident board is increased from three to five; and their terms of office are reduced from six to five years. The salaries of the members are also reduced. The fees of witnesses are regulated; and the superior court is given power to enforce the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the examination of books and records. (Cs. 172 and 571. The sections which relate to the appointment and powers over witnesses of the industrial accident board are in effect,

May 10, 1912, and the other sections are in effect as in the original law, those relating to the employees' insurance association on January 1, 1912, and the remainder on July 1, 1912).

It is provided that the insurance commissioner may withdraw his approval, previously given, of premiums or rates of the employees' insurance association or of an insurance company. (C. 666. In effect, May 28, 1912).

Michigan and Rhode Island.-The acts of Michigan and Rhode Island are of the type with which the legislation of 1911 has made us familiar. They cover all employments with specified exceptions; Michigan excepts household, domestic and farm labor, and Rhode Island excepts domestic and agricultural labor and all employers having not more than five employees. Michigan includes the state and its subdivisions, and expressly extends protection to aliens; Rhode Island confines the application of its law to employees receiving not more than $1,800 a year. In view of existing and contemplated federal legislation the act of Michigan provides that it shall apply to employees and workmen in interstate or foreign commerce for whom a rule of liability or method of compensation has been or may be established by Congress only to the extent that their mutual connection with intrastate work may and shall be clearly separable and distinguishable from interstate or foreign commerce. Both acts speak of injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, following the phraseology of the English law which has resulted in a judicial construction tending to limit the operation of the act to risks inherent in the nature of the business. In accordance with the prevailing custom, injuries resulting in disability lasting less than two weeks do not entitle to compensation, and in case of other injuries compensation, unless-in Michigan-the disability continues for eight weeks or longer, is paid only from the fifteenth day, subject to the usual provisions, however, for the payment of medical and hospital expenses.

The compensation is measured by the average earnings, being at the rate of one-half of the loss within a stated minimum and maximum sum per week and being also limited by a maximum number of weeks and by a maximum aggregate figure. Both Rhode Island and Michigan fix the measure of disability for a number of specified injuries. The compensation is paid in periodical instalments with the possibility of commutation for a lump sum under the direction

of the competent authority (court or board). The employee is required to submit to medical examination, and the rate of compensation is liable to be revised from time to time. For the settlement of controversies Michigan provides, in case of failure to reach an agreement, a compulsory arbitration subject to review by an accident board which the act creates. The decision of that board is to be conclusive as to the facts and only questions of law can be carried to the supreme court. Rhode Island allows a petition of equity to a court, with a summary hearing. Thus neither state deems it necessary to observe the guaranty of a jury trial.

To insure payment of compensation by the employer Michigan adopts a plan for which no precise parallel can be found in any other act. At the time of accepting the law the employer is required to choose one of four methods: (1) if of sufficient financial ability, he may assume an individual liability; (2) he may choose insurance with an employers' liability company authorized to take risks in the state; (3) he may choose insurance in any employers' insurance association organized under the laws of the state; (4) he may choose insurance in a state accident fund established upon petition of five or more employers employing an aggregate number of not less than three thousand employees and managed by the state insurance commissioner somewhat upon the principle of the German employers' insurance associations. It will be interesting to watch the operation of this phase of the Michigan law.

Rhode Island permits the substitution, for the compensation provisions of the act, of voluntary alternative schemes subject to the approval of the superior court, upon condition that such schemes provide benefits as great as those provided by the act and that, if contributions are asked of employees, additional benefits shall be granted at least equivalent to these contributions. The scheme must also provide for final equitable distribution of such contributions. (Michigan: First Extra Session, 1912, No. 10. In effect, September 1, 1912). (Rhode Island: C. 831. In effect, October 1, 1912). New Jersey.-Copies of orders made by judges upon matters that arise under the employers' liability and workmen's compensation act must be filed with the commissioner of labor. (C. 316. In effect, April 1, 1912). The prevailing party in actions under the employers' liability act is entitled to costs, and the amount and method of obtaining such costs are regulated. (C. 356. In effect, April I, 1912).