beneficiaries and provide for full compensation; while 14 States1 recognize them but establish limitations either by reducing the amount of benefits payable in cases where the beneficiaries are nonresidents, or by limiting the classes of beneficiaries to whom payment may be made, or by establishing both limitations. There may be a plausible justification for a proportionate reduction of benefits corresponding to the lower cost of living in foreign countries and possibly for a restriction of the groups of beneficiaries to immediate members of the injured employee's family; but even these restrictions open the door for injurious discriminations against American citizens by reason of the fact that injuries to aliens whose possible beneficiaries are nonresident entail less expense on the employer of such labor. Several European countries have entered into reciprocal agreements, guaranteeing mutual benefits to each other's nationals, but such a measure would be without practical benefit in this country. Because of its unfairness to citizen employees and as a matter of simple justice the discriminatory treatment of aliens, on the whole, lacks justification, even though the danger of burdening the State or municipality with dependent charges is absent.

LUMP-SUM SETTLEMENTS.

Compensation payments are supposed to be a substitute for wages, and accordingly every State except 32 provides that such payments shall be made in weekly or monthly installments. The purpose of small regular payments is to prevent unwise and unnecessary expenditures which lump-sum settlements would facilitate. Injured workmen and especially dependent widows all too frequently squander the entire amount of compensation, and in a short time are left penniless and a burden upon the community. On the other hand, under certain circumstances, the commutation of weekly payments into a lump sum would be beneficial and desirable. Especially is this true in case of a widow or permanently disabled workman who wishes to start a small independent business or who desires to return to his native country, where cost of living is much cheaper.

The practice of granting commutations, however, unless properly restricted, opens the way for abuses and injustices. A lump sum looks large to a workman or his dependents, who are usually willing to compromise upon an amount much less than that to which they are legally entitled. And, furthermore, the commissions, harassed by their many administrative duties, are at times inclined to grant lump sums without proper investigation in order that the case may be settled and closed. The laws of most States therefore provide that lump-sum payments must be approved by the commission or court and must be in the interest of the beneficiary or of both parties,

1 Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky. Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

2 Alaska, Porto Rico, and Wyoming.

leaving the question of necessity or justice to the discretion of the administrative body. Some States require that a certain time elapse, usually six months, before commutations may be granted at all, and in most cases the application for a lump sum must be made by either or both of the interested parties, although in a number of States the commission is authorized to grant such commutations on its own motion.

The following table shows when and under what conditions commutations may be granted in the several States:

CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH LUMP-SUM SETTLEMENTS ARE PERMITTED UNDER COMPENSATION LAWS.

3

It will be noted that in 10 States1 a lapse of six months' time is necessary before commutations can be made. In 13 States 2 the commission or court may grant lump sums on its own motion, and in 2 additional States this power is granted in case of minors, permanently disabled. In 3 States commutations may be granted only upon application of the employee or beneficiary, and in 1 State 5 upon request of employer; while in 17 States lump sums may be granted upon application of either or both parties in interest.

6

ACCIDENT REPORTING AND PREVENTION.

Coordinate with the movement for the enactment of compensation laws has been the growth of the movement for accident prevention. Safety laws have for a number of years been on the statute books of many of the more advanced industrial States, but the aggregate result has been unsatisfactory in both extent and effectiveness. A tangible and immediate result of the new legislation, in requiring the employer to pay compensation without question as to negligence or assumption of risks, has been to give a new impetus to accident-prevention work, both by the enactment of new and better laws and by the greater care with which safety rules are observed.

Reports of accidents have been incomplete and lacking in uniformity, so that little material of a reliable nature has been available. Here, too, the influence of compensation enactments has been felt, even in the brief period covered by their existence. Insurance is haphazard as to costs and results without definite accident data, which is as true for State funds as for stock insurance. Initial results have been the extension of the powers of labor departments and industrial commissions, the more intelligent study by employers, State officials, and insurance companies of the problems to be solved, and the organization of associations whose avowed purpose it is to establish standards of safety, and accurate and uniform accident reporting systems. Where commissions administer the compensation laws, their reports are available as representing the actual economic results of accidents; while the accident-reporting requirements of other laws tend in the same direction.

The problem of accident reporting and prevention, however, has by no means been solved. Just what the quantitative effect of

1 Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

2 Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

3 Indiana and Massachusetts.

4 Kansas, Montana, and Washington. In Kansa the employer may redeem his liability after 6 months' payment.

5 New Hampshire.

California, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont.

workmen's compensation laws upon accident reduction has been is still problematical, due to the absence of uniform and reliable accident statistics. That the increased safety activities have resulted in accident reduction would seem probable, but the extent and nature of reduction can only be surmised. There are relatively more accidents reported to-day than there were five years ago. This does not mean necessarily that the accident rate has increased. It may be simply that more accidents are reported than formerly.

Reference to the chart will show the principal requirements of each State as to accident reporting and prevention. Some of the compensation acts1 make no provision for accident reporting and nearly all make no provision for accident prevention work.

ACCIDENT REPORTING.

It will be noted that the provisions as to accident reporting lack uniformity. Only 18 States require all accidents to be reported. while 5 States require those of one day's disability or more; 11 requires more than 2 days; 15 requires more than one week; 2° require two weeks or more; 3 States' provide that such accidents be reported as required by the commissioner or inspector. Five States make no provision for accident reporting in the compensation act, but have such laws outside the act. Of these States, Alaska provides for the reporting of such mining accidents as the governor may require; Arizona requires only serious or fatal accidents in mines; Louisiana requires accidents of two weeks' disability or more in establishments where women and children are employed; Minnesota requires employers engaged in industrial pursuits to report all accidents of more than one week's disability, and mine operators to report fatal or serious accidents; and Nebraska requires the reporting of all accidents in factories, workshops, mills, mechanical establishments, or other institutions.

In 21 States all employers are required to report accidents; in 7 States 10 employers subject to the compensation act; in 1 State 11 only

1 Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Nebraska.

11

California, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Porto Rico, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

* One day's disability, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Vermont; more than one day, Indiana

and Kentucky.

Pennsylvania.

Illinois.

More than two weeks, New Jersey; two weeks or more, Rhode Island.

Kansas, New Hampshire, and West Virginia.

Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Nebraska.

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania (except casual employments), Porto Rico, Texas. Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.

10 Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island (except public utilities).

" Wisconsin.

1

employers having four or more employees, and in another only those engaged in extrahazardous employments. Five States, as already noted, have no provisions in the compensation law.

In the 25 States having administrative commissions, accidents are required to be reported to such commissions except in 2 States, and in these 2 States the compensation act is administered jointly by the compensation commission and the department of labor. Several States have more than one accident reporting law, due in some instances to the failure to repeal the existing law when the compensation act was passed. In such cases the old law is usually not enforced. Then again in those States in which the compensation acts require only employers subject to the acts to report accidents there usually exist other accident reporting laws providing that such employers as are included within its scope must report their accidents to other State departments. Such laws, in most States, however, are not enforced at all, or at least enforced ineffectively.

ACCIDENT PREVENTION

Accident reporting and accident prevention are closely related. In fact, effective prevention of accidents depends largely upon a knowledge of their causes, frequency and nature. A compensation commission, in the very nature of things, must receive reports of all compensable injuries, and that it is the only agency which does receive them is shown by experience. Furthermore, the problem of accident prevention is intimately connected with the whole theory and system of compensation. It would seem, therefore, that this important work might logically be undertaken by the same agency that administers the compensation provisions. As a matter of fact, however, the practice of a large majority of the States has been in the opposite direction, as is shown by an examination of the chart.

4

It will be noted that of the 25 States having the commission type of administration 143 make no provision for accident-prevention work by the compensation commission. In 5 States the commission is authorized to perform safety work, but, with the exception of Colorado, this power is very slight. In the latter State the commission has jurisdiction over all places of employment for the purpose of enforcing the safety statutes, but thus far (1916) the accidentprevention work has been carried on by other agencies. This leaves only 6 States in which all the safety work is done by the industrial

1 Wyoming.

2 Pennsylvania and Porto Rico.

3 Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Illinois. Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma, Porto Rico, Texas, Vermont, and Washington.

4 Colorado, Iowa, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

5 California, Indiana, Montana (except mines and boilers), New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.