discretion of the legislative power in furtherance of the general public good, which regards and preserves the principles of liberty and justice, must be held to be due process of law. The state is not tied down by any provision of the federal constitution to the practice and procedure which existed at the common law. Due process of law is secured if the laws operate on all persons alike. "The provisions guarantee to all persons the equal protection of the laws when all persons or classes in like conditions and circumstances enjoy like privileges under the law. It does not limit, nor was it intended to limit, the subjects upon which the police power of the state may be exerted, but simply requires that legislation shall treat alike all persons affected by it. The greater part of legislation is special, either in the subjects sought to be ascertained by it, or in the extent of its application. Such legislation does not infringe upon the clause of the fourteenth amendment requiring equal protection of the laws, because it is special in its character. When legislation applies to particular bodies or associations, imposing upon the additional liabilities, it is not open to the objection that it denies to them the equal protection of the laws, if all persons brought under its influence are treated alike under the same conditions. The hazardous character of the business of operating a railway would seem to call for special legislation with respect to railroad corporations, having for its object the protection of their employees as well as the safety of the public. The business of other corporations is not subject to similar dangers to their employees, and no objections, therefore, can be made to the legislation on the ground of its making an unjust discrimination. "The hazardous nature of an industry is therefore an adequate reason for legislation applying to its conduct, superseding in a greater or less degree the right of contract as between the employer and his workmen; and, as already indicated, it is in part on this fact that the New York statute providing for compulsory compensation in specified dangerous employments relies. Laws abrogating the defense of common employment either generally or in designated industries are constitutional; so of laws modifying the defense of assumption of risks and of contributory negligence; and in general it is no objection to a law that it imposes a measure of liability on an employer that is unknown at common law. The defenses of "assumed risks" and "contributory negligence' are frequently abrogated outright in cases where injury results from the failure of an employer to conform to a standard of safety fixed by statute. In other statutes the employee is declared to have, in the defined circumstances, the same rights of recovery as if he had not been an employee. "The extent to which such a declaration carries the matter appears from a consideration of statutes that make proprietors of an undertaking responsible for injuries resulting from its conduct without personal fault. Thus a Nebraska statute makes railroad companies liable for injuries to passengers unless the injury is the result of criminal negligence of the person injured or his violation of some known rule. The supreme court of the state in upholding this statute, said: "The legislation is justified under the police power of the state. It was enacted to make railroad companies insurers of the safe transportation of their passengers, as they were of baggage and freight." The Supreme Court of the United States sustained this view, quoting the above with approval and adding: "Our jurisprudence affords examples of legal liability without fault and the deprivation of property without fault being attributable to its owner * It is obviously only necessary * * ** to place on the statute books of the same state the two provisions last cited, i. e. 264 the one giving the employee the status of a third person and one making the undertaker responsible for damages resulting from the conduct of his business-to attain the full extent of the protection by compensation legislation. * * "A text writer discussing this subject, says: "If the rule of absolute liability is held to be unconstitutional, it must be on the ground that justice and equity forbid that a person be required to make the loss of another unless some fault or culpability can be imputed to him. * The principle that inevitable loss should be borne, not by the person upon whom it may happen to fall, but by the person who profits by the dangerous business to which the loss is incident, embodies a very intelligent idea of justice which seems to be in accord with modern social settlement. Moreover, the rule of absolute liability is established in our law in the case of fires caused by locomotives and has been sanctioned by the United States Supreme Court. It also underlies the rule of respondent superior, since the employer cannot relieve himself from liability for the act done by the servant within the scope of his employment by proof of the greatest possible care in the selection of the servant. Logic and consistency, therefore, demand that liability, irrespective of negligence, should not be denounced as unconstitutional. The required element of causation may readily be found in the voluntary employment of dangerous instruments or agencies."' (6). From a Preliminary Brief on the power of Congress to impose an absolute liability irrespective of negligence upon an employer for accidents to his employees in his business, by Launcelot Packer, Secretary of the Congressional Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation Commission. After citing a large number of cases in which the principle of liability without fault has been upheld, and quoting many authorities supporting the same principle, Mr. Packer concludes by saying: "From statements made by the Supreme Court, it would appear, too, that development of the law in accordance with the needs of the times is not to be discouraged. "It has recently been decided in the Employers' Liability cases (207 U. S. 463), that Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate the relations of master and servant in interstate and foreign commerce as regards accidents in that commerce. Can it then be doubted that the Supreme Court would uphold the power of Congress, if in so doing it should see fit to adopt a rule of absolute liability irrespective of negligence for accidents to employees incident to such commerce, a rule that the whole experience of the civilized world has adopted as both expedient and just-thereby discarding the rule which requires proof of negligence, which that experience has proved to be inexpedient and unjust? "If such a statute be held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, it must be so held, it seems to me, on grounds other than its imposing a rule of absolute liability, irrespective of negligence.'' PRINCIPLES AND FEATURES OF SOUND LIABILITY LEGISLATION. (1). From a paper in the "Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science" for July 1911, F. C. Schwedtman, Chairman of the Committee on Employers' Liability of the National Association of Manufacturers. "To cover the just requirements of all employers, as well as of all workers, fundamental principles need to be laid down, upon which legislative action should be based and the following principles cover the views of the majority of the members of the National Association of Manufacturers, and I hope will be officially adopted at the next annual convention. "The fundamental principles of sound legislation on this subject as I see them are as follows: "First. All legislation must be for compensation. Every kind of employers' liability legislation has proven a failure in every civilized nation. "Second. Compensation legislation must cover every wage worker. The man who, without his own fault, loses his hand in a farm machine is as much entitled to compensation as the engineer who loses his hand in an engine gear. "Third. Compensation must be assured. It must be certain as the interest on United States bonds. This can only be through insurance, approved and preferable guaranteed by the state or national government. However, every safe method of such approved insurance should be permitted and none barred. State, mutual and stock insurance, as well as relief systems covering individual shops, must be permitted and encouraged under the law. "Fourth.-Compensation must be efficient. Not less than seventy-five cents, and preferably ninety cents, out of every dollar paid into the insurance fund, should be paid to injured workers or their dependents. To this end, litigation and solicitation expenses must be reduced to a minimum, and arbitration courts, or a simplified court procedure required for settlement of disputes. "Fifth.-Employers and employees are jointly responsible for all unpreventable accidents and should therefore jointly meet the compensation expenditures, the employer covering that part which is due to his fault and to the inherent hazard of the industry; the employee covering that part which arises from his fault. “Sixth.—Every injury except those due to criminal carelessness or drunkenness on the part of the worker should be compensated. "Seventh.—Humanity and efficiency demand that prevention of accidents is made of prime importance. Therefore, an efficient official inspection and statistical system which increases or decreases insurance rates in proportion to the accident prevention activities of each individual establishment is essential. "Eighth.—Since the progressive individual usually provides voluntarily for reasonable accident compensation, it is right the reactionary or selfish individual be compelled to do likewise, through universal compulsory insurance. "Ninth. To prevent unfair competition between employers in different localities, it is necessary that compensation laws of the various states be reasonably uniform.” (2). From the proceedings of a conference of commissioners on compensation for industrial accidents held in Chicago, Nov. 10-12, 1910. Commissions of eight states were represented. One state was represented by special delegate. The United States Employers' Liability Commission and the United States Bureau of Labor were represented, and there was present a special committee of commissioners on uniform state laws charged with preparing a uniform workmen's compensation law. The conference comprised large employers, small employers, representatives of labor and special students of workmen's compensation legislation. Following is a list of questions submitted together with the answers thereto as agreed upon by a majority of the conference: 1. What employment shall the act cover? All employments. 2. Shall all injuries be covered (a) Irrespective of employers' negligence? Yes. (b) Irrespective of employees' negligence? Yes; except where injury is selfinflicted for the purpose of recovery. Burden of proof that injury was self inflicted to be placed on the employer. 3. Shall all persons engaged in such employments be included? Yes. 4. Shall compensation be paid in a lump sum or in installments: (a) Temporary disability? Installments. (b) Permanent disability or death? Installments with right to commute after given time with approval of some public official. 5. Amount and duration of compensation: (a) Temporary disability? Fifty per cent of the impairment of wages; maximum of $10 per week, minimum of $5 per week; or if wages less than $5, then full wages (or sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of wages up to $7.50 of wages per week, then fifty per cent of balance until compensation amounts to the maximum of $10 per week, maximum). Payments not to extend beyond 300 weeks. (b) Permanent disability? Same as temporary disability. (c) Partial permanent disability? Fifty per cent of impairment of wages, maximum of $10 per week; payments not to extend beyond period of 300 weeks. (d) Death? (1) Total dependents? If orphans, 50 per cent of wages of deceased. If widow alone, 25 per cent of wages. If widow and one child, 40 per cent of wages. If widow and two children, 45 per cent of wages. If widow and three children, 50 per cent of wages. If widow and five children or more, 60 per cent of wages. If widow, father, or mother, 50 per cent of wages. Children under 16 years of age only to be included and only during period they are under 16 years of age. Maximum of $10 per week, minimum of $5 per week, or if full wages less than $5, their full wages (or sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of wages up to $7.50 of wages per week, then 50 per cent of balance until compensation amounts to $10 per week, maximum.) (2) Partial dependents? Fifty per cent of the portion of the wages contributed by the deceased to the partial dependents. (3) No dependents? Expenses of last sickness and burial, not exceeding $200. 6. Length of waiting period? Two weeks, during which period employer shall furnish medical treatment or hospital care to an amount not exceeding $100 in value. 7. Shall dependents include aliens and illegitimate relations? Shall not include aliens residing outside the country. Illegitimate children not to be mentioned. 8. Shall employees contribute? No. 9. Shall it be permissible for employers to substitute voluntary schemes? Yes, provided the voluntary scheme covers all points covered by the law and is approved by some public official to be determined in the law. 10. Method of determination of controversies? A system of board of arbitration approved. 11. Nature of scheme: Compensation, insurance, or state insurance. (a) Voluntary, (b) Compulsory? insurance, state insurance. If these not possible, then compulsory compensation, providing that the employer may transfer his liability by insuring in companies approved by a legally constituted public body or official. 12. Repeal of other laws? All other laws should be repealed. 13. Constitutionality? General discussion; no definite agreement reached. (3). From a paper in the "Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science" for July, 1911, by Miles M. Dawson, Counsellor-at-Law and Consulting Actuary, New York. Mr. Dawson points out that in the case of a merely optional compensation scheme, very few employers elect to come under it, notwithstanding the abrogation of the common law defenses in case of non-election. He then proceeds to say: "Possibly a law like that which is proposed in Ohio, removing the defenses against an action for negligence, but offering a safe haven in state insurance of the compensation type, might bring more employers under the compensation provisions. "Undoubtedly, under a quasi-optional system, requiring written notice to certain officials to avoid coming under its provisions, a very large proportion would find themselves included within them; but the same reasoning which caused the Court of Appeals of the State of New York to hold that a so-called "compulsory compensation act'' is unconstitutional, as taking private property without due process of law, would perhaps apply to any such form, not wholly and in fact optional. "Moreover, it cannot be denied that either an optional or a quasi-optional workmen's compensation system is but a partial and incomplete solution of the serious problems at which such legislation is directed. Concerning "a law substituting for the present employers' liability law, a system of workmen's compensation, the employer to be liable for the payment of the compensations and the same to be applicable to all employments,'' Mr. Dawson says: "Should such a system be upheld [by the courts], it would produce as good |