the power they should enact the laws” * *

Governor

Hughes, of New York in his 1909 annual message advocated the enactment of like legislation for the protection of injured employés.

§ 14. The Federal employers' liability and workmen's compensation commission."-This Commission authorized and created pursuant to a joint resolutions of Congress, conducted extensive investigations during the year 1910 and 1911 and inquired into the economic conditions affecting employés of railroads engaged in interstate commerce only. The commission conducted hearings in Washington and Chicago and made their report to Congress in December, 1911, and recommended a workmen's compensation law obligatory and exclusive in nature affecting the employés of railroads engaged in interstate commerce only.

7 The Federal Workmen's Compensation Act affecting employés of the Government service, was passed by Congress and approved by President Roosevelt, May 30th, 1908.

7a See Chapter XXII.

8 Approved June 25, 1910.

9 See message of the President, transmitting the report of the Employer's Liability and Workmen's Compensation Commission, Senate Document No. 338, 62d Congress, 2d Session.

CHAPTER III.

BRIEF HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE GERMAN PLAN OF INSURANCE OF WORKMEN AGAINST ACCIDENTS, THE BRITISH COMPENSATION ACT, AND THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEMS OF EMPLOYERS' LABILITY IN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES.

§ 15. Chronological development of the subject.— Frederick the Great claimed to be especially the king of the poor, and also claimed the right to use the state in any way he saw fit for their protection and uplifting. The Prussian law of a century ago acknowledged the famous right to work and to a living. The state, in its very nature, is the guardian of the weaker classes. In the common law of that time it is stated:

"It is the duty of the state to provide sustenance and support of those of its citizens who cannot provide sustenance for themselves. Work adapted to their strength and capacities shall be supplied to those who lack means and opportunities of earning a livelihood for themselves and those dependent upon them.

"Those who from laziness, love of idleness, or other irregular proclivities, do not choose to employ the means offered them of earning a livelihood, shall be kept to useful work by compulsion and punishment under proper

control.

"The State is entitled and is bound to take such measures as will prevent the destitution of its citizens and check excessive extravagance.

"The police authorities of every place must provide for all poor and destitute persons whose subsistence cannot be insured in any other way."

In this connection it is to be noted that prior to 1837 the principles of the common law of negligence or fault formed the only basis of recovery by a workman from his employer, on account of an accident to him.

In that year Priestly v. Fowler,2 was decided, establishing the fellow servant rule, which relieves the master from liability for an injury received by a servant in the course of his employment, the cause of which was due to the negligence of a fellow servant engaged in the same employment.

Prussia, on November 3, 1838, took the initial step in recognizing the new principle of the liability of employers to provide compensation for industrial accidents. It was applicable to railroads only, but the act made the companies liable for accidents to passengers as well. The companies had only the defenses that the negligence of the person injured and an act of God was the cause of the accident.

Only four years later Judge Shaw, of Massachusetts,3 laid down the doctrine of assumed risks.

In 1854 statutes were passed in Prussia compelling certain classes of employers to contribute one-half of the subscriptions to the fund of the sick associations formed according to local statutes.

It was also required that independent mechanics and manufacturers advance the contributions of their journeymen and assistants, with the proviso of charging it to the next payment of wages. As compensation for their share in the payment, the employer was assured a

1 Fourth Special Report of the Commission of Labor of the United States, 1893, page 26.

23 M. & W. 1.

3 Farwell v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 4 Met. (Mass.) 49.

corresponding influence over the administration of the

fund.

Several German States, as Brunswick, Mecklenburg and Saxony, went even further than Prussia in demanding that all employers should belong to some kind of mutual sick association.4

The act of June 21, 1869, for the North German Confederacy had the effect of releasing the bond of compulsory contributions to the sick fund by employers provided by the act of 1854.

In 1876 there were in all Prussia 5,239 compulsory societies, with 869,204 members. In 1880 the Prussian official statistics showed 839,602 members, belonging to registered friendly societies, 220,000 to the miners' societies, and 200,000 to non-registered friendly societies, in all, 1,259,602, at most out of 2,400,000 of those employed in mines and all industries which came within the law. Though there was still everywhere possibility of local compulsion, the act of 1876 relating to friendly and active societies had made it so little effective as to leave these scant results. One-half of those for whom the societies (Sickness, Relief and Burial) were meant were still uninsured. "The only good result of the act of 1876 was to make it wholly clear to all who cared to know the facts, that the most dependent class could only be reached by the strong hand of the state."5

Two years before the passing of the first insurance law-that of sickness,—it was said by Bismarck, in explaining the first draft of the accident bill, "It is the duty of humanity and Christianity, for the state to interest itself to a great degree in those of its members who need help. It is the duty of the state to cultivate beneficent institutions; this will be no novelty but a further solu

4 Fourth Special Report of the Commission of Labor of United States, 1893, p. 35.

5 Fourth Special Report, p. 36.