The

The importance of the question of the small producer arises from the influence which the technique of production exerts on the structure of society. The noncapitalistic forms of industry produced social classes in which the "captains of industry" were accompanied by but small groups of workmen; the distance between the leader and his dependents was not great and was continually being passed over. capitalistic forms have increased this gap, have caused the separation of producers into large masses of dependents on the one hand and of a small group of leaders on the other, and have introduced an almost military discipline into economic life. This is but a suggestion of the many influences which events in the world of mechanics have had on the structure of society and which form one of the most important chapters of economic history.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES. (a)

BY ADNA F. WEBER.

Modern industrialism rests on machinery; the use of machinery entails frequent injury upon the workman. These two statements explain the prominence in all manufacturing communities of the problem of industrial accidents. The question of providing for injuries sustained by workingmen in the course of their employment has in one form or another occupied the attention of legislatures of all industrial States. In America discussion has heretofore turned upon the enactment of laws designed either to diminish the risk of accident, like the factory laws requiring the guarding of machinery, the automatic car-coupler law, etc., or to enforce the pecuniary responsibility of employers for accidents resulting from the negligence of themselves or their agents. Such employers' liability laws, modifying the common-law rules or principles as to negligence, have been enacted in 25 or more States (b); while Europe and Australia, finding liability laws inadequate for the support of maimed laborers and their families, have gone further than the United States and made the employer responsible for all accidents to his employees, with the single exception of injuries caused by the willful misconduct of the victim himself. While the expense of supporting the crippled employees

a Sources. Aside from the text of the statutes in official publications of the governments concerned, the best source is the admirable series of monographs by Dr. Zacher, of the German imperial insurance bureau, Die Arbeiterversicherung im Auslande, in which he has reproduced the acts in the original text and also in a German translation. French versions of the texts may be found in the quarterly bulletin issued by the permanent committee of the Congrès International des Accidents du Travail et des Assurances Sociales, in M. Bellom's Lois d'Assurance ouvrière à l'Étranger, and with the exception of two or three of the earlier statutes in the Annuaire de la Legislation du Travail, begun in 1897 by the Belgian Bureau of Labor. English translations of these acts must be sought in scattered publications; the original German law was translated for John Graham Brooks's report in 1893 (Fourth Special Report of the Commissioner of Labor); all other laws, down to 1900, were translated in the Seventeenth Annual Report of the New York Bureau of Labor Statistics (1899). The more recent laws have nowhere been translated in their entirety; but a comprehensive summary of the Dutch act of 1901 was given in the Bulletin of the Department of Labor, No. 34, May, 1901, and summaries of the salient features of the other acts may be found in the monthly Labor Gazette, published by the British Board of Trade.

b Present Status of Employers' Liability in the United States, Bulletin No. 31, November, 1900.

devolves in the first instance upon the employer, it is ultimately borne by the community in the shape of higher prices for the manufactured products of the factories. In order that the employer may thus shift to the consumer the expense of indemnifying his injured working people, he must be able definitely to calculate that expense and reckon it among his regular and usual expenses of production, just as he does the wear and tear of his inanimate machinery and the risks of loss by fire, etc. Hence these foreign statutes prescribe the scale of compensation to be paid for varying degrees of disablement as well as for death, and they are therefore called workmen's compensation acts.

Some sixteen countries or States have thus far enacted such laws, but three of them are omitted from the accompanying tabular summary on account of their narrow scope. Thus the Roumanian act of 1895 applies only to mines, the Grecian act of 1901 to mines and smelting works, and the Russian act of the same year only to government mines. But this legislation does not have universal application even in the thirteen countries listed in the table. It is usually restricted to the more dangerous employment, like mines, quarries, railways and transportation service by land or water, building construction and engineering work, and factories using power machinery or employing more than a stated number (say 5) of workmen. The German law, the pioneer act, is probably the broadest of any, having been successively extended to all callings except the small handicraftsmen, store clerks, and domestic servants. It was entirely revised and the scale of compensation broadened by the act of June 30, 1900, upon which the entries in the table are based.

In some respects the Swiss acts of 1881 and 1887 might be deemed worthy of inclusion here, for they provide for the indemnification of as many accidents as do the acts of Finland and Spain; but they do not establish any fixed scale of compensation for the different injuries, and for that reason are omitted.

The establishment of a definite scale of compensation enables the employer to insure himself against his liabilities with comparative ease. Many States assume that employers will for their own protection insure their employees against accident and have not made insurance compulsory. But other countries, fearing lest the voluntary bankruptcy of the employer or a failure in business may deprive injured workmen of their just compensation, have made such insurance obligatory upon all employers carrying on enterprises specified in the law. Great Britain (a) and its colonies, France, Denmark, Sweden, and Spain leave the employer free to take out insurance or not, although they usually grant an injured employee a lien of some kind upon the proprietor's property. Among the countries that require insurance, one

a See The British Workmen's Compensation Act and its Operation, Bulletin No. 31.