state the number of accidents compensated by the employers directly and those compensated by the insurance companies. By reference to the data for these years, an approximate idea may be obtained of the extent of accident insurance practice by the Spanish employers. Of the cases in 1906 definitely reporting, 38.1 per cent were compensated by the employers, and 61.9 per cent by the insurance companies; in 1907, there were compensated 36.5 per cent by the employers and 63.5 per cent by the insurance companies.

NUMBER OF CASES OF ACCIDENTS COMPENSATED BY EMPLOYERS AND BY INSURANCE COMPANIES, BY RESULTS, 1906 AND 1907.

[Source: Instituto de Reformas Sociales. Estadística de los Accidentes del Trabajo ocurridos en los años 1906 y 1907.]

It appears from the above data that insurance against accidents, though voluntary, became popular among the employers under the pressure of the law. No sooner were the law and the regulations promulgated than the insurance companies, both the domestic and foreign (French, Italian, and Swiss), reached out for the new business. During the first year of the application of the law 3,262 insurance contracts were issued, insuring 123,597 employees and collecting in premiums 678,569 pesetas ($130,963.82). By 1906 ten private societies were inscribed in the authorized list of the private insurance companies. Because of the anxiety to acquire this new business. the insurance rates were often reduced so low that it was not long before demands were made for establishing minimum rates through governmental regulation to secure the solvency of the accident insurance companies. Mutual associations also began to form, and by 1906 their number equaled that of the private insurance companies; but the number of workmen insured in these mutual associations is small, the number of compensated cases in 1906 amounting to only 2,054, or a little over 6 per cent of the total number.

The data of the insurance companies show that the highest amount of compensation paid was in 1904, when it reached 1,777,929 pesetas

($343,140). A rough estimate of 50 per cent of this sum, or 889,000 pesetas ($171,577), for the cases not insured would bring the total cost up to about 2,667,000 pesetas ($515,000) in round numbers. The high cost of insurance and the failure of mutual insurance societies to compete successfully with the private insurance companies would probably increase this amount. In the proposed reform of the law the encouragement of the mutual insurance companies occupies a prominent position.

PROPOSED REFORMS.

REPORT OF THE LABOR DELEGATES.·

The movement for the revision of the compensation act of 1900 became noticeable in 1904, when the labor delegates of the Institute of Social Reforms presented the above-mentioned memorial, and after more than three years of preparatory work the institute on July 4, 1907, published a draft of a new bill for presentation to the Government. The report of the labor delegates took up each article of the law of 1900 for consideration and suggested the following modifications:

(1) The delegates claimed that the wording of the law of 1900 embraced all bodily injury done to the workman, i. e., not only accidental injuries, but also occupational diseases, and asked for specific changes in the language of the law to clear away possible doubts.

(2) In view of the adverse decision of the courts they asked for a clear statement that where the employee contracted not only for his own wages but for those of his assistant or partner he should be considered an employee and not a contractor.

(3) Again, in view of the adverse decision of the supreme court as to the compensation in cases of ordinary negligence the memorial asked for an explicit declaration that trade negligence, or that which follows habitual exercise of any occupation, should not relieve the employer from his obligation. Only ordinary negligence is mentioned; by implication cases of gross negligence are left out of consideration, though in the language of the original law nothing was said of cases where the employers were relieved of their obligations because of the negligence of the employee.

(4) The report energetically protested against the injustice of granting the right of compensation to certain classes of employees and denying it to others; especially against leaving out agricultural laborers; it suggested that all industries and branches of work be covered by the law.

(5) In cases of temporary disability an allowance of half the daily wage is granted by the law; the question of holidays remained

open and was by the order of November 5, 1902, decided in favor of paying the allowance for the holidays as well. The labor delegates asked that this order be embodied in the law.

(6) In case of partial permanent disability the law permits the employer to substitute reemployment at the old rate of wages for a money compensation. In the report the possibilities of abuse of this method are claimed to be self-evident, and the exclusion of this clause was suggested.

(7) In furnishing medical help and drugs the law permits the employer to choose the physician and the drug store. Only in case of disagreement as to the medical opinion does the workman have the right to choose his physician as one of the referees. In the opinion of the labor delegates the employee should have a right to have a physician at his own expense in addition to the employer's physician from the beginning of the illness. The employer having the right to select the drug store is often guided by considerations of cheapness rather than of quality. The injured employee should have the right to select the pharmacy most convenient to him. The medical certificate as to cure or permanent disability is necessary for entering the claim. The employer's physician by delaying the issue of the certificate may seriously inconvenience the employee. To remedy this, the law should demand the issue of the certificate on the same day on which the treatment is discontinued and make the failure to do so the presumption that medical treatment was necessary until the certificate was issued by this or another physician.

(8) In stating the compensation to the descendants of the deceased employee the law specifically mentions legitimate children. This was stated to be at variance with the elementary principle of justice, and the removal of this qualification was strongly urged, so that the protection be extended equally to the natural children of the victim.

(9) The age limit of 16 years for children receiving compensation or pension was also criticized. It was pointed out that the children of deceased public officials are entitled to pension until 22 years of age, and the same age limit was suggested for the children of employees killed by accidents.

(10) While the compensation to a widow with children is equal to two years' salary, when only children or grandchildren survive the compensation is reduced to eighteen months. The labor delegates claimed that orphans were more helpless alone than when one of their parents survived, and that they should therefore be entitled to the same compensation as the widow.

(11) Relatives in an ascending line are granted compensation only when over 60 years of age and if dependent. Both of these

67725°-VOL 2-11-54

qualifications were claimed to be unnecessary and cause hardships, because a single worker, living with his parents, usually assisted them financially in some degree, and to that degree they were dependent upon him; the age of the parents was also of little importance as long as the fatal accident caused them a perceptible financial loss.

(12) Approving the measures for prevention of accidents, among others the preparation of the catalogue of safety appliances, the labor delegates suggested that in view of the rapid progress of technical knowledge the technical commission should publish an annual report.

(13) While approving the design of the law to stimulate accident insurance, the labor delegates criticised severely the provision of the law which relieves the insured employer of his responsibility, because the insurance companies were usually practicing a policy of delay to force the injured employee to agree to a peaceful agreement on terms unprofitable to him. Since the insurance contract is a transaction between the insurance company and the employer, the employee, not being a party to the agreement, should not be made to lose any rights thereby. The insurance company should be required to satisfy the claim within forty-eight hours after the disability is determined, barring which the employee should have the right to sue either his employer or the insurance company.

(14) The adjudication of these cases arising under the law is left to the ordinary courts of first instance (until the special tribunals be established), and the supreme court has ruled that in accordance with the Civil Code the defendant must be sued at the place of his residence, which in case of both the insurance company and the individual employer is often distant from the location of the establishment and therefore makes the prosecution of the suit almost impossible for the destitute employee. It was suggested by the delegates that these cases be put under the jurisdiction of the judge of the locality where the accident occurs.

(15) Under the law claims may be made within one year from the date of the accident. Meanwhile suits may be instituted by either side because of the alleged criminal responsibility for the accident. As the claim for compensation must be settled with reference to the sentence in the criminal proceedings, the term of one year must be exclusive of the time taken in these criminal proceedings. Again, the employer may neglect to make the required immediate report of the accident, which neglect delays the judicial action. The year should therefore be counted from the day of making the report.

(16) The law is explicit in declaring all agreements or contracts renouncing the benefits of the law as null and void, but some courts have interpreted this rule to mean only such agreements as have been made before the accident occurred. It was therefore sug

gested that such changes be made in the wording of the law as would make clear that all such agreements were null and void, whether entered into before or after the accident.

(17) The report concluded this long list of amendments with an earnest plea in favor of supplementing the existing legislation by some provision for guaranteeing the payments. The absence of such guarantee was termed an inexplicable omission and the consequences as very detrimental to the interest of the workmen. Reviewing the various methods adopted by the several European Governments, the labor delegates found fault with the French system of a special guarantee fund, which makes the responsible employer meet the burden evaded by the irresponsible one; they discarded the Belgian system because it stimulates the commercial insurance companies that carry accident insurance mainly for the profit to be derived from it; they found the German system of obligatory insurance in industrial associations the most satisfactory one, but admitted that Spanish industry was not yet prepared for such an organization. But holding mutual insurance associations preferable to private insurance companies, for both the employer and the employee, the labor delegates devised and proposed a rather complicated system, which would give the employer a choice between forming mutual associations or contributing a small special tax. The latter was to form a fund, from which the compensation would be paid by the State to the victims of accidents or to their dependents. This plan was to be put in operation when the compensation could not be collected in any other way.

BILL OF THE INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL REFORMS, OF 1907.

The report of the labor delegates served as a basis for consideration. of the law by various divisions of the Institute of Social Reforms and many of the suggestions made by the labor delegates were embodied in the final draft approved by the institute on June 28,

1907.

The following changes recommended by labor delegates were practically adopted by the institute without any changes, except in a few cases as to phraseology (the numbers being as in the preceding list of seventeen): (2) That an employee who contracts also for the wages of his helper or partner is not to be considered an employer, and is not to be deprived, therefore, of his right to compensation; (3) that accidents due to trade negligence be not excepted; (5) that in compensating for temporary disability by a per diem allowance the holidays be included; (6) the permission to substitute reemployment at the old wages for the legal compensation due for permanent partial disability is withdrawn; (8) illegitimate children are recognized; (10) children left orphans after death of