The Texas statute differs considerably from the other laws of this class and authorizes subscribers "to exchange reciprocal or interinsurance contracts with each other" at an office designated in the application for such authority. Not less than 75 employers with 2,000 employees must apply and must place in deposit at least $10,000 for the payment of losses, and the reserve fund must be retained at this amount as a minimum. The insurance contracts must amount to not less than $500,000, and no employer may assume a risk in excess of 10 per cent of his net worth as shown by a reputable commercial rating agency. Applicable to the above forms of insurance companies, and to all others operating in the field, including the State fund, are the provisions of a statute of California (ch. 642, Acts of 1915, adding sec. 602b to the Political Code of the State) which requires every such company to file with the State insurance commissioner its classification of risks and premium rates, together with its list of schedule or merit ratings. After hearings the commissioner is to fix a uniform classification of risks and premium rates, and may also establish a uniform system of merit rating; no insurance may be carried at less than the established rates. The statistical and actuarial data compiled by the State's industrial accident commission and compensation insurance fund are to be at the disposal of the insurance commissioner for the purposes above set forth. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS OF FOREIGN The principle of systematic compensation for losses due to industrial accident has been practiced in Europe for over a century, the earliest examples being found in the mining industries, especially in Germany and Austria. As these industries were the first to be operated with large numbers of employees, whose life and safety depended on the care and skill of the manager and of their fellow workmen, and, in addition, had a high danger rate, it was but natural that attempts should be made to provide in a definite manner for the relief of the distress caused by accidental injuries or other physical disability of employees. The industry of navigation possessed similar characteristics and also developed at an early date comparatively well-defined systems of relief for disability asiring from the operation of vessels. The next industry to be operated on a large scale, an industry which had at the same time a high trade risk, was that of railway transportation, and in the States of the present German Empire we find record of early efforts to make provision for railway employees on a more liberal scale than that prevailing in the manufacturing industries. With the introduction of the factory system, the development of large-scale industries, and the more extensive use of power machinery, there was an increase in the trade risk of the industries so affected. Previous to the development of large-scale production a system of compensation for industrial accidents prevailed in practically all countries of the world, based on the idea that a workman suffering an injury from industrial accident should be compensated by the person or persons at fault in causing the accident. The relief provided under the civil code in continental Europe was more readily obtainable than that permitted under the English common law, but in each case the person liable was supposed to have committed some fault, and it was necessary for the plaintiff to begin suit and to prove such fault or negligence according to the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of each country. 1 This article is a revision and extension of similar articles published under the title "Summary of foreign workmen's compensation acts in Bulletin No. 74 (January, 1908), Bulletin No. 90 (September, 1910), and Bulletin No. 126 (December, 1913) of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is believed to cover all legislation to the end of 1915, and, besides, contains some laws of 1916. To distinguish them from employers' liability laws, the term "workmen's compensation laws" is used to designate those acts which provide for the award of fixed sums to employees injured in industrial accidents, without the necessity of litigation and without reference to the question of negligence upon which employers' liability acts are based. It is provided in most such laws, however, that gross negligence on the part of the injured person will bar his right to compensation, while, on the other hand, such negligence on the part of the employer sometimes gives rise to a right to increased compensation. The first country to adopt a comprehensive system of accident compensation on a national scale was Germany in 1884. Austria followed in 1887, and since then practically all industrial foreign countries have adopted this plan, with more or less modification. Disregarding early acts affecting only selected groups of workmen, the order in which the various countries have passed laws providing national systems of accident compensation is as follows: 1 Repeals and supersedes laws of Cape of Good Hope and Transvaal. The industries usually covered by the acts are manufacturing, mining and quarrying, transportation, building and engineering work, and in some countries agriculture, forestry, and navigation. In Venezuela only mining is covered and in Greece only mining, quarrying, and metallurgy. In Belgium, Great Britain, and Victoria the laws apply to practically all employments. In Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden the persons subject to compensation within the industries covered are wage earners only, and in some cases those exposed to the same risks, such as overseers and technical experts. On the other hand, in France, Great Britain, the British colonies, Hungary, and Russia the laws apply to salaried employees and workmen equally. Overseers, technical experts, and employees earning more than a prescribed amount are excluded in some countries, as Belgium ($463), Denmark ($643), Germany ($1,190), Great Britain ($1.217), Italy ($1.35 a day), Luxemburg ($724), Manitoba ($1,200), New Zealand ($1,265), and Ontario ($2,000). Employees of the State, provincial, and local administrations usually come within the provisions of the acts. It will thus be seen that even in the countries which were earliest in accepting the principle of workmen's compensation the systems of insurance do not, in most cases, cover all wage earners. The German Imperial Insurance Office in December, 1912, published an estimate presenting, so far as the data were available, the number of wage earners in the population and the number of persons covered by the accident compensation insurance. NUMBER OF WAGE EARNERS IN THE POPULATION AND NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED BY ACCIDENT COMPENSATION INSURANCE. [From Die Sozialversicherung in Europa nach dem gegenwärtigen Stande der Gesetzgebung in den ver schiedenen Staaten. Ergänzter Neudruck (Januar, 1913) der Sonderbeilage zum Reichs-Arbeitsblatt Nr. 12, 1912.] The laws in every case fix the compensation to be paid, and with but one or two unimportant exceptions the compensation is based upon the wages received by the injured person. It consists of allowance for temporary disability, and annual pensions or lump-sum payments for death or permanent disability, to which are added, in many countries, the expenses of medical and surgical treatment, and the funeral benefit. The matter of the inclusion or exclusion of diseases classed as industrial or occupational practically divides the laws into two groups, at least as far as the earlier legislation is concerned. These groups may be classed as continental European, in which the laws providing for compensation for accidents omit any provisions for cccupational disease, and the British, including England and a number of her colonies, whose laws provide for compensation for certain diseases the same as for accident. A partial exception to the continental grouping is Russia, since, though the general law of 1903 contains no reference to such diseases, laws applicable to State mines and metallurgical establishments and to employees in government establishments generally include provisions for their compensation. The law of Hungary (1907) provides for insurance against the consequences of sickness and accidents, the provisions as to sickness insurance relating to designated classes of employment, so that it has a strong industrial aspect. The Swiss law of 1911 likewise combines sickness and accident insurance, but the provisions as to sickness are of broader scope than in the Hungarian law. The new law of Denmark (1916) also provides for industrial diseases, as does the somewhat earlier one of Portugal (1913). Efforts have been made for their inclusion in other countries, notably in France and Spain, but these do not appear to have been successful thus far. However, in a number of the countries of continental Europe there is provision for sickness insurance under systems separate from or coordinate with their compensation laws. The British statute of 1906 provided for compensation for a limited number (6) of industrial diseases, with power in the hands of the secretary of state for the home department to increase the number, which has been done by various orders until some 25 or 30 diseases have been included: The laws of British Columbia (1916), New Zealand (1908), Nova Scotia (1915), Ontario (1914), South Australia (1911), and Victoria (1914) follow in their scope the criginal provisions of the British act of 1906, somewhat modified in some cases. The law of Western Australia (1912) covers injury to health or loss of life arising out of or consequent upon employment declared by proclamation of the governor to be dangerous, the legislature assenting. In the countries to the south of us, the laws of San Salvador (1911) and the Argentine Republic (1915) provide for compensation for diseases due to the employment. The laws of the various countries are not equally liberal in providing for compensation in the case of minor accidents, regardless of the period of resulting disability. Eight countries grant compensation for all injuries involving any loss of working time, the most 1 See Bulletin No. 157, p. 122. |