HD 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 U7U8 
 
 17 a 
 
 DOCUMENTS 
 
 Dl 
 
 PT, 
 
 STATE OF UTAH 
 
 REPORT OF THE 
 
 Employer's Liability and Workmen's 
 Compensation Commission 
 
 TO THE 
 
 ELEVENTH SESSION OF THE 
 LEGISLATURE OF UTAH 
 
 TOGETHER WITH DRAFT OF 
 
 T11K BILL SUBMITTED 
 
GIFT OF 
 
 DOCUMENTS 
 
 DFPT. 
 
EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND 
 
 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 
 
 COMMISSION 
 
 Appointed by 
 
 GOVERNOR WILLIAM SPRY 
 Under and By Virtue of the Authorization of 
 
 SENATE BILL No. 245 
 
 Introduced By 
 
 SENATOR D. O. HIDEOUT 
 
 In the Eleventh Session of the 'Legislature of the 
 
 STATE OF UTAH 
 
 For Presentation to the Legislature of 1917 , 
 
 DON B. COLTON, Chairman, H. B. WINDSOR, Secretary, 
 
 Vernal, Utah. Salt ^^ City> utan 
 
 LE GRAND YOUNG, Vice Ohm., 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah. H K RT JSSELL, Asst. Secty., 
 
 IRA R. BROWNING, Salt Lake City, Utah. 
 
 Castle Dale, Utah. 
 
 R. C. GEMMELL, CHAS. H. PEARSON, 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah. Ogden, Utah. 
 

 
 ' 
 
To the Honorable, the Governor, and the Members and 
 the Members-elect of the Legislature of the State of 
 Utah, the Year 1917. 
 
 Gentlemen : 
 
 The Legislature of the State of Utah, with the ap- 
 proval of the Honorable Governor William Spry, in its 
 last session of 1915, passed an act entitled "An Act to 
 Provide for the Appointment of a Commission to Inquire 
 into the Question of Employers ' Liability and Other Mat- 
 ters, and provide an appropriation therefor," which law 
 reads as follows, to- wit: 
 
 Section 1. That the Governor of this State is hereby 
 authorized and directed to appoint a commission to con- 
 sist of seven members, as follows : One State Senator, 
 one State Representative, two employers of labor, two 
 representatives of labor and one attorney-at-law. The 
 duties of the Commission so appointed shall be to make an 
 inquiry, examination and investigation into the subject of 
 a direct compensation law or a law affecting the liability 
 of employers to employes for industrial accidents. 
 
 Section 2. That the members of such Commission 
 shall serve without compensation, except that each shall 
 be entitled to his actual and necessary expenses incurred 
 in the performance of his duties under the provisions of 
 this Act. 
 
 Section 3. That for the purpose of its investigations 
 the Commission or any member or sub-committee thereof, 
 is hereby authorized to visit different localities in the 
 State, to send for persons and papers, to investigate the 
 laws of other States and countries, to administer oaths 
 and to examine witnesses and papers respecting all mat- 
 ters pertaining to the subjects referred to in ths Act, to 
 purchase books and supplies and to employ and pay all 
 necessary assistants. 
 
 3 
 
 3666 
 
Section 4. That the expenses incurred by the Com- 
 mission, and its employes shall be paid upon the presen- 
 tation of proper itemized vouchers signed by the chair- 
 man of the Commission and approved by the Governor, 
 provided such expenses shall not exceed five hundred 
 dollars. 
 
 Section 5. That the Commissioner of Immigration, 
 Labor and Statistics is hereby directed to co-operate with 
 the Commission and to render it any proper aid and as- 
 sistance by the Bureau of Immigration, Labor and Sta- 
 tistics, as, in his judgment, will not interfere with proper 
 conduct of his department. 
 
 Section 6. The Commission herein authorized to be 
 appointed shall organize by the election of a chairman 
 and secretary and shall submit a full report of its work 
 and findings to the members and members-elect of the 
 next Legislature at least sxty days before its next regular 
 session, and shall include therein its recommendations for 
 legislation, together with such bill or bills providing for 
 a speedy remedy for employes for injuries received. 
 
 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 of the law 
 above quoted, the Governor, Honorable William Spry, on 
 the 1st day of March, 1916, appointed the Commission, 
 provided for under said Act, consisting of the Senator, 
 Don B. Colton; Eepresentative, Ira E. Browning; Mr. E. 
 C. Gemmel, Mr. H. B. Windsor, Mr. H. K. Russell, Mr. 
 Charles H. Pearson and Mr. LeGrand Young. The Com- 
 mission met immediately and selected the following of- 
 ficers: The Honorable Don B. Colton, Chairman; Mr. 
 LeGrand Young, Vice-Chairman, and Mr. H. B. Windsor, 
 Secretary, and Mr. H. K. Russell, Assistant Secretary, 
 who at once entered upon the work for which they were 
 appointed. 
 
 In the judgment of your committee, among the first 
 of their duties was to investigate the laws of the several 
 States and to ascertain the nature of their working, as 
 well as the Commission could do in the time they had and 
 with practically no means at their command, to make their 
 findings and report them. The Secretary of the 
 
Commission, under its instructions, communicated 
 with a number of the various commissions and officers 
 of the several States, in relation to the matter in hand, 
 asking for their latest laws and proposed bills, and in- 
 quiring into the workings thereof. Prompt answers came 
 to the letters so written, with the views of several men 
 who had given the subject years of study. One or two of 
 our members, also, at their own expense and while on 
 eastern trips, visited various states and brought back 
 word of their experience. The Commission also had 
 some most valuable interviews with Chairman Mullin 
 of the Nevada State Commission when he was stopping 
 over in Salt Lake and adopted valuable suggestions from 
 him. 
 
 It is to be regretted, however, that the Commission 
 could not have visited other states as a body, to observe, 
 at first hand, the operations of the various laws. 
 
 Other States gave their Commissions as many thou- 
 sands as we had hundreds, which enabled them to employ 
 a paid Secretary and to have the needed clerical help, as 
 well as to do a reasonable amount of traveling. 
 
 After a very thorough investigation of the several 
 laws now in force, your Commission formulated the bill 
 which is herewith returned to your Honorable Body, 
 and it is made a part of this report. 
 
 It is too early yet to finally pass upon the merits of 
 the system. The legislation on the subject in America is 
 but a few years old, and the experience under the earlier 
 laws was not such as to give much important information 
 or data. This statement, however, does not apply to the 
 experience of the different governments of Europe. It 
 is now some thirty years or more since the German gov- 
 ernment passed laws in regard to workingmen's compen- 
 sation, doing away with the liability law. It was some 
 time later that the Austrian-Hungarian parliament and 
 the English parliament undertook to deal with this im- 
 portant question. 
 
The experience of these several governments, viewed 
 through the workings of the boards and commissions, un- 
 der these laws have been examined by delegations from 
 this country and men appointed by Congress and also 
 from some of the States of the Union. After the most 
 thorough and searching investigation by the commissions 
 so appointed, as well as by other parties who have inter- 
 ested themselves in this question, it seems to be the uni- 
 versal verdict, so far as the principle is concerned, that 
 the workingmen's compensation law is far ahead of the 
 employers' liability law, both in favor of the working- 
 man and the employer. 
 
 In our endeavors to find the best precedents we could 
 obtain, we have studied, in a tentative way, all the laws, 
 and quite thoroughly some of the laws, of the different 
 States, and after a pretty thorough investigation, the 
 commission came to the conclusion that the statute of 
 Indiana, approved by the session of its Legislature of 
 1915, was about the most up-to-date piece of legislation 
 found on this subject. So we have practically adopted 
 the Statute of Indiana. Of course, your Commission has 
 had to make some additions and amendments, but as a 
 whole, it has used that Statute as a basis for its bill, with 
 the addition of desirable features from the Compensation 
 Laws of Colorado, Nevada, Montana, and from the very 
 latest of all, that of Kentucky. 
 
 The bill we present to your Honorable Body makes 
 the title of the proposed law "The Utah Workmen's 
 Compensation Act/' 
 
 The bill is divided into five parts. Part one deals 
 with the rights and remedies; part two the compensa- 
 tion schedule ; part three has to do with the administra- 
 tion of the proposed law; part four deals with the ques- 
 tion of insurance, and provides the manner in which the 
 compensation of workingmen shall be secured, and part 
 five has reference to definitions and miscellaneous pro- 
 visions. 
 
The Commission in this report does not attempt a 
 thorough analysis of this bill, as the bill itself is a part of 
 your Commission's report and it will speak for itself. 
 Besides this, there is added to the bill a general digest 
 which, to some extent, does away with the necessity of 
 analysis of different parts of it. Your Commission will, 
 however, make a brief reference to a few prominent pro- 
 visions of the bill. 
 
 First. The bill provides that it shall be presumed 
 that all employers and all employes and the legal repre- 
 sentatives of any and all deceased employes shall accept 
 the terms of the Act, and that if they decline to accept the 
 terms of the proposed law they will have to give notice, 
 as provided in the law itself. By this provision it will 
 be seen that the law isj^lectiye. This question of making 
 the Act elective or mandatory is one that engaged the at- 
 tention of your Commission for some time, and after a 
 thorough discussion they concluded to adopt the elective 
 form in preference to the compulsory. 
 
 Among the reasons for this view are that most of the 
 States have adopted a form of bill, of this style, and be- 
 sides that, the Commission believed it to be more in har- 
 mony with the genius of our institutions, and that it would 
 also be better received by the employer and the employe 
 in this form. At an early period in our investigations 
 and discussions we met with the important pro- 
 vision of our Constitution in regard to the rights 
 of representatives of deceased persons. The provision 
 we have reference to is Section 5, Article 16 of the Utah 
 Constitution, which reads : The right of action to recover 
 damages for injuries resulting in death shall never be ab- 
 rogated, and the amount recoverable shall not be limited 
 by any statutory regulation." 
 
 Our view of this section of the Constitution is that 
 we could not, in any way, limit the right of the heirs or 
 next of kin of a deceased person, who had met his death 
 through the negligence of some other party, from claiming 
 
 7 
 
the right to sue for damages in any amount that such 
 heirs or next of kin might elect to name. 
 
 After a thorough discussion of this question the 
 Commission believes they have met this inhibition of the 
 Constitution in a manner that will be in harmony with 
 the provision above quoted. In this law the Commis- 
 sion has not tried to take away the right of the next of 
 kin or the heirs of deceased persons to bring an action 
 against an employer to recover any amount they desire. 
 The proposed act gives the representative of a deceased 
 person a new right which they can accept if they so elect. 
 If the representatives of a deceased person decline to ac- 
 cept the provisions of this bill, or indeed, if any injured 
 person refuses to accept the provisions of the law, having 
 exempted himself, by proper notice, the bill has 
 restored to the employer who has accepted the provisions 
 therof the right to defend himself against the claims of 
 such parties the unrestricted right of all common law de- 
 fenses, such as the negligence of a fellow servant, con- 
 tributory negligence and the assumption of risk by the 
 injured party as such defenses existed before any amend- 
 ments to them by the Statutory law. 
 
 Your Commission are well aware there will be some 
 criticism on this particular point ; they presume it will be 
 said that while the law pretends to preserve the right of 
 the legal representatives and next of kin of a deceased em- 
 ploye to sue for any sum, it coerces such party and forces 
 him to accept the law by giving to the employer the de- 
 fenses that will defeat the recalcitrant heir. Possibly 
 this may -be the effect of it, but your Commission fully 
 believes that the Legislature is justified in this class of 
 legislation, in placing all employes on the same footing as 
 near as it can, and if any, who happen to be exceptionally 
 favored, and on that account or for cny reason, decline 
 to be governed by the provisions of this statute, your 
 Commission is inclined to believe that the employers who 
 do accept the law should receive all the protection it is 
 possible to give them. 
 
The Act or proposed Act provides that it shall not 
 apply to casual laborers or to employers who employ less 
 than four in the same industrial employment, nor to pri- 
 vate householders, nor to domestic servants. 
 
 It will be noticed that Section 9 does not except 
 agriculture. 
 
 This is a most interesting question. 
 
 When the compensation question was before the last 
 legislature it was brought out most clearly that the min- 
 ing employers looked with suspicion upon the putting of 
 the agricultural industry into the class which was ex- 
 empted, but which could elect to accept the provisions of 
 the compensation law. Eepresentatives of the miners 
 asked many pointed questions at public meetings and else- 
 where, and they took the very reasonable ground that they 
 particularly desired the farmers to be included, especially 
 as they were so powerful in the Legislature. 
 
 The mining fraternity ridiculed the idea that agri- 
 culture is so devoid of hazard as not to be considered in 
 connection with legislation of this sort. They point out 
 that the days of treading out the wheat with the ox or of 
 threshing with a hand flail, when slow and comparatively 
 safe agencies of animals and water supplied the power for 
 agricultural pursuits, were past ; that now the farmer digs 
 post holes and plants trees with dynamite, plows with 
 tractors and reaps with harvesters driven with gasoline 
 or steam. 
 
 They point to the fact that the accident insurance 
 companies which have the data and statistics of long ex- 
 perience, rate farming, with the raising and marketing of 
 cattle, horses and sheep, as being almost on a par with 
 mining for a high accident experience. 
 
 The Commission confesses that they can find no good 
 reason for exempting agricultural pursuits and it there- 
 fore had included them in those to be covered. 
 
 They do, however, believe that the small farmer who 
 operates with the help of his family and a very limited 
 
 9 
 
amount of extra help at the harvest season should be 
 permitted to choose his own method. 
 
 The Commission feels that few understand the lia- 
 bility they are now under and that in a short time all will 
 be glad to take the protection of the compensation law 
 which does not create a new liability, but merely regu- 
 lates one that now exists. 
 
 They feel that the small and struggling farmer should 
 have the option of deciding this question for himself, but 
 they feel that the same privilege should be extended to 
 the small miner, printer or lodging house keeper. There- 
 fore, Section 9 exempts those employing less than four, 
 thereby following the example of other States and ex- 
 tending the option to those who will most probably exag- 
 gerate the consequences to themselves from a pessimistic 
 standpoint. 
 
 The bill also provides that if the employer elects not 
 to operate under this Act, he shall not be allowed to de- 
 fend himself on any one of the three grounds, first : That 
 the employe was negligent ; second : Assumption of risk 
 by the injured party; third: Contributory negligence. 
 
 The Act is drawn so as to protect the employe by 
 giving the employe the same preference against the as- 
 sets of the employer as is allowed for in unpaid wages for 
 labor, and no claim for compensation under the proposed 
 Act is assignable, and such claim is exempt from the 
 claims of creditors. 
 
 The provision of the Act covers all the employes of 
 municipal corporations. 
 
 In Section 25 the Commission has borrowed from the 
 Montana law with regard to retaining the well-established 
 "hospital" or medical arrangement that now exists, par- 
 ticularly in the mining camps. 
 
 As the custom and arrangement seemed mutually sat- 
 isfactory and to be without abuse, the Commission pro- 
 vided for the continuation of the present method, but. 
 with certain restrictions and a prohibition of any profit 
 
 whatever to the employer over and above actual cost. 
 
 10 
 
In Section 28 we find the waiting period which we 
 recommended to be the usual fourteen days that the ma- 
 jority of the states have adopted. 
 
 It is interesting to note in this connection that Colo- 
 rado, our nearest neighbor on the east, has a waiting pe- 
 riod of three weeks, which is about the longest of any, 
 while Nevada 'on our west side has only one week, which 
 is almost the shortest of any. 
 
 Arizona, California and Montana have the period of 
 two weeks, which is considered as being sufficient to dis- 
 courage malingering and obviate the flood of small claims 
 that would be inevitable from the smaller accidents. 
 
 Certainly it would be a thriftless provider who could 
 not bridge over this short period and by omitting the 
 trivial accidents a better provision can be made for those 
 of more consequence. 
 
 Part Second pertains to : 
 
 Compensation Schedule. 
 
 Your Commission will not attempt to analyze this 
 schedule. It, like the rest of the bill, and more particu- 
 larly than any other part of the bill, will have to be read 
 and studied. As above stated, the Commission has taken 
 the provisions of this schedule from the laws of the ma- 
 jority of the other States. 
 
 There is one thing in this schedule that has occurred 
 to a portion of your Commission since they prepared the 
 bill, that it might be deemed unfair in relation to the com- 
 pensation for total disability. They very much doubt that 
 the provision, as they have it, which is, however, practi- 
 cally a copy of other laws, will prove satisfactory. It 
 seems to your Commission that the amount to be paid in 
 cases of total disability should be extended over a much 
 greater period. Indeed, in justice to the employe, it 
 should be for his whole life, but your Commission do not 
 mean by this remark that the amount to be paid should be 
 increased beyond a reasonable amount, but the amounts 
 should be paid in smaller sums, after a time, each 
 
 11 
 
week or each month and made to cov%r a greater length 
 of time, and possibly this part of the schedule in extreme 
 cases should be moderately increased. 
 
 We will close this section of our report by stating 
 and showing that various communications have been re- 
 ceived from employers, particularly those engaged in 
 coal mining, calling attention to the disadvantage in a 
 commercial way that will be put upon the Utah producers 
 if the schedule is made larger than that of the adjoining 
 states. The following is a brief statement of the sched- 
 ules of Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Wyoming, 
 and Utah : 
 
 
 TOTAL 
 DISABILITY 
 
 PARTIAL 
 DISABILITY 
 
 DEATH 
 
 Arizona 
 Colorado 
 Montana . - 
 
 50% of average 
 wages; maximum, 
 $4,000. 
 
 50% of average 
 weekly wages ; 
 maximum, $8, to 
 continue as long 
 as disability is to- 
 tal. 
 
 50% of weekly 
 
 50% of average loss 
 of earning power; 
 maximum $4,000. 
 
 50% of impairment 
 of earning capac- 
 ity; max. weekly 
 $8; max. amount 
 $2,080. Special 
 schedule for loss 
 certain members. 
 
 50% of impairment 
 
 Sum equal to 2,400 
 times & daily wages; 
 max. $4,000. If no 
 dependants, rea- 
 sonable expenses 
 of medical atten- 
 tion and burial. 
 
 Maximum $2,500. If 
 no depend ants, 
 burial expenses; 
 max. $100. 
 
 From 30%: to 50%, 
 
 Nevada 
 
 wages ; maximum 
 weekly $10 for 400 
 weeks or $4,000, 
 thereafter at $5 
 weekly while per- 
 manent disability 
 lasts. 
 
 50% of average 
 
 of earning capac- 
 ity for 150 weeks, 
 if permanent; 50 
 weeks if tempor- 
 ary. Special sched- 
 ule for loss of 
 members. 
 
 50% wage loss 
 
 according to kin- 
 ship of dependants; 
 max. weekly $10; 
 max. period 400 
 wks. or $4,000. If 
 no dependa nts 
 burial expenses, 
 max. $75. 
 
 In all cases burial 
 
 Wyoming 
 Idaho 
 
 monthly wages; 
 max. $60; max. pe- 
 riod 100 months; 
 max. amt. $5,000. 
 
 Lump sum of $1000 
 if unmarried. If 
 dependants limit 
 of $3,000. 
 
 Compensation law 
 
 monthly; max. $40; 
 max. period 60 
 months; special 
 schedule for loss of 
 members. 
 
 Special schedule for 
 loss of members. 
 
 expenses; max. 
 $125; 40% to 60%, 
 max. amts. $4,000 
 and $5,000, and 
 $6,000, according to 
 number of depen- 
 dants. 
 
 In all cases burial 
 expenses; max. 
 $50. If dependants, 
 amount $2000. 
 
 Utah 
 
 passed last Legis- 
 lature, but vetoed 
 on account of a 
 TOO large appro- 
 priation. 
 
 50% of average 
 
 50% of impairment 
 
 Max limi^ $3.00d. If 
 
 
 wages; max. week- 
 ly $12; max. amt. 
 $4,000. 
 
 of earning capac- 
 ity; max. weekly 
 $12: max. amount 
 $3,000. 
 
 no depend ants. 
 burial expenses: 
 max. $100. 
 
 12 
 
Prom the above digest it will be seen that the Com- 
 mission recommends a schedule that is between that of 
 Colorado and Wyoming, and that of Nevada. 
 
 It was finally decided to leave the schedule as it is, 
 realizing that it was impossible to attain^ more than gen- 
 eral and approximate results for the initial law, and the 
 Commission suggests that this and other apparently de- 
 sirable phases be left to be adjusted by the Industrial 
 Board, and for possible future amendment. In Section 77 
 the much discussed Alien question is dealt with by the 
 recommendation of half benefits and other restrictions 
 for which there are good reasons and examples among 
 other States, such as Colorado, Montana and Kentucky. 
 
 Safety lies in the middle way and in beaten paths, 
 and the Commission has been reluctant to recommend 
 that Utah, in the beginning, should adopt features not 
 generally in vogue. 
 
 The next or third part of the bill is entitled 
 
 Administration. 
 
 By it a Board of three persons is created to adminis- 
 ter this statute, all to be appointed by the Governor, with 
 quasi judicial powers. Their salaries and expenses are 
 to be paid by the State as other state officers. 
 
 One of the first objections to this law will be that it 
 increases the state expenses and adds a new burden to 
 the people. Your Commission are inclined to believe that 
 this is to a great extent a misconception. While it is 
 conceded that the administration of this law is going to 
 cost the State some money, it will not be as expensive on 
 the people generally as one would at first think it would 
 be. As it is today, and has been always, the injured un- 
 fortunates who cannot support themselves have been a 
 burden on the public, or worse still, have been a burden 
 on some particular part of the public, and most often on 
 that particular part that is least able to bear it. By this 
 statute or proposed law, this burden is simply shifted 
 from a few to all. Society in the aggregate pays no more 
 
 13 
 
money in the long run it simply pays it as a whole in 
 place of a part of it. Besides, this law will relieve 
 the Courts of about one-fifth of their business, which will 
 be a big reduction in the costs to the State. But what- 
 ever may be the cost to the State, this bill belongs to the 
 class of legislation that the State will sooner or later have 
 to enact if it attempts to keep pace with the demands of 
 the public and with the advancement of its sister com- 
 monwealths. 
 
 Many plans have been discussed for the administra- 
 tion of the law by less than an industrial board of three, 
 but your Commission are fully convinced that a less num- 
 ber would be ineffectual when the extent of territory to be 
 covered and the scope of duties are considered. In fact, 
 where any state has unduly limited the number of the 
 commission, it has made up the cost in the number of sec- 
 retaries, aides and assistants in different parts of the 
 State, so there has been nothing gained in the point of 
 economy to reduce the Commission below the number we 
 have named. The Connecticut statute provides for four 
 Commissioners, and as stated in Section 27 of its law: 
 
 "Each of said Commissioners shall receive a salary 
 of $5,000 per annum, payable in equal monthly install- 
 ments in like manner as the salary of a Judge of the Su- 
 perior Court, and an allowance for reasonable and neces- 
 sary expenses incurred in the discharge of his duties, in- 
 cluding the services of a stenographer where necessary, 
 not exceeding in all $600, to be taxed and allowed by a 
 Judge of the Superior Court. ' ' 
 
 You will notice by this that they have fixed the salary 
 the same as that given to the Judges of the Superior 
 Court, and this is the general trend of all the legislation 
 upon this subject. But bear in mind that most of the 
 Judges of the Superior Court are Judges of general juris- 
 diction and not what is deemed appellate court. 
 
 In the report accompanying the Connecticut compen- 
 sation law, the Commission say : 
 
 "In regard to the administrative parts of the bill, as 
 the abolition of litigation, with its numerous disadvan- 
 
 14 
 
tages, has been one of the main objects of the workmen's 
 compensation movement, a bill which would not meet this 
 necessity would probably not be satisfactory either to the 
 employer or the employe. " 
 
 We also call your attention to the report of the Ten- 
 nessee Commission: 
 
 We will conclude this part of our report by stating 
 that after carefully analyzing each bill that has come be- 
 fore your Commission, they have formulated the pro- 
 visions of part three, mostly taken from the Indiana law, 
 .that we believe will be found sufficient to justly administer 
 the provisions of the proposed act. 
 
 The next subject for consideration is the fourth pro- 
 vision of the bill. This is entitled 
 
 Insurance. 
 
 The main thing to be sought in this part of the bill 
 is the absolute certainty that the injured party will re- 
 ceive the money that is promised him. We will say here, 
 we believe that by observing the rules made by the bill we 
 propose, no injured employe will lose the compensation 
 guaranteed him under this proposed law. It will be ob- 
 served we have not provided for any public insurance au- 
 thorized and governed by the State. Your Commission are 
 not inclined to recommend legislation providing for the 
 State to enter into the private business of this character. 
 The report of the Tennessee Commission deals very rea- 
 sonably with this question. They say : 
 
 ' * We are in grave doubt whether the volume of busi- 
 ness involved in the administration of a State Adminis- 
 tered Compensation Fund in Tennessee would justify the 
 large expense incidental to the establishment and opera- 
 tion of such a fund, with its elaborate machinery and ex- 
 pensive organization ramifying through every portion of 
 the State. 
 
 "We adhere to the view, as a sound principle of our 
 form of government, that the State should never embark 
 in any form of business undertaking unless the reasons 
 for it are so overwhelming as to amount substantially to 
 an unavoidable necessity, and then only when it is obvious 
 
 15 
 
that such business cannot be adequately or satisfactorily 
 conducted under private initiative. It is certainly ap- 
 parent that if this view be sound and if insurance of this 
 character be considered a business, no justification can 
 be found, certainly at this time and in this early stage of 
 the development of workmen's compensation legislation, 
 for state insurance in Tennessee. 
 
 "The circumstances surrounding a politically -admin- 
 istered business of this character are not such as to lend 
 themselves to that efficient, economical and satisfactory 
 management which is a prime necessity in the conduct of 
 such an enterprise, and the potential danger of the use of 
 such an organization for political purposes should not 
 be overlooked. 
 
 1 i These being our views, we have decided not to rec- 
 ommend any form of State Insurance. ' ' 
 
 This same question is discussed by the "Labor 
 World " of Pittsburg, Pa., a paper published in the in- 
 terests of the laboring men. The editor says : 
 
 "History has proven that there is nothing more de- 
 ceptive than reliance on laws affecting reforms in per- 
 sonal habit, business methods and industrial success. 
 Whenever law has attempted to do for the people what 
 the people can do for themselves, there has been disap- 
 pointment all round ; and, the curious fact about the mat- 
 ter has always been that those disappointed ones have 
 not only failed to perceive the impotency of law in the 
 case, but they have insisted on trying to remedy their 
 disappointment by demanding 'more laws' as a means of 
 bolstering up the previous law. In turn this 'bolstering' 
 law has also disappointed, and then again the deceived 
 people have once more clamored for still 'more law.' And 
 so it has gone on and on. Each law designed to perform 
 the duties of the people instead of making the way clear 
 for the people to attend to their own affairs, has only in- 
 cited stronger desires for more legislation. 
 
 "All of the foregoing leads to the question: Have 
 the more or less monopolistic compulsory state compen- 
 sation funds in Ohio, New York, Washington and West 
 Virginia served the wage workers better, or as well as 
 private companies could have done? We hold that they 
 have not done so, even under handicaps imposed on the 
 companies ; and, to this answer we add the vital fact that 
 
 16 
 
the law makes compensation just as certain under private 
 companies as it does under the state fund, but there is 
 no guarantee for expeditious operation under the state 
 fund." 
 
 We might quote volumes on this point from dif- 
 ferent reports and bills throughout the states, but we 
 deem it unnecessary, and we will conclude this part of our 
 report by saying that we are opposed to state insurance, 
 or indeed to any state interference with private business. 
 >Io monopoly can be trusted. It makes no difference 
 whether it is operated by a state or private individual. It 
 can assume dictatorial terms and be uncompromising in 
 its administration. 
 
 The fifth and last subdivision of the bill that your 
 commission submit to you is Part V, entitled 
 
 Definitions and Miscellaneous Provisions. 
 
 This we need not discuss, as it is practically a copy 
 of the Indiana law on this subject, and we might say a 
 copy of most laws. We will state, however, that a provis- 
 ion is made for the payment of the expenses of the admin- 
 istration. Section 81 reads as follows: 
 
 "Appropriation. For the purpose of paying salaries 
 and expenses of members of Industrial Board and its em- 
 ployes the sum of $25,000 a year, or as much thereof as 
 may be necessary, is hereby appropriated out of any mon- 
 eys in the State Treasury not otherwise appropriated." 
 
 Section 83 reads : 
 
 "Section 83. This Act shall take effect on July 1, 
 1917, except Part III, with the exception of Sec. 67, shall 
 take effect upon approval." 
 
 Part III is the one in regard to administration, which 
 would have to take effect at once, in order to make proper 
 preparation ; and Section 67 has reference to the report- 
 ing of accidents to the Board. 
 
 There are a few questions that are important in re- 
 gard to this law to which your Commission feel they should 
 refer. The first one is the question, "Is such a statute 
 necessary; what reason can we give for going to so great 
 
 17 
 
expense in substituting a statute of this sort for the or- 
 dinary liability of the employer to the employe? What 
 ivill the public gain, or indeed what or who will be bene- 
 fited? Above all, will the injured wage earner or his 
 dependent wife and children get value received for that 
 ivhich he and they are yielding? These are questions 
 that must be answered, and the latter must be answered 
 in the affirmative, or the law will be a failure. 
 
 The main principle underlying this proposed statute 
 is that the business in which the workingmen are engaged 
 should assume the expenses of all accidents, whether it 
 be for a broken wheel, a broken mandril in the machine, or 
 the broken limb of an employe ; that the latter is just as 
 much a legitimate part of the expense of operating the 
 business as the former. In other words, that all acci- 
 dents should be deemed a part of the expense of the busi- 
 ness or manufacturing establishments, and, like every 
 other expense of such business, should be borne by the 
 institution that operates it ; and that in the last and final 
 analysis, the public who use the product of such business, 
 as it should do, will have to bear the burden of the ex- 
 penses that such injury entails, which under the employ- 
 er's liability laws heretofore resorted to by the injured 
 employe, was wholly cast upon the employer and the 
 families or neighbors of the unfortunate victims. 
 
 The first thought that this proposed law suggests to 
 one having given no consideration to it, is that such a law 
 may be denying the employe some important right, that 
 it is taking away from him some valuable asset and is 
 giving him in return something of less value. This thought 
 comes from the fact that now and again some injured em- 
 ploye brings an action at common law and a jury awards 
 the plaintiff a large sum of money, ranging from $2,000 
 
 18 
 
to $10,000. The public hear of this exceptional case and 
 are disposed to think that all injured employes are or 
 can be likewise treated ; that every injured employe has a 
 good cause of action, and that all he has to do is to place 
 his complaint before a court and jury and they will award 
 him damages. The public do not understand, or if they 
 do, they have forgotten, that there are many injured em- 
 ployes who bring suits and get but little. Still a greater 
 number of cases have no cause of action, and they are not 
 entitled to any consideration. It is certainly not general- 
 ly understood that only about ten or twelve per cent of 
 the injured employes ever receive compensation as a re- 
 sult of a suit at law, and that at least fully one-third, 
 if not one-half, of this compensation is lost in litigation : 
 nor is it generally understood, but it is an established 
 fact, that about 50 per cent of all accident cases are 
 caused from the risk of the business, and that about 26 
 per cent of the accidents take place through the negJigence 
 of the employe himself; that about 12 per cent are 
 by the negligence of a fellow servant or the 
 employe and employer together, leaving about 12 per cent 
 that happens through the negligence of the employer 
 alone. It would, therefore, be readily conceded that 50 
 per cent, or thereabout, of the accidents are caused 
 through no one's fault, but through the necessary risk of 
 the business In this connection your Commission will 
 take the liberty of referring to the very able address of 
 the Honorable George Sutherland before the United 
 States Senate. Senator Sutherland in that address quotes 
 from a speech of Mr. Boyd, who is at the head of the Ohio 
 Commission, and who has given this matter of the work- 
 men's compensation law a most thorough investiga- 
 tion. In summing up his argument on the question of 
 the necessity for some such a law, Mr. Boyd says : 
 
 II 
 
"The United States employer's liability act, which 
 practically did the same thing and introduced a new doc- 
 trine, the doctrine of comparative negligence as between 
 the employer and the employes, so that the historical evo- 
 lution of the problem itself shows that the common-law 
 remedy is a failure; you cannot adjust the matter by 
 modifying the common-law defenses or taking away the 
 common-law defenses. Now, the investigations of New 
 York State, of Ohio, of Illinois, and the Eussell Sage 
 Commission, and the Allegheny Committee of Pittsburg, 
 Pa., show the following results: 
 
 i i In New York State, on an average, a workman dur- 
 ing the last eight or ten years recovered in something 
 like 12 per cent of the cases. That is, where there were 
 414,000 accidents reported the liability insurance com- 
 panies, something or other was paid in 52,000 of them, 
 or about one case in eight. 
 
 "In Ohio, in the settlement of 65,800 cases in Cuya- 
 hoga County in a period of about eight years, something 
 was paid in less than 6 per cent of the cases, and in Il- 
 linois something was paid in eight per cent of the cases. 
 
 ' ' Now, if you take the economic operation of the Ger- 
 man insurance acts, which in 1887 had 4,000,000 employes 
 under them and today have 27,000,000 workmen and their 
 dependents insured against the loss of wages arising out 
 of industrial accidents, you can attribute on the average 
 only 18 per cent of the cases to the negligence of the em- 
 ployer and about 28 per cent of the accidents to the negli- 
 gence of the employes, while in 44 per cent of the acci- 
 dents the causes are due to the natural, inevitable risks 
 of the business and 10 per cent to the combined negli- 
 gence of the employer and the employe. " 
 
 From this quotation, it would seem pretty conclusive 
 that only about one-tenth of the personal injury cases are 
 ever heard in court, and about one-half of these recover 
 damages. 
 
 Speaking further from the Germany insurance sta- 
 tistics, which are about the same as in the United States, 
 they show that : 
 
 The percentage of accidents that are due to the negli- 
 gence of the employer was about 20.47 per cent; that 
 those due to the negligence of the employe 26.56 per cent ; 
 due to the negligence of both parties, 8.01 per cent; due 
 
 20 
 
to inevitable risks of the industries and other causes, 
 44.96 per cent. That was the experience in 1887. In 
 1897, ten years later, the statistics showed that the in- 
 juries due to the negligence of the employer were 17.30 
 per cent ; of the employe 39.44 per cent ; of both parties, 
 10.14 per cent; and due to the inevitable risks of the in- 
 dustries, 42.82 per cent. Ten years later the statistics 
 showed that the employer was guilty of 16.91 per cent; 
 the employe, 28.90 per cent, and both parties 9.94 per 
 cent, and due to the inevitable risk of the business, 44.36 
 per cent. 
 
 It would seem from what your Commission have stated 
 and from what your Commission have quoted above, that 
 the proposition above mentioned in relation to fairness of 
 this bill to the employe is beyond question, and that some 
 law, some rule of conduct to meet the problem of work- 
 men's compensation for accidents is necessary. 
 
 The next point in this particular subject and in con- 
 nection with it, is how do the workingmen themselves feel 
 about this matter. To start out with, it must be borne in 
 mind that the law is in the nature of an accident insurance 
 to them. It is a compromise on both sides. No 
 one of the injured workmen know whether he will be in- 
 jured, and if he is, whether he will be one who will re- 
 ceive a large verdict at the hands of a jury after years of 
 litigation, or whether he will be one of the 90 per cent who 
 never get anything. Besides this, the workman with total 
 disability receiving from $2,000 to $10,000, or the repre- 
 sentatives of a deceased from $3,000 to $8,000, must bear 
 in mind that about one-half of this amount is wasted in 
 litigation, even if he is one of those who are injured sole- 
 ly on the ground of his employer's negligence. So the 
 sums to be finally recovered are not so different between 
 the maximum amount given in the workmen's compen- 
 sation and the amount that is realized by the most for- 
 tunate litigant under the old system. From the working- 
 
 21 
 
men's standpoint and the employer's interest, there can 
 be no question about the benefit to the workingmen as a 
 general proposition. This has been realized by most un- 
 ions, and most all of the heads of organized labor. The 
 Honorable George Sutherland in his United States Sen- 
 ate speech refers to this fact, and makes the following 
 statements, which we are again taking the opportunity 
 and liberty of quoting : 
 
 ' ' First of all, I call attention to the statement of Mr. 
 W. G. Lee, who is president of the Brotherhood of Rail- 
 road Trainmen of the United States. Mr. Lee came be- 
 fore the commission and spoke for that entire member- 
 ship of over 100,000 railroad trainmen. 
 
 "Mr. Lee says: 
 
 " ' I wish to go on record at this time as unqualified- 
 ly favoring a workmen's compensation act as a result of 
 resolutions passed by the last two biennial conventions 
 of our organizations. Just what form will be most satis- 
 factory to both employer and employee is a question, but 
 we believe that as far as possible litigation should stop as 
 between the employee and employer. We believe that 
 whatever money is disbursed by the employer should go 
 to those disabled and not a large proportion or percentage 
 to attorneys or others, as is the case at present. ' 
 
 "Mr. Sines, who was the Vice-President and Treas- 
 urer of the Railroad Trainmen, indorsed the bill in lan- 
 guage as follows : 
 
 " 'I want to say to you, gentlemen, that from the 
 standpoint of my organization, although we believe and 
 feel that the provision, in so far as it covers the number 
 of years is concerned, should be extended, it will have 
 the support of my organization as an organization.' 
 
 "Mr. Garretson, President of the Order of Railway 
 Conductors, representing 48,000 men, indorsed the bill as 
 follows : 
 
 " 'I am willing to surrender my broader ideas in 
 regard to many of those provisions, and to give, along 
 with the organization which I represent, cordial support 
 to the report of the commission as it will be formu- 
 lated.' " 
 
In the same speech of Honorable George Suther- 
 land, he quotes Mr. W. E. Stone, Vice-President of the 
 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, representing 69,- 
 739 men, in these words : 
 
 " Speaking as the chief executive of the engineers, I 
 want to say that your bill is going to have the support of 
 the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. We are going 
 to do everything we can to have it enacted into law." 
 
 Mr. Arthur E. Holder, legislative representative of 
 the American Federation of Labor, representing 60 per 
 cent of the railroad men of the country, had been sent to 
 England prior to the consideration of this question, and 
 after devoting some time to the study of the question, 
 returned to this country, and before the Commission 
 made the following statement: 
 
 * * In the first place, I want to say that the men who I, 
 directly and indirectly, represent, want the compensation 
 principle established. We are not going to be too insistent 
 upon conditions. We believe that it is one of the growths 
 of civilization, one of the advanced movements to protect 
 humanity, and we believe that when this principle is once 
 established in the United States that it will not be long 
 before the intelligence of the people will find all the ways 
 needed to make the act applicable to every requirement. 
 It is not for the sake of getting pelf or money that we 
 want the compensation principle established; that is a 
 secondary point. We want the principle established, Mr. 
 Chairman, for the sake of saving pain and suffering and 
 unnecessary neglect, that we think that in this advanced 
 age of the twentieth century there is little occasion for. 
 And we hope that by the penalties attached to a compen- 
 sation bill many hands and many feet may be left upon 
 men, who might otherwise be unnecessarily maimed. ' ' 
 
 Mr. Gompers, who is President of the American Fed- 
 eration of Labor, appeared before the Commission, and 
 the Honorable George Sutherland quotes him as follows : 
 
 "I would rather see ail who were injured and their 
 dependents fairly cared for than to have one get a large 
 verdict or a large amount and the remainder fritter away 
 their time in litigation. ' ' 
 
 23 
 
In the report upon the operation of the state compen- 
 sation laws by the American Federation of Labor, dated 
 in the year 1914, the commission makes this statement on 
 page 21: 
 
 "The introduction of workmen's compensation laws 
 has opened the way for the establishment of more ami- 
 cable relations between employers and employes. In 
 their operation, the acts necessarily provide an opportun- 
 ity for workmen and employers to meet and consider ques- 
 tions relating to compensation and accident prevention. 
 Indirectly, these meetings, promoting as they do acquain- 
 tanceship between employers and workmen, lead to the 
 discussion of other questions which affect their common 
 interest. As a consequence, many of the causes of mis- 
 understanding which arose because of the failure of the 
 two sides to confer have been removed, and a better and 
 mutually advantageous relationship has been established. 
 
 "Under the old system the litigation growing out of 
 industrial accidents led to discord and friction, with in- 
 jurious consequences which could not be calculated. The 
 tendency was distinctly to drive the employer and the 
 employe farther apart. In contrast to that system, the 
 operation of compensation laws has tended to bring about 
 a community of interest and a difference in sentiment 
 that has improved even the trade relationship. Compen- 
 sation in an industry has been a benefit to the whole of it 
 and all engaged in it. ' ' 
 
 In conclusion of the above subject, your Commission 
 think they can say without hesitation and without suc- 
 cessful contradiction that the laboring unions and the la- 
 boring men are in favor of the compensation principle, 
 and your Commission do not think it necessary to enter 
 more fully into discussion on this particular part of the 
 subject. 
 
 The next important question that we have to dis- 
 cuss, and it will be done very briefly, is the one that nat- 
 urally would follow the question of the workmen's con- 
 sideration of this law, and that is, how is it going to af- 
 fect the employers and how is it going to affect their busi- 
 ness, what is their attitude toward it, why should the 
 
 24 
 
employer accept this somewhat additional burden ad- 
 ditional burden, at least, in the early periods of its work- 
 ings? 
 
 In addition to what we have heretofore stated in re- 
 lation to this law being advantageous to the employers, 
 we can say in a general way that we are prepared to sus- 
 tain the following propositions. We believe that the em- 
 ployers can well afford to accept the provisions of the 
 Compensation Act. We believe that it is far ahead of the 
 Employer's Liability Act. Under the latter v/hen the 
 matter of the injured employe comes before the court, 
 practically all the common law defenses of the employer 
 are modified and some of them entirely removed, and the 
 employer was, and is almost helpless before a .jury of men 
 whose sympathies are bound to be against the employer 
 and in favor of the injured employe. When a 
 workman is injured, the sympathy of the whole shop 
 where he is employed is aroused; it is against the em- 
 ployer and in favor of the injured party. There is a good 
 deal of doubt whether or not under this condition of 
 things, the workmen who are not injured can give ef- 
 ficient service with the feeling that they have, half an- 
 tagonistic and half hate against the employer who is 
 possibly their best friend. There is a mutual distrust be- 
 tween the employer and the employe. This bill seeks to 
 remove this difficulty. It endeavors to settle this class 
 of cases in a friendly way, each one yielding something 
 and both in the long run being benefited. Your Commis- 
 sion can conscientiously say that they believe that if there 
 is no other benefit to the employer obtained from this bill 
 than the fact that it is a help to smooth the way to better 
 feelings and more confidence between employer and em- 
 ployee, it is sufficient to justify the extra expense that the 
 employer will have to pay. 
 
 25 
 
In concluding this report we will truly say that when 
 we started an examination of the matter of the Work- 
 men's Compensation Act, we had very grave doubts of 
 its feasibility. We doubted the justice of the measure, 
 both as to the employe and to the employer. But we can 
 truly say, the more we have examined the principle on 
 which this proposed law is based, the more we are con- 
 vinced that it is a proper step towards the solution of 
 one of the most vexed problems of our present civiliza- 
 tion. Of course, the two most important features of this 
 bill, or any bill of this character are : First, is the sched- 
 ule for injuries just to the workingmen; second, 
 is the manner of collecting the dues just to the employer? 
 All the rest of the law is simply machinery it is simply 
 means to an end. 
 
 Eeferring to the matter of the Board, whose duty it 
 is to administer this law, we doubt somewhat the wisdom 
 of limiting them in their powers in the matter of the 
 schedule as we now have it. We believe the time 
 will come when this schedule of prices will be modi- 
 fied and practically be done away with. We believe the 
 time will come when the Board will have power to say 
 to one employe who has lost a foot, that he will receive so 
 much, and to another employe, who has had the same 
 trouble, that he will receive so much; it may be an in- 
 crease or a decrease. The former may be a man with a 
 wife and one child; the latter may have a wife and ten 
 children. The former may not be so disabled after his 
 recovery that he cannot enter his former occupation. The 
 latter may be so disabled that he cannot perform his for- 
 mer duties. That these two classes of cases should be 
 treated just alike seems anything but just. We might 
 make many illustrations of this kind, but it is not neces- 
 sary. 
 
 26 
 
As we have stated above, this is a step in the right di- 
 rection. It may not meet all the wants of the workingmen, 
 and it may not cover all the demands of the employer. 
 But we can say truly that we do not expect to recommend 
 a law on this subject, or indeed on any other subject, that 
 is perfect or nearly so. As time goes on, however, it can 
 be amended and modified to meet the wants of society. 
 
 We turn this proposed law over to the members of 
 the Legislature, and the members-elect, with the hope that 
 it will pass, practically as it is, to form a broad, firm foun- 
 dation for this necessary legislation, not claiming, as 
 aforesaid, that it is perfect, but considering the law, as 
 recommended, as conservative, reasonably considerate of 
 all parties and sufficient for present initiatory needs. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 DON B. COLTON, Chairman 
 LE GEAND YOUNG 
 IRA E. BROWNING 
 H.B.WINDSOR 
 E. C. GEMMELL 
 CHAELES H. PEAESON 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah, November 1st, 1916. 
 
 27 
 
REPORT OF H. K. RUSSELL 
 
 Member of the Utah Employers' Liability and Workmen's 
 Compensation Commission. 
 
 To the Honorable the Governor, and the Members and 
 Members-elect of the Legislature of the State of 
 Utah, the Year 1917. 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen : 
 
 On March 1, 1916, 1 had the honor to be appointed by 
 Governor William Spry as a member of a Commission to 
 Inquire into the Question of Employers' Liability and 
 Other Matters, pursuant to an act passed by the 1915 
 session of the Utah Legislature. The Commission was 
 composed of the following: Senator Don B. Colton, 
 Eepresentative Ira R. Browning, Le Grand Young, E. C. 
 Gemmel, H. B. Windsor, Charles H. Pearson and H. K. 
 Russell. 
 
 The Commission had several meetings in Salt Lake 
 City and discussed the laws of the States which have Em- 
 ployers ' Liability and Workmen's Compensation meas- 
 ures in operation. 
 
 During these meetings there developed a wide dif- 
 ference of opinion among the members of the Commission 
 regarding several important matters pertaining to com- 
 pensation laws, but the majority of the Commission final- 
 ly agreed on the proposed law which is submitted and 
 signed by the major portion of this Commission. 
 
 The entire Commission was agreed that the principle 
 of a compensation law is just and that a law of this nature 
 should be on our statute books. I personally concur in this 
 view of the matter. 
 
 But I have not signed the report submitted by a ma- 
 jority of the Commission, for several reasons, and I am 
 herewith submitting in a brief manner my objections and 
 
 28 
 
exceptions to thq proposed law. It seems to me that the 
 working men and women should have had more consid- 
 eration given them than has been accorded them in this 
 measure, and for that reason I cannot conscientiously 
 sign the majority report, although I hope to see a com- 
 pensation law enacted by your honorable body which will 
 accomplish the results for which laws of this nature were 
 intended a law which will be absolutely fair to all con- 
 cerned. 
 
 During the sessions of the Commission I endeavored 
 to have incorporated into the proposed law some features 
 which seemed to me to be just and reasonable, but the 
 majority did not concur in my views and they were not 
 accepted. In this report I will touch on these features 
 briefly, as I do not deem it necessary to submit a great 
 mass of figures and reading matter for your considera- 
 tion. However, I believe these features should be written 
 into the Utah compensation law, and will leave it to your 
 sense of justice and fairness to decide. 
 
 Exceptions. 
 
 I cannot agree with the majority of the Commission 
 on the following sections of the proposed law, and in my 
 opinion, to be just and fair, they should be amended : 
 
 According to Section 9, this Act shall not apply to 
 those regularly employing less than four, except in the 
 case of State or Municipal corporations. In my opinion, 
 if a workman is injured or killed during the course of 
 his employment, he or his dependents should receive the 
 benefits of the compensation law, and I can see no good 
 reason to deny them these benefits simply because his 
 employer did not regularly employ five or more. If a 
 workman working for the same employer with three other 
 workmen is injured, why should he not receive compen- 
 sation just the same as if there had been four others 
 working with him at the time? The only argument 
 against this is that other States make exceptions in this 
 
case. Nevertheless, I can see no good reason for making 
 this exception, and I believe it should be amended to read 
 so that the injured or killed workman should receive the 
 benefits of the law even though he be the only workman 
 regularly employed. There may possibly be some good 
 reason for excluding casual employes in the service of 
 employers who have only such employes, but even in that 
 case I believe the policies could be so drawn as to include 
 casual as well as regular employes. 
 
 Section 25 provides that during the first thirty days 
 after an injury the employer shall furnish, free of charge, 
 "in the absence of a medical and ' hospital' contract or 
 agreement, " an attending physician and such surgical 
 and hospital service and supplies as may be deemed neces- 
 sary. Section 26 limits the amount to be paid by the em- 
 ployer to $100, "and may be abrogated entirely by mu- 
 tual agreement between employers and employes/' etc. 
 Subsection (b) of Section 26 then allows employes to be 
 assessed $1 per month for each employe, or even more in 
 certain cases. It appears to me that if the law is adopted 
 as it reads, the injured employes will not receive free 
 medical or hospital attendance in many cases. All that 
 will be necessary for employers who do not wish to pay 
 for this service to do will be to inform their employes 
 they wish to draw up a "medical and hospital contract." 
 In that case there will be nothing for the employes to do 
 but to agree to this plan, and the result will be that the 
 employes will have to pay $1 a month each, which in any 
 case is too large an amount. Therefore, I believe this 
 portion of the proposed law would be much more satis- 
 factory and fair if it should simply state that the em- 
 ployer should be required to furnish necessary medical, 
 surgical and hospital services and supplies for a reason- 
 able period (to be determined by the Industrial Board), 
 and that the Board should be empowered to establish a 
 
 30 
 
schedule of physicians * and hospital fees and to control 
 all such charges. 
 
 Waiting Period. 
 
 Section 28 provides that the waiting period (the time 
 which must elapse before an injured workman is entitled 
 to compensation), shall be fourteen days. The majority 
 report says : 
 
 "Certainly it would be a thriftless provider who 
 could not bridge over this short period, and by omitting 
 the trivial accidents a better provision can be made for 
 those of more consequence. " 
 
 I cannot agree with the majority that an accident 
 which would cause a workman to be absent from his work 
 for a period of time approaching two weeks is a trivial 
 one. A trivial accident would possibly be one which 
 would cause him to remain away from his work two or 
 three days. Some corporations even now pay their em- 
 ployes who might be injured their full wages should they 
 be absent from their work only one day, and yet it is pro- 
 posed that a workman must be incapacitated for over two 
 weeks before he is entitled to one-half of his average 
 wages. To my mind this is a very unjust provision in 
 this proposed law, and one which I cannot possibly agree 
 with. In my opinion the waiting period should be not 
 longer than three days in any case, and in some cases it 
 should begin with the disability of the workman. Several 
 States have a waiting period of from three to seven days, 
 among them being Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, 
 Ohio, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and also the 
 United States law. Some have no waiting period at all. 
 among these being Oregon, Washington and also Porto 
 Rico. I think three days should be ample. 
 
 31 
 
Compensation. 
 
 In computing the compensation to be paid under this 
 Act, it is provided that an amount of 50 per cent of the 
 employes' wages shall be paid, with a maximum of $12 
 per week and a minimum of $5 per week. It is my opinion 
 that 50 per cent is too small an amount. This is recog- 
 nized by many States, which have incorporated in their 
 laws amounts ranging from 66 2-3 to 65 per cent. The 
 maximum should also be raised to $15 instead of $12. 
 
 Total Disability Section 29 provides that 50 per 
 cent shall be paid for 333 1-3 weeks. Under this section 
 the greatest amount which would be received by a work- 
 man, even if incapacitated for the balance of his life, and 
 no matter what his earning power may have been, would 
 be $4,000, after which he would have to depend upon the 
 charity of someone until death relieved him. The mini- 
 mum amount to be paid under this section would be 
 $1,666. In my estimation this amount is too small. Twen- 
 ty-three other States are allowing larger amounts. I 
 would suggest the amount be regulated so that the work- 
 man totally disabled receive 65 per cent of his wages un- 
 til he receive $4,000, then 40 per cent for the balance of 
 his life. 
 
 Partial Disability and Permanent Partial Disability 
 Sections 30 and 31 should be made to conform to Total 
 Disability, so that the injured workman receive 65 per 
 cent instead of 50 per cent. 
 
 Death Section 37 provides that 50 per cent shall be 
 paid to dependents for 250 weeks; maximum, $12 per 
 week; minimum, $5 per week. Under this section, the 
 greatest amount which would be paid for the death of a 
 workman would be $3,000; the smallest amount. $1,250. 
 Think of it from $1,250 to $3,000 for the death of a 
 workman killed through the carelessness of another per- 
 
 32 
 
son. In my opinion it is absolutely ridiculous and out of 
 all proportion with judgments rendered in the past by 
 courts in like cases. As far as I have been able to de- 
 termine, but two States have a smaller maximum than 
 $3,000 Colorado and Wyoming.- Several others pay a 
 like amount. At least thirteen States have a maximum 
 greater than $3,000. Included in the latter are : Arizona, 
 $4,000; California, $5,000; Nevada, $4,000 to $6,000; 
 Texas, $5,400; Montana, $4,000. From these figures, it 
 appears to me that a $3,000 maximum for Utah is entirely 
 too low. Wages paid in this State are as high as any of 
 the surrounding States mentioned, and higher than some 
 others, and in view of this fact, I am of the opinion work- 
 men and their dependents should receive at least an equal 
 amount of compensation. I, therefore, would recommend 
 the Utah law provide compensation for dependents of 
 deceased workmen in a sum of not less than $2,000 as the 
 minimum and $5,000 as the maximum. 
 
 Aliens Section 77 provides that aliens and their de- 
 pendents shall be entitled to only one-half benefits. I am 
 not in accord with this idea, as I believe it can have but 
 one effect the discrimination against American work- 
 men in favor of aliens I therefore am of the opinion 
 that the same compensation should be paid to aliens and 
 their dependents as are paid to others under this law. 
 
 Insurance. 
 
 As to the advisability of establishing a State insur- 
 ance fund, operated and governed by the State, con- 
 siderable discussion was had by the Commission, the ma- 
 jority finally deciding to recommend that the Utah law 
 do not provide for State insurance. Personally I am not 
 convinced that a State fund would not be the best method 
 to adopt. In fact, it seems to me it would be a good busi- 
 ness proposition for the State. If private insurance com- 
 
 33 
 
panies can make money by insuring employes against ac- 
 cident and death, why cannot the State do the same thing! 
 The argument was put forth that in case of a great catas- 
 trophe the State fund would be bankrupt and the work- 
 men and their dependents would not receive payment in 
 full on their claims. But it seems to me the State would 
 be as likely to be able to pay these claims as private com- 
 panies. From information at hand, the State funds in 
 California, Wyoming and Pennsylvania, at least, are very 
 successful, and would appear to be a paying business 
 proposition. It seems to me this phase of the law should 
 receive a thorough investigation before a final decision 
 is made. 
 
 Occupational Diseases. 
 
 As to occupational diseases, the proposed law does 
 not provide any compensation. In fact, in Subsection 
 (d) of Section 76 it provides that "injury" and "per- 
 sonal injury" shall not include a disease in any form ex- 
 cept as it shall result proximately from the injury. 
 
 It is my opinion a great mistake has been made in not 
 including occupational diseases in this proposed law as a 
 cause for receiving compensation. There are, of course, 
 some instances where employes contract disease and die, 
 through no fault of the employer, who does everything he 
 can to have the best conditions possible under which his 
 employes may work. In this case the employer should 
 not suffer. But, on the other hand, there are many in- 
 stances where employes are compelled to work under 
 filthy and unsanitary conditions, which could be remedied 
 by the employer by the expenditure of a few dollars ; but 
 by reason of his negligence and his refusal to provide 
 sanitary conditions, his employes, through force of cir- 
 cumstances, are compelled to work under these condi- 
 tions and contract tuberculosis and other dread diseases, 
 
 34 
 
finally succumbing to the ravages of these diseases, leav- 
 ing their dependent ones penniless in many cases, and 
 naturally they become public charges. The majority of 
 the Commission did not deem it necessary to make any 
 provision in the proposed law for these unfortunate 
 workers, and I now wish to earnestly ask that a provision 
 be incorporated in the law which will compensate those 
 who contract disease by being compelled to work under 
 unsanitary conditions. I would recommend that Sub- 
 section (d) of Section 76 be amended to so read that it 
 will include those contracting diseases arising out of and 
 in the course of employment. 
 
 Accident Prevention. 
 
 The proposed" bill makes no provision for the pre- 
 vention of accidents, and in this it seems to me the bill is 
 faulty. I would suggest a portion of the bill be devoted to 
 this subject, dealing with the safety of places and condi- 
 tions under which employes are compelled to work, and 
 vesting the Industrial Board with power and jurisdiction 
 over every employment in the State as may be necessary 
 to enforce and administer the law so that all places of 
 employment shall be made safe and healthful and the 
 lives of workmen be protected as far as possible. The 
 Board should have power to declare what safety devices 
 must be used in certain employment, and also to enter 
 such places of employment at all reasonable times to see 
 that such safety and sanitary devices are properly in- 
 stalled and in use. I respectfully refer you to the Mon- 
 tana law on this subject. 
 
 The foregoing are some of the reasons submitted as 
 being grounds why I decline to sign the report of the ma- 
 jority of the Commission. I respectfully submit them for 
 your earnest consideration. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 H. K. EUSSELL. 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah, November 1, 1916. 
 
 35 
 
The Commission desires to express their appreciation to the 
 various persons who are mentioned in the foregoing report, 
 and also to the following for valuable assistance rendered : 
 
 H. G. Williams, Salt Lake City, Utah. 
 Utah Fuel Company. 
 
 Geo. S. McAllister, Salt Lake City. 
 
 R. W. Eardley, Salt Lake City, Utah. 
 Manufacturers Association of Utah. 
 
 Geo. Sutherland, Washington, D. C. 
 
 John D. Pringle, "The Labor World," Pittsburg, Pa. 
 
 John Dern, Salt Lake City, Utah. 
 
 P. Tecumseh Sherman, New York. 
 
 F. Robertson Jones, New York. 
 
 Judge George B. Armstrong, Salt Lake City. 
 Mr. Newcomb Cleveland, Denver, Colo. 
 
 Prof. Geo. A. Eaton, Salt Lake City. 
 
 Mr. John B. Andrews, New York City. 
 
 American Association for Labor Legislation. 
 Mr. Royal Meeker, Washington. 
 
 Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
 
 Mr. A. W. Whitney, New York. 
 
 National Workmen's Compensation Bureau. 
 
 Mr. Edson S. Lott, New York City. 
 
 Mr. John T. Stone, Baltimore, Md. 
 
 Mr. F. Highlands Burns, Baltimore, Md. 
 
 Mr. E. J. Bond, Baltimore, Md. 
 
 Mr. Alroy S. Phillips, St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 Compensation Commission of Missouri. 
 
 Mr. C. W. Clausen (Auditor), Olympia, Wash. 
 State Industrial Dept. 
 
 Mr. Walter G. Cowles, Hartford, Conn. 
 Judge Morris L. Ritchie, Salt Lake City. 
 Mr. A. T. Skerry, New York City. 
 John M. Hayes, Salt Lake City, Utah. 
 
 36 
 
TEXT OF THE TENTATIVE LAW. 
 
 An Act to promote the prevention of industrial accidents; to cause pro- 
 vision to be made for adequate medical and surgical care for in- 
 jured employees; to establish rates of compensation for personal 
 injuries or death sustained by employees in the course of em- 
 ployment; to provide methods for insuring the payment of such 
 compensation; to create an Industrial Board for the administra- 
 tion of the act and to prescribe the powers and duties of such board. 
 
 PART I. 
 RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Utah: 
 
 Section 1. That this act shall be known as "The Utah Workman's 
 Compensation Act." 
 
 Sec. 2. Prom and after the taking effect of this act, every em- 
 ployer and every employee, except as herein stated, shall be conclusively 
 presumed to have accepted the provisions of this act respectively to pay 
 and accept compensation for personal injury or death by accident arising 
 out of and in the course of employment, and shall be bound there- 
 by, unless he shall have given prior to any accident resulting in injury 
 or death notice to the contrary in the manner hereinafter provided; 
 and a like presumption shall apply to such deceased persons, legal rep- 
 resentatives, next of kin and dependents, unless they give notice of 
 their intention otherwise within thirty days after the death of such 
 deceased in the manner prescribed in the next section. 
 
 Sec. 3. Either an employer or an employee, who has exempted 
 himself, by [proper notice, from the operation of this act, may at any 
 time waive such exemption and thereby accept the provisions of this 
 act by giving notice as herein provided. 
 
 The notice of exemption and the notice of acceptance heretofore 
 referred to shall be given thirty days prior to any accident resulting 
 in injury or death, provided that if any such injury occurred less than 
 thirty days after the date of employment, notice of such exemption or 
 acceptance given at the time of employment shall be sufficient notice 
 thereof. The notice shall be in writing or print in a substantial form 
 prescribed by the Industrial Board and shall be given by the em- 
 ployer by posting the same in a conspicuous place in the plant, shop, 
 office, room or place where the employee is employed, or by serving it 
 personally upon him: and shall be given by the employee by sending the 
 same in a registered letter addressed to the employer at his last known 
 residence or principal place of business; or by giving it personally to the 
 employer, or any of his agents upon whom a summons in civil action may 
 be served under the laws of the State. 
 
 A copy of the notice in prescribed form shall also be filed with 
 the Industrial Board. 
 
 37 
 
Sec. 4. Every contract of service between any employer and em- 
 ployee covered by this act, written or implied, now in operation or 
 made or implied prior to the .taking effect of this act, shall, after this 
 act has taken effect, be presumed to continue; and every such con- 
 tract made subsequent to the taking effect of this act shall be pre- 
 sumed to have been made subject to the provisions of this act, unless 
 either party shall give notice, as provided in Section 3, to the other 
 party to such contract that the provisions of this act other than Sec- 
 tions 6, 10, 11 and 67 are not intended to apply. 
 
 A like presumption shall exist equally in the case of all minors 
 unless notice of the same character be given by or to the parent or 
 guardian of the minor. 
 
 Sec. 5. Every employer who accepts the compensation provisions 
 of this Act, and complies with the provisions hereof, or those conducting 
 his business, shall only be liable to any employee for personal in- 
 jury, or, in case of his death, to his personal representatives, depen- 
 dents or next of kin, to the extent, and in the manner, herein specified, 
 except as otherwise provided. 
 
 Sec. 6. The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee, 
 subject to this act, on account of personal injury, and in case of his 
 death by accident, to his personal representatives, dependants, or next 
 of kin, accepting the benefit of this act, shall exclude all other rights 
 and remedies of such employee, his personal representatives, depend- 
 ants, or next of kin at common law, or otherwise, on account of such 
 injury or death; provided, however, that in case of death the personal 
 representatives, next of kin and dependants, as hereinafter defined, in 
 lieu hereof, may have a right of action against such employer, and the 
 amount recoverable shall not be subject to any limitation; but in! such 
 action, the employer shall have the right of all common law defenses 
 without modification, as provided in (Section 11 of this Act, provided, 
 also, that in the event of death of an employee, resulting from accident, 
 if any of the personal representatives, next of kin or dependents of the 
 deceased, elects to sue for damages, there shall be no right to compen- 
 sation under this Act in favor of the person or persons bringing such 
 action. 
 
 Sec. 7. Nothing in this act shall be construed to relieve any em- 
 ployer or employee from penalty for failure or neglect! to perform any 
 statutory duty. 
 
 Sec. 8. No compensation shall be allowed for an injury or death 
 due to the employee's wilful misconduct, including intentional self- 
 inflicted injury, or unjust attempt to injure another, intoxication, and 
 wilful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance or perform a duty re- 
 quired by statute. This provision as to intoxication shall not apply, if 
 the employer knew or in the exercise of ordinary care might have known 
 that the employee was intoxicated or that he was in the habit of becom- 
 ing intoxicated. 
 
 The burden of proof shall be on the defendant employer. 
 
 Sec. 9. This Act, except Section 67, shall not apply to casual la- 
 borers, to those regularly employing less than four (except in the case 
 
 38 
 
of State or Municipal Corporations, as provided in Section 18), in the 
 same industrial employment for the sake of pecuniary gain, or to private 
 household or domestic servants, or to employers of such persons ; unless 
 such employees and their employers voluntarily elect to be bound by 
 this Act and the employer files with the Industrial Board notice of such 
 election. 
 
 Sec. 10. Every employer who elects not to operate under this act 
 shall not in any suit at law by an employee to recover damages for 
 personal injury or death by accident be permitted to defend any such 
 suit at law upon any one or all of the following grounds : 
 
 (a) That the employee was negligent; 
 
 (b) That the injury was caused by the 'negligence of a fellow 
 employee; 
 
 (c) That the employee had assumed the risk of the injury. 
 
 Sec. 11. Every employee, and the personal representatives, de- 
 pendents or next of kin of any deceased employee, who elects not to 
 operate under this act, in any action to recover damages for personal 
 injury or death brought against an employer, accepting the compensa- 
 tion provisions of this act, shall proceed at common law, and the em- 
 ployer may avail himself of all defenses, including contributory negli- 
 gence, negligence of fellow servants and the assumption of risk, as such 
 defenses exist at common law. 
 
 Sec. 12. When both the employer and employee elect not to 
 operate under this act, the liability of the employer shall be the same 
 as though he alone had rejected the terms of this act, and in any suit 
 brought against him the employer shall not be 'permitted to avail him- 
 self of any of the common law defenses cited in Section 11. 
 
 Sec. 13. Whenever an injury for which compensation is payable 
 under this act shall have been sustained under circumstances creating 
 in some other person than the employer a legal liability to pay dam- 
 ages in respect thereto, the injured employee may at his option either 
 claim compensation or proceed at law againat such other person to 
 recover damages or proceed against both the employer and such other 
 person, but he shall not collect from both; and if compensation is 
 awarded under this act the employer having paid the compensation 
 or having become liable therefor, may collect in his own name or that 
 of the injured employee from the other person in whom legal liability 
 for damages exists, the indemnity paid or payable to the injured 
 employee. Any damages paid by such other person shall be off-set 
 against and deducted from the employees' claim against the employer 
 under this Act, and any waiver by the employee of his right of action 
 against such other person, made without consent of the employer, shall 
 operate as a waiver of all claim under this Act against the employer. 
 
 Sec. 14. Every contractor, whether principal, intermediate or sub- 
 contractor, shall be liable for compensation to any employee injured while 
 in the employ of any one of his sub-contractors and engaged upon the sub- 
 ject matter of the contract, to the same extent as the immediate em- 
 ployer. 
 
 39 
 
Any principal, intermediate, or sub-contractor who shall pay com- 
 pensation under the foregoing provision may recover such amount paid 
 from any person who would have been liable to pay compensation to 
 the injured employee. 
 
 Every claim for compensation under this section shall in the first 
 instance be presented to and instituted against the immediate em- 
 ployer, but such proceeding shall not constitute a waiver of the em- 
 ployee's rights to recover compensation under this act from the prin- 
 cipal or intermediate contractor, provided that the collection of full 
 compensation from one shall bar recovery by the employee against any 
 other, nor shall he collect from all a total compensation in excess of 
 the amount for which any of the said parties are liable. 
 
 This section shall apply only in cases Where the injury occurred, 
 on, in or about the .premises on which the principal contractor has 
 undertaken to execute work or which are otherwise under his control 
 or management. 
 
 Sec. 15. No contract or agreement, written or implied, no rule, 
 regulation or other device, shall in any manner operate to relieve any 
 employer in whole or in part of any obligation created by this act 
 except as herein provided. 
 
 Sec. 16. All rights of compensation granted by this act shall 
 have the same preference or priority for the whole thereof against 
 the assets of the employer as is allowed by law for any unpaid wages 
 for labor. 
 
 Sec. 17. No claim for compensation under this act shall be as- 
 signable, and all compensation and claims therefor shall be exempt 
 from all claims of creditors. 
 
 Sec. 18. The provisions of this act shall apply to employees (other 
 than officials as hereinafter defined) of the State and all counties, 
 cities, towns and other public corporations within the State. 
 
 Policemen and firemen and others entitled to pensions shall be 
 deemed employees within the meaning of this act. If, however, any 
 policeman or fireman or other person entitled to a pension claims com- 
 pensation under this act, there sihall be deducted from such compensa- 
 tion any sum which such policeman or fireman or other person may be 
 entitled to receive from any pension or other benefit fund to which the 
 State or municipal body may contribute. 
 
 Sec. 19. This act except Section 67 shall not apply to employees 
 engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, nor to their employers, in 
 case the laws of the United States provide for compensation or for 
 liability for injury or death by accident of such employees. 
 
 Sec. 20. Every employer and employee under this act, except as 
 provided in Section 19, shall be bound by the provisions of this act 
 whether injury by accident, or death resulting from such injury , occurs 
 within the State or in some other state or in a, foreign country, pro- 
 vided that the contract of employment was made in this State and con- 
 templated work, labor or service to be performed either generally with- 
 
 40 
 
in this State or in direct connection with some stablihment or office 
 in this State. 
 
 Sec. 21. The provisions of this act shall not apply to injuries or 
 death or to accidents which occurred prior to the taking effect of 
 this act. 
 
 PART II. 
 COMPENSATION SCHEDULE. 
 
 Sec. 22. Every injured employee or his representative shall im- 
 mediately upon the (occurrence of an injury or as soon thereafter as 
 practicable, give or cause to be given to the employer written notice 
 of the injury and the employee shall not be entitled to physician's 
 fees or to any compensation which may have accrued, under the 
 terms of thisi act, prior to the giving! of such notice; unless it can be 
 shown that the employer, his agent or representative had knowledge 
 of the injury or death, or that the party required to give such notice 
 had been prevented from doing so by reason of physical or mental 
 incapacity or the fraud or deceit of some 'third person, or for equally 
 good (reason; but no compensation shall be payable unless such writ- 
 ten notice is given within thirty days after the occurrence of the in- 
 jury or death, unless reasonable excuse is made to the satisfaction of 
 the Industrial Board for not giving such notice. 
 
 Sec. 23. The notice provided in the foregoing section shall state 
 in ordinary language the; name and address of the employee, the time, 
 place, nature and cause of the injury or death, and shall be signed 
 by the employee or by a person on his behalf, or in the event of his 
 death by any one or more of his dependants or by a person on their 
 behalf, or may be sent direct to the Industrial Board. 
 
 No defect or inaccuracy in the notice shall be a bar to compensa- 
 tion unless the employer shall prove that his interest was prejudiced 
 thereby, and then only to the extent of such prejudice. 
 
 Said notice shall be given personally to the employer or any of his 
 agents upon whom a summons in civil action may be served under the 
 laws of (the State, or may be sent by registered letter addressed to the 
 employer at his last known residence or principal place of business. 
 
 Sec. 24. The right to compensation under this act shall be for- 
 ever barred unless within one year after the injury or if death re- 
 sults therefrom, within one year after such death, a claim for com- 
 pensation thereunder shall be filed with the Industrial Board. 
 
 Sec. 25. During the first thirty days after an injury the employer 
 shall furnish or cause to be furnished free of charge, in the absence of 
 a medical and "hospital" contract or agreement as hereinafter pro- 
 vided, to the injured employee, and the employee shall accept, and 
 during the whole or any part of the remainder of his disability resulting 
 from the injury, the employer may, at his own option, continue to fur- 
 nish or cause to be furnished, free of charge, in the absence of a medical 
 
 41 
 
and "hospital" contract or agreement as hereinafter provided, to the 
 employee, and the employee shall accept, an attending physi- 
 cian, unless otherwise ordered by the Industrial Board, and 
 in addition such surgical and hospital service and supplies as may be 
 deemed necessary by said attending physician, or the Industrial Board. 
 
 The refusal of the employee to accept such service wftien provided 
 by the employer shall bar said employee from further compensation 
 until such refusal ceases, and no compensation shall at any time be 
 payable for the period of suspension unless in the opinion of the 
 Industrial Board the circumstances justify ithe refusal, in which case 
 the Board may order a change in the medical or hospital service, and 
 may allow the withheld compensation. 
 
 If in an emergency on account of the employer's failure to provide 
 the medical care for the first thirty days, as herein specified, or for 
 other good reason, a physician other than that provided by the employer 
 is called to treat the injured employee during the first thirty days, the 
 reasonable cost of such service shall be paid by the employer subject 
 to the approval of the Industrial Board. 
 
 Sec. 26. The pecuniary liability of the employer for medical, 
 surgical and hospital service herein required shall be limited to such 
 charges as prevail in the same community for similar treatment of in- 
 jured persons of a like standard of living when such treatment is paid 
 for by the injured person, in no case to exceed $100, and may be abro- 
 gated entirely by mutual agreement between employers and employees 
 providing for medical and "hospital" benefits and accommodations to be 
 furnished to the employee which shall include the service required in 
 this bill and be extended according to such mutual agreement, subject to 
 the following conditions and requirements: 
 
 (a) .Such, hospital contract or agreements must provide for medi- 
 cal, hospital, and surgical attendance for such employee for sickness 
 contracted during the employment, as well as for injuries received aris- 
 ing out of and in the course of the employment, except venereal diseases 
 and sickness or injury as a result of intoxication. 
 
 (b) No assessment of employees for such hospital contracts or 
 benefits shall exceed $1 per month for each employee, except in cases 
 where it shall appear to the satisfaction of the board, after a hearing 
 had for that purpose, that the actual cost of such service exceeds the 
 said sum of $1 per month, and any such finding of the board may be 
 modified at any time when justified by a change of conditions or oth- 
 erwise, either upon the board's own motion or 'the application of any 
 party in interest. 
 
 (c) No profit, directly or indirectly, shall be made by any em- 
 ployer as a result of such hospital contract or assessments. It is the 
 purpose and intent of this act to provide that where hospitals are main- 
 tained by employers such hospitals shall be no more .than self-supporting 
 from assessment of employees, and that where ihospitals are main- 
 tained by other than the employer, all sums due such hospital for ser- 
 
 42 
 
vices rendered, and derived by assessment of employees, shall be paid in 
 full without deduction by the employer. 
 
 (d) Each and every hospital maintained wholly or in ipart by pay- 
 ments from workmen, which furnishes treatment and services to em- 
 ployees for sickness and injury, as provided in this act, shall be under 
 the supervision of the board as to the services and treatment rendered 
 such employees, and shall from time to time make reports of such ser- 
 vices, attendances, treatments, receipts, and disbursements as the 
 board may require. 
 
 (e) Neither an employer, an insurer, (nor the Board shall be lia- 
 ble in any way for an act in connection with the treatment or care, or 
 malpractice in treatment or care, of any sicknes or injury sustained by 
 an employee or the beneficiary of any hospital contract, where such act 
 or treatment or malpractice in treatment is caused, or alleged to have 
 been caused, by any physician, hospital, or attendant furnished by such 
 employer, insurer, or the Board, in any action for malpractice arising 
 out of the operations of this act the merits of such action shall be in- 
 vestigated by the Industrial Board, and the findings of the Board 
 in relation thereto shall be filed with the clerk of the court in which 
 the action is pending, and such findings shall be prima facie evidence 
 of the truth thereof. 
 
 (f) In any action to recover damages for any act connected with 
 the treatment or care or malpractice in treatment or care of any sick- 
 ness of or injury sustained by an employee the question of whether or 
 not due care was given by the defendants shall be a question of law for 
 tha court. 
 
 Sec. 27. After an injury and during the period resulting in dis- 
 ability, the employee, if so requested by his employer or ordered by 
 the Industrial Board, shall submit himself to examination, at reasonable 
 times and places, by a duly qualified physician or surgeon designated 
 and paid by the employer or the Industrial Board. The employee shall 
 have the right to have present at any such examination any duly quali- 
 fied physician or surgeon provided and paid by him. No fact communi- 
 cated to, or otherwise learned by any iphysician or surgeon who may 
 have attended or examined the employee, or who may have been pres- 
 ent at any examination, shall be privileged, either in the hearings pro- 
 vided for in this act, or in any action at law brought to recover damages 
 against any employer who may ihave accepted the compensation pro- 
 visions of this act. If the employee refuses to submit himself to or in 
 any way obstructs such examination, his right to compensation and his 
 right to take or prosecute any (proceeding under this act shall be sus- 
 pended until such refusal or obstruction ceases, and no compensation 
 shall at any time be payable for the period of suspension unless in the 
 opinion of the Industrial Board the circumstances justify the refusal or 
 obstruction. 
 
 The employer, or the Industrial Board, shall have the right in any 
 case of death to require an autopsy at the expense of the party re- 
 quiring the same. 
 
 43 
 
Sec. 28. No compensation shall be allowed for the firat fourteen 
 calendar days of disability resulting from an injury except the bene- 
 fits provided for in Section 25; but if disability extends beyond that 
 period compensation shall commence with the fifteenth day after the 
 injury. 
 
 Sec. 29. Where the injury causes (total disability for work, there 
 shall be paid to the injured employee during such disability, but not 
 including the first two weeks thereof, a weekly compensation equal to 
 fifty per cent of his average weekly wages for a period of not to ex- 
 ceed three hundred thirty-ithreei and one-third weeks. In case of the 
 following injuries the disability shall be deemed total and permanent, 
 to-wit: 
 
 (1) The total and permanent loss of sight in both eyes. 
 
 (2) The loss of both feet at or above the ankle. 
 
 (3) The loss of both hands at or above the wrist. 
 
 (4) A similar loss of one hand and one foot. 
 
 (5) An injury to the spine resulting in permanent and complete 
 paralysis of both arms or both legs or of one arm and one leg. 
 
 (6) An injury to the skull resulting in incurable insanity or im- 
 becility. 
 
 The above enumeration is not to be taken as exclusive, but in all 
 other cases the burden of proof shall be on the claimant to prove that 
 his injuries have resulted in permanent total disability. 
 
 Where there has been a previous disability, as the loss of one eye, 
 one hand, one foot, or any other previous permanent disability, the per- 
 centage of disability for a subsequent injury shall (be determined by 
 computing the percentage of the entire disability and deducting there- 
 from the percentage of the previous disability as it existed at the time 
 of the subsequent injury. 
 
 Sec. 30. Where the injury causes partial disability for work, there 
 shall be paid to the injured employee during such disability but not 
 including the first two weeks thereof, a weekly compensation equal to 
 one-half of the difference between his "average weekly wages" and the 
 weekly wages at which he isi actually employed after the injury, for a 
 period not to exceed two hundred and fifty weeks. 
 
 In case the partial disability begins after a period of total dis- 
 ability, the latter period shall be deducted from the maximum period 
 allowed for partial disability. 
 
 Sec. 31. For injuries in the following schedule the employee shall 
 receive in lieu of all other compensation a weekly compensation equal 
 to fifty per cent of his average weekly wages for the periods stated 
 against such injuries respectively, to-wit: 
 
 (a) For the loss by separation of not more than one phalange 
 of a thumb or not more than two phalanges of a finger, 15 weeks; 
 
 (b) For the loss by separation of more than two phalange of a 
 finger or of a whole finger or a toe, 30 weeks; 
 
 (c) For the loss by separation of more than one phalange of a 
 thumb or of a whole thumb, 60 weeks; 
 
 44 
 
(d) For the permanent and irrecoverable loss of the sight of one 
 eye or its reduction to one-tenth of normal vision with glasses, 100 
 weeks; 
 
 (e) For the loss by separation of one foot at or above the ankle 
 joint, 125 weeks; 
 
 (f) For the loss by separation! of one hand at or above the wrist 
 joint, 150 weeks; 
 
 (g) For the loss by separation of one leg at or above the knee 
 joint, 175 weeks. 
 
 (h) For the loss by separation of one arm at or above the elbow 
 joint, 200 weeks; 
 
 (i) For the permanent and complete loss of hearing, 125 weeks. 
 
 (j) For hernia not to exceed 26 weeks, but a workman in order 
 to be entitled to compensation for hernia must clearly prove: 
 (1) That the hernia is of recent origin; (2) that its appear- 
 ance was ^accompanied by pain, (3) that it was immediately 
 preceded by some accidental strain suffered in the course of the em 
 ployment, and (4) that it did not exist prior to the date of the alleged 
 injury. If a workman, after establishing his right to compensation fof 
 hernia as above provided, elects to be operated upon, a special operating 
 fee of not to exceed fifty dollars shall be paid by the employer 
 or the insurer, as the case may be. In case such workman elects 
 not to be operated upon, and the hernia becomes strangulated in the 
 future, the results from such strangulation shall not be compensated. 
 
 The complete paralysis of an arm, hand, foot or leg shall be con- 
 sidered the loss of such member. The complete paralysis of both arms, 
 both hands, both feet, or both legs, or any two of them, shall be con- 
 sidered the loss of such members. 
 
 Facial disfigurement: For permanent disfigurement about the head 
 and face, the commission may allow such sum for compensation thereof 
 as it may deem just, not exceeding fifty per cent of weekly wages, but 
 not exceeding the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 
 
 In all cases of permanent partial disability, not otherwise specified 
 in the foregoing schedule, the disability shall be determined according 
 to the percentage thereof, taking into account, among other things, any 
 previous disability, the occupation of the injured employee, the nature 
 of the physical injury or disfigurement, and the age of the employee at 
 the time of the injury ; and the compensation paid therefor shall be the 
 percentage of the disability caused by the injury times fifty per cent of 
 the average weekly wage (but not more than twelve dollars a week) 
 for not exceeding two hundred weeks, during the life of the injured 
 employee. 
 
 Sec. 32. If an injured employee refuses employment suitable to his 
 capacity procured for him, he shall not be entitled to any compensation 
 at any time during the continuance of such refusal unless in the opinion 
 of the Industrial Board such refusal was justifiable. 
 
 Sec. 33. If an employee has sustained a permanent injury in an- 
 other employment than that in which he received a subsequent per- 
 
 45 
 
manent injury by accident, such as is specified in Section 31, he shall be 
 entitled to compensation for the subsequent injury in the same amount 
 as if the previous injury had not occurred, provided^owever, that only 
 the added injury resulting exclusively from the accident to be compen- 
 sated for, shall be considered in measuring the amount of com- 
 pensation. 
 
 Sec. 34. If an employee receives an injury for which compensation 
 is payable while he is still receiving or entitled to compensation for a 
 previous injury in the same employment, he shall not at the same time 
 be entitled to compensation for both injuries unless it be for a perma- 
 nent injury, such as is specified in Section 31; but he shall be entitled to 
 compensation for that injury and from the time of that injury which 
 will cover the longest period and the largest amount payable under this 
 act. 
 
 Sec. 35. If an employee receives a permanent injury such as is speci- 
 fied in Section 31, after having sustained another permanent injury in 
 the same employment, he shall be entitled to compensation for both in- 
 juries, but the total compensation shall be paid by extending the period 
 and not by increasing the amount of weekly compensation. 
 
 When the previous and subsequent permanent injuries result in 
 total permanent disability, compensation shall be payable for permanent 
 total disability, but payments made for the previous injury shall be de- 
 ducted from the total payment of compensation due. 
 
 Sec. 36. When an employee receives or is entitled to compensation 
 under this act for an injury and dies from any other cause than the in- 
 jury for which he was entitled to compensation, payment of the unpaid 
 balance of compensation shall be made to his next of kin dependent 
 upon him for support. 
 
 Sec. 37. Where death results from the injury within two hundred 
 and fifty weeks, there shall be paid in addition to burial expenses not to 
 exceed one hundred dollars, a weekly compensation equal to fifty per cent 
 of the deceased's average weekly wages during such remaining part of 
 two hundred and fifty weeks as compensation shall not have been paid 
 to the deceased for total or partial disability, to all dependents of the em- 
 ployee wholly dependent upon his earnings for support at the time of the 
 injury. If the employee leaves dependents only partially dependent upon 
 his earnings for support at the time of the injury, the weekly compen- 
 sation to those dependents shall, in addition to burial expenses, not to 
 exceed one hundred dollars, be in the same proportion to the weekly 
 compensation for persons wholly dependent as the amount! contributed 
 by the deceased employee to such partial dependents bears to his annual 
 earnings at the time of the injury, provided that such dependents ac- 
 cepting payment under this act shall be deemed to have accepted, ex- 
 clusively, the provisions and terms thereof. 
 
 Sec. 38. The following persons shall be conclusively presumed to 
 be wholly dependent for support upon a deceased employee: 
 
 (a) A wife upon a husband with whom she lives at the time of 
 his injury. 
 
 46 
 
(b) A husband upon a wife with whom he lives at the time of 
 her injury if he is then incapable of self-support and actually dependent 
 upon her. 
 
 (c) A boy under the age of 17, or a girl under the age of 18 upon 
 the parent with whom he or she is living at the time of the injury of 
 such parent, there being no surviving dependent parent. If a child is 
 over the ages specified above, but physically or mentally incapacitated 
 from earning, he or she shall be presumed to be totally dependent if 
 there is no surviving dependent parent. 
 
 As used in this section, the term "boy," "girl" or "child" shall in- 
 clude step-children, legally adopted children, posthumous children, ac- 
 knowledged illegitimate children, but shall not include married children 
 unless actually dependent; the term "parent" shall include step-parents 
 and parents by adoption. 
 
 In all other cases, questions of dependency, in whole or in part, 
 shall be determined in accordance with the fact, as the fact may be at 
 the time of the injury; and in such other cases if there is more than 
 one person wholly dependent, the death benefit shall be divided among 
 them; and persons partly dependent, if any, shall receive no part there- 
 of, unless otherwise ordered by the Board; if there is no one wholly de- 
 pendent and more than one person partly dependent, the death benefit 
 shall be divided among them according to the relative extent of their 
 dependency. 
 
 The dependency shall not be construed to extend to others than 
 the family of such deceased and who have a legal right under the laws 
 of this State to support or financial aid from such deceased; nor shall 
 such right to compensation ibe deemed a vested right. 
 
 For the purposes of this act, the dependence of a widow or widower 
 of a deceased employee, and dependent children living with said widow 
 or widower, shall terminate with remarriage, and the amount received 
 by her shall be divided among other dependents in the proportion in 
 which they are receiving compensation, and in the event of the separa- 
 tion of the wife from her second or subsequent husband and her obtain- 
 ing a divorce upon her own application, then she shall receive the same 
 compensation to which she would have been entitled had she not re- 
 married, less any alimony she may toe receiving, but the time from the 
 date of the remarriage to the date of the divorce shall be deducted from 
 the time compensation runs, and the dependence of a child, except a 
 child physically or mentally incapacitated from earning, shall terminate 
 with the attainment of 18 years of age for girls and 17 years of age 
 for boys. 
 
 Sec. 39. If the deceased employee leaves no dependants the em- 
 ployer shall pay the burial expense of the deceased, not to exceed one 
 hundred dollars, such burial to be subject to the supervision of the In- 
 dustrial Board. 
 
 Sec. 40. In computing compensation under the foregoing sections, 
 the average weekly wages of an employee shall be considered not to be 
 more than twenty-four dollars, or less than ten dollars. And pro- 
 
 47 
 
vided further, That the total compensation payable under this act shall 
 in no case exceed four thousand dollars ($4,000). 
 
 Sec. 41. Any payments made by the employer <to the injured em- 
 ployee during the period of his disability^ or to his dependents, which 
 by the terms of this act were not due and payable when made, may, 
 subject to the approval of the Industrial Board, be deducted from the 
 amount paid as compensation: Provided, That in case of disability such 
 deduction shall be made by shortening the period during which com- 
 pensation must be paid and not by reducing the amount of weekly pay- 
 ments unless otherwise hereinafter specified. 
 
 Sec. 42. The Industrial Board upon the application of either party, 
 may, in its discretion, having regard to the welfare of the employee and 
 the convenience of the employer, authorize compensation to be paid 
 monthly or quarterly instead of weekly. 
 
 Sec. 43. Whenever any weekly payment has been continued for not 
 less than thirteen weeks, the liability therefor may, in unusual cases, 
 where the parties agree and the Industrial Board deems it to be for 
 their best interests, be redeemed by the payment, in whole or in part, 
 by the employer, of a lump or gross sum, which shall be fixed by the 
 Board, but in no case to exceed the commutable value of the future 
 installments which may be due under this Act, considering interest at 
 tin rate of 6 per cent per annum. 
 
 The Board may, however, in its discretion, at any time, in the case 
 of a minor who nas received permanently disabling injuries, either par- 
 tial or total, provide that he be compensated in whole or in part by 
 the payment of a lump or gross sum, the amount of which shall be 
 fixed by the Board, but in no case to exceed the commutable value of 
 th3 future installments which may be due under this Act, considering 
 interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. 
 
 Sec. 44. Whenever the Industrial Board deems it expedient, any 
 lump sum under the fore-going section shall be paid by the employer to 
 some suitable person or corporation appointed by the Industrial Board, 
 as trustee, to administer the same for the benefit of the person entitled 
 thereto, in the manner provided by the Board. The receipt of such trus- 
 tee for the amount as paid shall discharge the employer or anyone else 
 who is liable therefor. 
 
 Sec. 45. Upon its own motion or upon the application of any party 
 in interest on the ground of a change in condition, the Industrial Board 
 may at any time review any award and on such review may make an 
 award ending, diminishing or increasing the compensation previously 
 awarded, subject to the maximum or minimum provided in this act, and 
 shall immediately send to the parties a copy of the award. No such re- 
 view shall affect such award as regards any moneys paid. 
 
 Sec. 46. Whenever payment of compensation is made to a widow 
 or widower for her or his use, and the use of a child or children, the 
 written receipt thereof by such widow or widower shall acquit the em- 
 ployer. 
 
 Whenever payment is made to any person 17 years of age or 
 
 48 
 
over, the written receipt of such person shall acquit the employer. 
 
 Whenever payment is made to a minor under the age of 17 
 years, or to a dependent child over the age of 17, the same shall 
 be made to some suitable person or corporation appointed by the Indus- 
 trial Board as trustee or guardian, and the receipt of such trustee or 
 guardian shall acquit the employer; provided, however, that the In- 
 dustrial Board may review the facts and circumstances surrounding the 
 payment of any money and the taking of any receipt as provided in 
 this section, and may set the same aside either for fraud or undue in- 
 fluence. 
 
 Sec. 47. If an injured employee is mentally incompetent or is 
 under 17 years of age at the time when any right or privilege ac- 
 crues to him under this act, his guardian or trustee may in his behalf 
 claim and exercise such right or privilege. 
 
 Sec. 48. No limitation of time provided in this act shall run as 
 against any person who is mentally incompetent or a minor dependent, 
 so long as he has no guardian or trustee. 
 
 Sec. 49. Whenever any employee for whose injury or death com- 
 pensation is payable under this act shall at the time of the injury be 
 in tihe joint service of two or more employers subject to this act, such 
 employers shall contribute to the payment of such compensation in pro- 
 portion to" their wage liability to such employees; Provided, 'however, 
 That nothing in this section shall prevent any reasonable arrangement 
 between such employers for a different distribution as between them- 
 selves of the ultimate burden of compensation. 
 
 PART III. 
 
 ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 Sec. 50. There is hereby created a Board wthich shall be known as 
 the Industrial Board of Utah, whose term of office shall be four years, 
 except as otherwise provided in this section, which shall consist of 
 three members appointed by the Governor. Of the Board as first con- 
 stituted, one member shall be appointed for two years, who shall be 
 Chairman during his term; one member shall be appointed for three 
 years, who shall be Chairman during the third year; and one member 
 shall be appointed for four years, who shall be Chairman during the 
 fourth year. Thereafter, the senior member in length of service on 
 the Board in his current term in any given year shall be Chairman 
 during that year. 
 
 Vacancies on the board shall be filled by appointment by the Gov- 
 ernor for the remainder of the unexpired term, but no vacancy shall im- 
 pair the rights of the remaining members to exercise all the powers of 
 the Board, nor shall relieve such members from discharging all the 
 duties of the Board during such vacancy. In the event of a vacancy, 
 the appointee for the unexpired term shall not succeed his predecessor 
 in the chairmanship of the Board; such other member as would, but for 
 
 49 
 
the vacancy, have been chairman shall at once succeed to the unexpired 
 chairmanship, when a vacancy occurs therein, in addition to the year's 
 chairmanship to which he would otherwise have been entitled. 
 
 No person shall be eligible to appointment as a member of the 
 Board unless he shall be at least 30 years of age, a resident of Utah 
 not less than three years consecutively next preceding his appointment, 
 unbiased, of good moral character, and of a previous experience and 
 training to qualify him to efficiently and justly discharge the duties of 
 his office. One member, at least, shall be well versed in the practice 
 and procedure of the law. No more than two of its members shall 
 belong to the same political party. 
 
 The majority of the Board shall constitute a quorum. 
 
 Sec. 51. The salary of each member of the Board shall be four 
 thousand dollars per year. 
 
 The Board may appoint a secretary and may also employ such 
 clerical and other assistants as it may deem necessary and fix the com- 
 pensation of all persons so employed, and may remove them. 
 
 The members of the Board and its assistants shall be entitled to 
 receive from the State their actual and necessary expenses' while trav- 
 eling on the business of the Board, but such expenses shall be sworn 
 to by the person who incurred the same and shall be approved by a 
 majority of the Board before payment is made. 
 
 All salaries and expenses of the Board shall be audited and paid 
 out of the State Treasury in the manner prescribed for similar expense* 
 in other departments or branches of the State service. 
 
 Sec. 52. The Board, and each Commissioner thereof, shall, for the 
 purpose of this act, have power to summon and examine under oath, wit- 
 nesses, and may direct the production of and examination of or cause 
 to be produced and examined such books, records, vouchers, mem- 
 oranda, documents, letters, contracts or other papers in relation to any 
 matter at issue as may be found proper, and shall have the same powers 
 in reference thereto as Judges of the District Court. They shall have 
 power to certify to all official acts and all powers necessary to enable 
 them to perform the duties imposed upon them by the provisions of this 
 Act. 
 
 They shall have power to take depositions or authorize them to be 
 taken when necessary, in the same manner as the District Court. 
 
 Sec. 53. The District or Supreme Court, on application of the 
 Board, through the Attorney General or otherwise, may enforce by ap- 
 propriate decree or process, any provision of this Act or any order of 
 the Board. 
 
 The Attorney Ccneral or any District Attorney of the State shall 
 render such assistance to the Board as it may request. 
 
 Sec. 54. The Board shall be provided with adequate offices in the 
 Capitol or some other suitable building in the city of Salt Lake, in 
 which the records shall be kept and its official business be transacted 
 during regular business hours; it shall also be provided with necessary 
 
 50 
 
office furniture, stationery and other supplies. 
 
 The Board or any member thereof may hold sessions at any place 
 within the State as may be deemed necessary. 
 
 Sec. 55. The Board may make rules not inconsistent with this act 
 for carrying out the provisions of this act. Processes and procedure 
 under this act s'hall be as summary and simple as reasonably may be. 
 The County Sheriff shall serve all suibpoenas of the Board or any 
 member thereof, and shall receive the same fees as provided by 
 law for like service in civil actions; each witness who appears in obe- 
 dience to such subpoena shall receive for attendance the fees and mile- 
 age for witnesses in civil cases in the courts. In addition thereto the 
 District or Supreme Court shall, on application of the Board or any 
 member thereof, enforce by proper proceedings the attendance and tes- 
 timony of witnesses and the production and examination of books, 
 papers and records and shall, if so requested, enforce its orders and 
 decrees. 
 
 Sec. 56. The Board shall prepare and cause to be printed, and upon 
 request furnish free of charge to any employer or employee, such blank 
 forms and literature as it shall deem requisite to facilitate or promote 
 the efficient administration of this act. 
 
 The Board shall tabulate the accident reports received from em- 
 ployers in accordance with Section 67, and shall publish the same in. 
 the annual report of the Board and as often as it may deem advisable, 
 in such detailed or aggregate form as it may deem best. The name of 
 the employer or employee shall not appear in such publications and the 
 employers' reports themselves shall be private records of the Board and 
 shall not be open for public inspection except for the inspection of the 
 parties directly involved. These reports shall not be used as evidence 
 against any employer in any suit at law 'brought by any employee for 
 the recovery of damages. 
 
 Sec. 57. If after fourteen days from the date of the injury, or at 
 any time in case of death, the employer and the injured employee or 
 his dependents reach an agreement in regard to compensation under 
 this act, a memorandum of the agreement in the form prescribed by the 
 Industrial Board shall be filed with the Board; otherwise such agree- 
 ment shall be voidable by the employee or his dependents. 
 
 If approved by the Board, thereupon the memorandum shall for 
 all purposes be enforceable by the court decree as hereinafter specified. 
 Such agreement shall be approved by said Board only when the! terms 
 conform to the provisions of this act. 
 
 Sec. 58. If the employer and the injured employee or his depen- 
 dents fail to reach an agreement in regard to compensation under this 
 act, or if they have reached such an agreement which has been signed 
 and filed with the Board and compensation has been paid or is) due in 
 accordance therewith, and the parties thereto then disagree as to the 
 continuance of any weekly payment under such agreement, either party 
 may make an application to the Industrial Board for a hearing in regard 
 to the matters at issue and for a ruling thereon^ 
 
 51 
 
Immediately after such application has been received the Board 
 shall set the date for a hearing, which shall be held as soon as practica- 
 ble, and shall notify the parties at issue of the time and place of such 
 hearing. The hearing shall be held at such place as the Board shall 
 designate. 
 
 Sec. 59. The Board or any of its members shall hear the parties 
 at issue and their representatives and witnesses and shall determine the 
 dispute in a summary manner. The award, together with a statement 
 of the findings of fact, rulings of law and any other matters pertinent 
 to the question at issue shall be filed with the record of proceedings, 
 and a icopy of the award shall immediately be sent to the parties in 
 dispute. 
 
 Sec. 60. If an application for review is made to the Board within 
 seven days from the date of the award, the full Board, if the first hear- 
 ing was not held before the full Board, shall review the evidence, or, if 
 deemed advisable, as soon as practicable hear the parties at issue, 
 their representatives and witnesses, and shall make an award and file 
 same in like manner as specified in the foregoing section. 
 
 Sec. 61. An award of the (Board, as provided in Section 59, if not 
 reviewed in due time, or an award of the Board upon such review as 
 provided in Section 60, shall be conclusive and 'binding as to all ques- 
 tions of fact, but either party to the dispute may within thirty days 
 from the date of the award appeal to the Supreme court for errors of 
 law under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary 
 civil actions. The Board, of its own motion, may certify questions of 
 law to said Supreme court for its decision and determination. 
 
 Sec. 62. Any party in interest may file in the District court in the 
 county in which the injury occurred, or in the Supreme Court of the state 
 a certified copy of a memorandum of agreement approved by the Board 
 or of an order or decision of the Board, or of an award of the Board un- 
 appealed from, or of an award of the Board rendered upon an appeal, 
 whereupon said court shall render judgment in accordance therewith and 
 notify the parties. Such judgment shall have the same effect and all pro- 
 ceedings in relation thereto shall thereafter be the same as though said 
 judgment had been rendered in a suit duly iheard and determined by said 
 court. 
 
 Any such judgment of said District Court unappealed from or af- 
 firmed on appeal by the Supreme Court or modified in obedience to the 
 mandate of the Supreme Court, shall be modified to conform to any de- 
 cision of the Industrial Board, ending, diminishing or increasing any 
 weekly payment under >the provisions of Section 45 of this Act upon the 
 presentation to it of a certified copy of such decision. 
 
 Sec. 63. If the Industrial Board or any court before whom any pro- 
 ceedings are brought under this act shall determine that such pro- 
 ceedings have been brought, prosecuted or defended without reasonable 
 ground, it may assess the whole cost of the proceedings upon the party 
 wfao has so brought, prosecuted or defended them. 
 
 52 
 
Sec. 64. The Board or any member thereof may, upon the appli- 
 cation of either party or upon its own motion, appoint a disinterested 
 and duly qualified physician or surgeon to make any necessary medical 
 examination of the employee and to testify in respect thereto. Said 
 physician or surgeon shall be allowed traveling expenses and a reason- 
 able fee, to be fixed by the Board, not exceeding ten dollars for each 
 examination and report, but the Board may allow additional reasonable 
 amounts in extraordinary cases. 
 
 The fees and expenses of such physician or surgeon shall be paid 
 by the State. 
 
 Sec. 65. Fees of attorneys and physicians and charges of hospitals 
 for services under this act shall be subject to the approval of the 
 Board. 
 
 Sec. 66. All questions arising under this act, if not settled by agree- 
 ment of the parties interested therein with the approval of the Board, 
 shall be determined by the Board except as otherwise herein provided 
 for. 
 
 Sec. 67. Every employer shall hereafter keep a record of all 
 injuries, fatal or otherwise, received by his emploj 7 ees in the course of 
 their employment. Within one week after the occurrence and knowl- 
 edge thereof, as provided in Section 2, of an injury to an employee 
 causing his absence from work for more than two days, a report thereof 
 shall be made in writing and mailed to the Board on blanks to be pro- 
 cured from the Board for the purpose. 
 
 Upon the termination of the disability of the injured employee, or 
 if the disability extends beyond a period of 60 days, then also at the 
 expiration of such period the employer shall make a supplementary re- 
 port to the Board on blanks to be procured from the Board for the 
 purpose. 
 
 The said reports shall contain the name, nature and location of the 
 business of the employer, and name, age, sex, wages and occupation of 
 the injured employee, and shall state the date and hour of the accident 
 causing the injury, the nature and cause of the injury and such other 
 information as may be required by the Board. 
 
 Any employer who refuses or wilfully neglects to make the report 
 required 'by this section shall be liable for a penalty of not more than 
 twenty-five dollars for each refusal or neglect, to be recoverable in any 
 court of competent jurisdiction in a suit by the Beard. 
 
 Members of the "Industrial Board" shall be considered as 
 officers, and shall take the oath prescribed by the Constitution and 
 laws of Utah, and shall each give bond in the sum of $10,000 of a 
 surety company authorized to do business in the State, for the faith- 
 ful performance of their duties, which bonds shall be approved by the 
 Governor and kept on file in the office of the Secretary of State. The 
 premium upon said bonds shall be paid by the Stafe. 
 
 The Industrial Board shall be provided with an appropriate seal. 
 
 53 
 
PART IV. 
 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 Sec. 68. Every employer under this Act s'hall either insure and keep 
 insured his liability hereunder in some corporation, association or or- 
 ganization authorized to transact the business of workmen's compensa- 
 tion insurance in this State, or shall furnish to the Industrial Board 
 satisfactory proof of his financial ability to pay direct the compensation 
 in the amount and manner and when due as provided for in this act. In 
 the latter case the Board may in its discretion require the deposit of 
 an acceptable security, indemnity or bond to secure the payment of 
 compensation liabilities as they are incurred. 
 
 Sec. 69. Every employer accepting the compensation provisions of 
 this act shall within thirty days after this act takes effect file with the 
 Board in form prescribed by it, and thereafter annually or as often as 
 may be necessary, evidence of his compliance with the provisions of 
 Section 68 and all others relating thereto. 
 
 If such employer refuses or neglects to comply with these provisions 
 he shall be punished by a fine of ten cents for each employee at the time 
 of the insurance becoming due,, but not less than one dollar nor more 
 than fifty dollars for each day of such refusal or neglect and until the 
 same ceases, and he shall be liable during continuance of such refusal 
 or neglect to an employee either for compensation under this act or 
 at law in the same manner as provided for in Section 10. 
 
 Sec. 70. Whenever an employer has complied with the provisions 
 of Section 68, relating to self insurance, the Industrial Board shall issue 
 to such employer a certificate which shall remain in force for a period 
 fixed by the Board, but the Board may upon at least sixty days' notice 
 and a hearing to the employer revoke the certificate upon satisfactory 
 evidence for such revocation having been presented. After a reasonable 
 time from such revocation the Board may grant a new certificate to the 
 employer upon his petition. 
 
 Sec. 71. For the purpose of complying with the provisions of Sec- 
 tion 68, groups of employers operating in the State of Utah, to form 
 Mutual Insurance Associations, subject to such reasonable conditions 
 and restrictions as may be fixed -by the Industrial Board, are hereby 
 authorized; provided, however, that such insurance carriers shall have 
 a financial responsibility at least equal to that required by the present 
 insurance laws with regard to Mutual Insurance Associations or Com- 
 panies and until otherwise provided the requirements of the present in- 
 surance code of this State shall apply to all such Mutual Insurance car- 
 riers, operating under this law and membership in such mutual insur- 
 ance associations, so approved, together with evidence of payment of 
 the premiums due, shall be evidence of compliance with Section 68. 
 
 Sec. 72. Subject to the approval of the Industrial Board, any 
 employer may enter into or continue any agreement with his em- 
 ployees to provide a system of compensation, benefit or insurance in 
 lieu of the compensation and insurance provided by this act. No such 
 
 54 
 
substitute system shall be approved unless it confers benefits upon in- 
 jured employees at least equivalent to the benefits provided by this 
 Act, or if it requires contributions from the employees unless it confers 
 benefits in addition to those provided under this act at least commen- 
 surate with such contributions, except as provided in Sections 25 and 26. 
 
 'Such substitute system may be terminated by the Industrial Board 
 on reasonable notice and hearing to the interested parties if it shall 
 appear that the same is not fairly administered or if its operation shall 
 disclose latent defects threatening its solvency, or if for any sub- 
 stantial reason it fails to accomplish the purposes of this act; and in 
 this case the Board shall determine upon the proper distribution of 
 all remaining assets, if any, subject to the right of any party in interest 
 to take an appeal to the Supreme Court, under the same rules governing 
 appeals from the District Court, until otherwise provided by the Board. 
 
 Sec. 73. All policies insuring the payment of compensation under 
 this act must contain a clause to the effect that as between the em- 
 ployer and the insurer the notice to or knowledge of the occurrence 
 of the injury on the part of the insured shall be deemed notice or 
 knowledge, as the case may be, on the part of the insurer; that juris- 
 diction of the insured for the purposes of this act sihall be jurisdiction 
 of the insurer; and that the insurer shall in all things be bound by and 
 subject to the awards, judgments or decrees rendered against such 
 insured, whether under this Act or at common law; provided, however, 
 that in case action at common law is instituted, that while it shall be the 
 duty of the insurer to investigate and defend such claims and suits, it 
 shall not be liable to pay any judgments resulting therefrom beyond the 
 limits herein provided. 
 
 Sec. 74. No policy of insurance against liability arising under this 
 act shall be issued unless it contains the agreement of the insurer 
 that it will promptly pay to the person entitled to same all benefits 
 conferred by this act, and all installments of the compensation that 
 may be awarded or -agreed upon, and that the obligation shall not be 
 affected by any default of the insured after the injury, or by any 
 default in the giving of any notice required by such policy, or other- 
 wise. Such agreement shall be construed to be a direct promise by 
 the insurer to the person entitled to compensation enforceable in 
 his name. 
 
 Sec. 75. Every policy for the insurance of the compensation 
 herein provided, or against liability thereof, shall be deemed to be 
 made subject to the provisions of this 1 act. No corporation, associa- 
 tion or organization sihall enter into any such policy of insurance 
 unless its form shall have been approved by the Industrial Board. 
 
 PART V. 
 DEFINITIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 
 
 Sec. 76. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: 
 (a) "Employer" shall include the State and any municipal cor- 
 poration within the State or any political division thereof, and any 
 
 55 
 
Individual, firm, association or corporation or the receiver or trustee 
 of the same or the legal representatives of a deceased employer, using 
 the services of another for pay, subject to the provisions of Section 9 
 hereof. If the employer is insured it shall include his insurer so far as 
 applicable. 
 
 (b) "Employee" shall include every person, including a minor in 
 the service of another under any contract of hire or apprenticeship, 
 written or implied, but not including any person who is expressly ex- 
 cluded by the provisions of this Act. Any reference to an employee who 
 has been injured shall, when the employee is dead, also include his legal 
 representatives, dependents and other persons to whom compensation 
 may be payable. 
 
 (c) "Average weekly wages" shall mean the earnings of the in- 
 jured employee in the employment in which he was working at the 
 time of the injury during the period of fifty-two weeks immediately 
 preceding the date of injury, divided by fifty-two; ibut if the injured 
 employee lost more than seven consecutive calendar days during such 
 period, although not in the same week, then the earnings for the re- 
 mainder of such fifty-two weeks shall be divided by the number of 
 weeks remaining after the time so lost has been deducted. Where the 
 employment prior to the injury extended over a period of less than 
 fifty-two weeks, the method of dividing the earnings during that period 
 by the number of weeks and parts thereof during which the employee 
 earned wages shall be followed provided results just and fair to both 
 parties will thereby be obtained. Where by reason of the shortness of 
 the time during which the employee has been in the employment of his 
 employer or the casual nature or terms of the employment, it is im- 
 practicable to compute the average weekly wages as above defined, 
 regard shall be had to the average weekly amount which during the 
 fifty-two weeks previous to the injury was being earned by a person 
 in the same grade, employed at the same work by the same employer, 
 or if there is no person so employed, by a person in the same grade 
 employed in the same class of employment in the same district. 
 
 Where for exceptional reasons the foregoing rule will be unfair such 
 other method of computing average weekly wages may be resorted to 
 as will most nearly approximate the amount which the injured workmen 
 would be earning were it not for the injury. 
 
 Wherever allowances of any character made to an employee in 
 lieu of wages are a specified part of the wage contract, they shall be 
 deemed a part of his earnings. 
 
 (d) "Injury" and "Personal Injury" shall mean only injury by 
 accident arising out of and in the course of the employment and due 
 to a condition or conditions thereof, and shall not include a disease in 
 any form except as it shall result proximately from the injury. 
 
 Sec. 77. Compensation under this Act to alien dependent widows, 
 parents and children under the age of 17 years, not residents of the 
 United States, shall be one-half of the amount provided in each case for 
 residents, in no case to exceed the sum of One Thousand Dollars 
 
 56 
 
($1,000), and the employer may at any time commute all future in- 
 stallments of compensation to alien dependents to the then value thereof, 
 considering interest at the rate of six per cent per annum, subject to 
 the approval of the Board. Alien widowers, brothers and sisters and 
 children over the age of 17 years, not residents of the United States, 
 shall not be entitled to any compensation. 
 
 Sec. 78. Any notice required to be given under this Act shall be 
 deemed to have been properly given and served when deposited in the 
 mail in a registered letter or package properly stamped and addressed to 
 the person to whom notice is to be given at his last known address and 
 in time to reach him in due time to act thereon. Notice may also be 
 given and served in like manner as are notices in civil actions. Any 
 notice, given and served as provided in this section to the consular rep- 
 resentative of the nation of which any non-resident dependent of a 
 deceased employee is a citizen or subject or to the authorized agent or 
 representative of any such official residing in this State, shall be 
 deemed to have been properly given and served upon such dependent. 
 
 Sec. 79. If any section or provision of this Act be decided by the 
 courts to be unconstitutional or invalid, the same shall not affect the 
 validity of this act as a whole or any part thereof, other than the part 
 so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. 
 
 Sec. 80. All acts and parts of acts in conflict with any pro- 
 visions of this Act are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict*. 
 
 Sec. 81. Appropriation: For the purpose of paying the salaries 
 and expenses of the members of the Industrial Board and its em- 
 ployees, the sum of $25,000 per year, or so much thereof as may be 
 necessary, is hereby appropriated out of any moneys in the State Treas- 
 ury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Sec. 82. The provisions of this Act shall not affect pending liti- 
 gation. 
 
 Sec. 83. This Act shall take effect on July 1, 1917, except that 
 Part III, with the exception of Sec. 67, shall take effect upon approval. 
 
 DIGEST OF THE TENTATIVE UTAH WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 
 
 LAW. 
 
 TITLE, ETC. 
 
 Liability provisions effective July 1, 1917; administrative provisions 
 (except requirement of accident reports, etc., by employer), effective 
 from date of approval (83.) 
 
 SYSTEM PROVIDED FOR. 
 
 Compensation, with insurance, elective, but compulsory as to 
 State, counties, etc. (2-5, 18). Supervised by Industrial Board of 
 Utah (Part III). 
 
 57 
 
HOW ELECTED. 
 
 Employer's acceptance is presumed in absence of notice to con- 
 trary at time of hiring or 30 days prior to accident, conspicuously 
 posted at place of business or served upon employee personally, with 
 copy to Board. (2-4). 
 
 Employee's acceptance is presumed in absence of written notice to 
 employer at time of hiring or 30 days prior to accident, with copy to 
 Board ( 2-4). 
 
 HOW ELECTION CHANGED. 
 
 Election to reject may be changed by employer or employee at any 
 time by notice as in original election (3). 
 
 ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY. 
 
 If employer gives notice of rejection, defenses of contributory 
 negligence, fellow servant's fault and assumption of risks are abro- 
 grated. If employer accepts Act, and employee does not, defenses 
 remain ( 10-12). 
 
 EMPLOYMENTS COVERED. 
 
 All, public and private, except casual and not in usual course of 
 trade, business, etc., of employer, where less than four employed, private 
 household or domestic servants, unless they voluntarily elect to come 
 under Act. But excepted employments are subject to requirement of 
 reporting accidents, etc. (9, 18, 76a, b). 
 
 EMPLOYMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
 Except as to requirement of reporting accidents, etc., Act does 
 not apply to employers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce if 
 injuries to their employees are provided for by Federal enactment 
 ( 19). 
 
 INJURIES COVERED. 
 
 Personal injuries by accident arising out of and in course of em- 
 ployment, whether within the State or outside, or in a foreign country, 
 unless due to wilful misconduct ( 2, 8, 20, 76d). 
 
 NOTICE OF INJURY AND CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. 
 Notice of injury must be given, to employer immediately or as 
 soon as practicable thereafter, unless employer has knowledge thereof 
 or other excusable grounds exist. 'Compensation (barred if notice not 
 given within 30 days after injury or death. Defect in notice no bar 
 unless employer is prejudiced thereby. Claim must be filed within 
 1 year after injury or death ( 22-24). 
 
 WAITING PERIOD. 
 
 iFirat two weeks of disability. Compensation begins on 15th day 
 after injury (28). 
 
 58 
 
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL AID. 
 
 Employer must furnish medical aid, etc., during 30 days after injury, 
 in absence of regular "hospital" arrangement, with maximum liability 
 therefor of $100, and, at his option, may continue same during entire 
 period of disability or any remaining part thereof. Employee's refusal 
 to accept treatment suspends, and may forfeit, compensation for period 
 of continuance. If employer fails to provide such attendance for 30 
 days, he is liable for reasonable cost thereof, subject to approval of 
 Board (25-26). 
 
 COMPENSATION FOR TOTAL DISABILITY. 
 Fifty per cent of average weekly wages, maximum $12, minimum 
 $5, weekly; maximum period 3331-3 weeks, maximum amount $4,000 
 (29, 40). 
 
 COMPENSATION FOR PARTIAL DISABILITY. 
 One-half of average loss of earning power, maximum $12.00 
 weekly, maximum period 250 weeks, including period of total dis- 
 ability, if any; maximum amount $3,000. Special schedule for loss of 
 certain members, etc., in lieu of other compensation ( 30, 31, 40). 
 Special provisions in case of successive injuries ( 33-35). 
 
 COMPENSATION FOR DEATH. 
 
 If death results from injury within 250 weeks, burial expenses, 
 maximum $100, and in addition, to total dependents, fifty per cent, of 
 average wteekly wages, maximum $12.00 weekly, for remainder 
 of period between death and 250 weeks after injury; to partial 
 dependents, such proportion of foregoing as amount contributed by de- 
 ceased to their support bore to his annual earnings. If death was not 
 due to injury, balance of disability award 1 to toe paid to dependents 
 ( 36, 37, 40). 
 
 AVERAGE WAGES HOW COMPUTED. 
 
 Average weekly wages to mean earnings for preceding year divided 
 by 52; but if employee lost more than seven consecutive days' time, 
 such loss to be deducted from divisor. Where this method is not prac- 
 ticable, regard may be had to average wages of another person in the 
 same locality and class of employment, or probable amount of earnings 
 of employee if injury had not occurred ( 76c). 
 
 WHO ARE DEPENDENTS. 
 
 Certain persons conclusively presumed totally dependent. In other 
 cases dependency is determinate according to facts at the time of 
 injury ( 38). 
 
 NON-RESIDENT ALIEN BENEFICIARIES. 
 
 Half benefits, manimum $1,000. Dependents restricted to widows, 
 parents and children under 17. ( 77.) 
 
 59 
 
MEDICAL EXAMINATION. 
 
 Injured employee, if requested by employer or ordered by Board, 
 must submit to medical examination at reasonable times and places. 
 Employee may have own physician present. Refusal to submit sus- 
 pends, and unless justifiable, forfeits, right to compensation during 
 continuance. In case of death, employer or Board may require an 
 autopsy at own expense ( 27). 
 
 SETTLEMENT OP CLAIMS AND DISPUTES. 
 Terms of compensation may be fixed by agreement, after 14 
 days from date of injury, subject to approval of Board; or by Board, 
 or a member thereof, after a hearing, upon application of either party. 
 Award made by member of Board is subject to review by full Board 
 upon application made within seven days from date thereof ( 57-60). 
 
 RIGHT OP APPEAL. 
 
 An award of the Board is conclusive as to questions of fact; but 
 within 30 days either party may appeal to Supreme 5 Court on errors 
 of law; or Board may of its own motion certify questions of law to 
 the Supreme Court for determination ( 61). 
 
 MODIFICATIONS OF AGREEMENTS AND AWARDS. 
 The Board may at any time, on its own motion, or upon applica- 
 tion of any party in interest, on the ground of a change in conditions, 
 review an award and increase, diminish or terminate payments ( 45). 
 
 COMMUTATIONS. 
 
 Upon application of either party, the Board may authorize monthly 
 or quarterly, instead of weekly, payments. After 13 weeks, a weekly 
 payment, in unusual cases, may be redeemed by a lump sum payment, 
 by agreement, subject to approval of Board. In case of a minor 
 permanently disabled, Board may in its discretion award a lump sum 
 at any time. Or Board may order employer to pay lump sum to trustee 
 and be discharged ( 42-44). 
 
 PREFERENCE. 
 
 The right to compensation has the same preference against em- 
 ployer's assets as is allowed for unpaid wages for labor ( 16). 
 
 ASSIGNMENTS AND EXEMPTIONS. 
 
 A claim for compensation is not assignable and is exempt from all 
 claims of creditors ( 17). 
 
 PROCEEDINGS TO COLLECT COMPENSATION. 
 Upon presentation of a certified copy of approved memorandum of 
 agreement or decision of Board, Supreme Court must render judgment 
 in accordance therewith, which has same effect as though rendered in 
 action (5 62). 
 
 * 
 
 60 
 
ATTORNEYS' LIENS AND FEES, ETC. 
 
 Attorneys' and physicians' fees and hospital charges are subject to 
 approval by the Board ( 65). 
 
 MINORS AND INCOMPETENT PERSONS. 
 
 Election to reject provisions of Act on behalf of a minor employee 
 may be made only by parent or guardian (4). Payments to minors 
 under 18 or dependent children over 18 must be made through trustee 
 appointed by Supreme Court. Rights accruing to minor under 18 or in- 
 competent person may be enforced in his behalf by guardian or trustee. 
 Xo time limitation is to run against minor dependent or incompetent 
 person pending appointment of guardian or trustee ( 46-48). 
 
 SUBROGATION. 
 
 Where right of action exists against third party, employee has 
 option either to claim compensation or sue third party for damages. It 
 employer or insurer pays compensation, he is subrogated to employee's 
 rights against third party to the extent of compensation paid or pay- 
 able ( 13, 76a). 
 
 SUB-CONTRACTORS. 
 
 If injury occurs on premises u/nder control of principal, he is 
 liable for compensation to employees of contractor or sub-contractor, 
 but is entitled to indemnity from the latter. Claim must be made in 
 the first place against immediate employer ( 14). 
 
 SUITS FOR DAMAGES. 
 
 If elected, compensation is the exclusive remedy for injuries cov- 
 ered (6), but not so as to relieve employer from penalty for neglect 
 of statutory duty (7). 
 
 ACCIDENT PREVENTION. 
 No provision. 
 
 REPORTS REQUIRED OF EMPLOYER. 
 
 Employer must report to the Board all injuries causing absence 
 from work for more tihan two days, within a week after occurrence; 
 and must make supplementary report after 60 days or upon termination 
 of disability; $25 fine for failure to comply ( 67). Evidence of in- 
 surance or financial responsibility must be filed by assenting employer 
 with Board within 30 days after Act takes effect and annually there- 
 after (69). 
 
 "CONTRACTING OUT." 
 
 Alternative compensation or insurance schemes are authorized, 
 subject to approval of Board, provided benefits are not less than those 
 under the Act. If such arrangement involves contributions by em- 
 ployees, additional benefits must be commensurate therewith ( 72). 
 Other contracting out forbidden ( 15). 
 
 61 
 
INSURANCE. 
 
 Assenting employer may insure himself, upon furnishing Board 
 with proof of financial responsibility, with deposit of bond or other 
 security, if required by (Board, or he may insure in some regularly 
 authorized stock casualty insurance company or join with others in 
 forming regularly authorized mutual insurance companies. Penalty for 
 non-compliance, from $1 to $50 (according <to number of employees) 
 for each day's neglect (68-70). Insurance policies must stipulate that 
 notice to insured is notice to insurer; that insurer is directly liable to 
 employee, and that employer's default does not discharge insurer; and 
 are otherwise deemed subject to provisions of Act (73-75). 
 
 MIS'CE'LiLANEOUiS PROVISIONS. 
 
 If injured employee refuses suitable employment procured by em- 
 ployer, he is not entitled to compensation for period of refusal, unless 
 justifiable ( 32). 
 
 Joint employers of same employee may agree upon apportionment 
 of liability ( 49). 
 
 If proceedings brought before Board or Court are not based on 
 reasonable grounds, entire cost thereof ma^ be assessed against party 
 bringing them ( 63). 
 
 CONSTITUTIONALITY. 
 
 If any part of Act is held unconstitutional, it shall not affect the 
 validity of the Act as a whole or of any other part thereof. ( 79.) 
 
 On account of Article 16, Section 5 of the Utah Constitution, "The 
 right of action to recover damages for injuries resulting in death, shall 
 never be abrogated, and the amount recoverable shall not be subject 
 to statutory limitation," where injuries result in death, heirs may sue 
 under common law, but employer shall have all common law defenses 
 restored (6, 11). 
 
 62 
 
Extracts from letters received by the Em- 
 ployer's Liability and Workmen's 
 Compensation Commission. 
 
 UTAH FUEL CO. 
 Judge Building 
 Salt Lake City 
 
 Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation Commission 
 Salt Lake City, Utah. 
 
 Dear Sirs: 
 
 In compliance with our verbal understanding, and based on the 
 second proof sheets printed early in September last of the tentative 
 draft for "The Utah Workmen's/ Compensation Act" prepared by your 
 honorable committee, I wish to submit a few suggestions in relation 
 thereto. 
 
 The bill as proposed seems to me ton be, in general, an excellent 
 one, containing the best provisions of previous legislation on the sub- 
 ject and leaving} out undesirable features in the laws of many of the 
 states. 
 
 While not true in all cases in general, the compensation in the 
 proposed law seems to be in excess of that established in surrounding 
 states, whose industries are most strongly itt competition with those of 
 Utah. Utah industries affected would undoubtedly be adversely in- 
 fluenced to a certain extent by this situation, as it would either result 
 in a reduction in earning power or a reduced ability to meet the com- 
 petition from these states if the increased cost of compensation is 
 added to the cost of the product. It would not seem unreaonsable that 
 the compensation in Utah, as far as it depends upon this feature of 
 the case, should certainly not be in excess of the others. 
 
 I trust that the suggestions made herein will be considered as being 
 made in friendly spirit, and from a source that is favorable to a good 
 and equitable Compensation Law, which! I believe the Commission will 
 undoubtedly present to the Legislature. 
 
 Thanking you for your consideration, I am 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 H. G. WILLIAMS, 
 Consulting Manager, Utah Fuel Co. 
 
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF UTAH 
 
 Salt Lake City 
 
 October 12, 1916. 
 
 Employer's Liability and Workmen's Compensation Commission, 
 Salt Lake City, Utah. 
 
 Gentlemen: 
 
 In accordance with your request we take much pleasure in stating 
 our views upon the tentative bill prepared by your honorable commis- 
 sion covering the subject of Employer's Liability and Workmen's Com- 
 pensation. 
 
 The copy of the bill now in our hands, considered as a whole, has 
 our hearty endorsement. Wev commend the commission upon the 
 earnestness with which the subject has beenf studied and the manner 
 in which the different sections have been worded. 
 
 One of the vital parts of the bill, of course, is the compensation 
 schedule. By comparing this schedule with that of other states we 
 observe tsat it is higher than many states and lower than others. We 
 understand, however, that the commission has endeavored to strike a 
 happy middle ground upon which all interested may stand. The sched- 
 ule is in a sense a compromise, and in consideration of this fact our 
 Association will offer no objection to it, providing it is adopted as now 
 printed. However, if any effort is made to raise the schedule, in 1 our 
 judgment, it will seriously effect the bill, because it will place a handi- 
 cap upon manufacturing in this state which the industries cannot stand. 
 
 One of our keenest competitors in manufacturing lines is Colorado, 
 and in comparison with the 'Colorado law the schedule of compensa- 
 tion, in many instances, shows a decided increase over theirs. 
 
 An example : Take the subjects of total disability. Under our pro- 
 posed law the amount which may be paid is $4,000, while in Colorado 
 the amount is but $2,080. The proposed maximum wage recovery is $12, 
 as compared with $8.00 in Colorado. 
 
 If the schedule should be further increased the rate of insurance 
 will be so high, it is evident that a most serious handicap will be placed 
 upon our industries. 
 
 We think that in some instances the schedule should be made lower, 
 but on the whole it will probably work out all right. 
 
 The matter of having the law apply strictly to injuries rising out of 
 and in the course of employment is very important. We believe that 
 you will agree witH us tna t we are not ^prepared at the present time 
 to include, even by inference, the question of occupational diseases. This 
 question opens up a new and broad field, whictt must be handled sepa- 
 rately. 
 
 It seems to us that the definition of an injury, in Section 78d, 
 should remain as it now is, with the possible exception of the addition 
 of the word proximate before the word injury, on the last line. 
 
 We also commend your commission upon the time designated as the 
 waiting period. It may be of interest, however, to note that in Colorado 
 this time is increased to three weeks. We presume, however, that her 
 again a compromise has been struck and the time placed at fourteen 
 calendar days. In our opinion it is important that this waiting period 
 shall not be made any lower. 
 
 By comparison with other features the question of an industrial 
 board to administer the law is not of great importance; however, w 
 believe that economy should be a watchword in framing this law, and it 
 has occurred to us that, perhaps, there can be a saving in administra- 
 
 2 
 
tion costs if but one commissioner is provided for and a part of the 
 work of administration given to the district judges. 
 
 When this law becomes operative the work of the district judges 
 should be decreased. A considerable number of cases arising out of 
 personal injuries, which are now handled by the courts, will be cared 
 for under the law without suit, and when disputes arise they will or- 
 dinarily be arbitrated by those selected to administer the law and will 
 not demand the time of the courts. 
 
 Indiana, with a population seven times as large as ours, is able to 
 administer its law 1 satisfactorily with buU three commissioners, and in 
 this state, with its small population, it seems to us one commissioner 
 will be sufficient. We commend this matter to your earnest attention. 
 
 Assuring you of our best wishes, and of our earnest desire to co- 
 operate with you in every way possible to secure a bill which will meet 
 with the approval of all parties concerned, we remain 
 
 Sincerely yours, 
 
 MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF UTAH, 
 By. Geo. S. McAllister, Pres. 
 
 UNITED STATES SENATE 
 
 September 10th, 1916. 
 
 H. B. Windsor, Secy., 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah. 
 
 My dear Mr. Windsor: 
 
 I have your letter of the 8th inst. and also the last print of your 
 proposed Workmen's Compensation law. 
 
 I regret very much that my time has been so occupied that I have 
 not been able to go over the proposed bill with care. I have, however, 
 read it over. I think in the main it is an excellent law. The only 
 general criticisms which I have are: 
 
 First, I think the schedule of compensation is rather low. My own 
 judgment is that payment to the widow for death claims ought to run 
 for at least eight years, and for minor children until they become six- 
 teen. In this connection I invite your attention to tlie last draft of 
 the bill which I introduced in Congress; page 30, section 21. In the 
 case of permanent total disability T think the payment should continue 
 for life. (See page 35.) 
 
 Second, I believe it to be unwise to deny compensation in any case 
 except where the accident was due to the intoxication of the employe 
 or resulted from an attempt to injure or destroy himself or another. 
 (See page 71, paragraph "J v of the enclosed Report on my bill.) 
 
 I also make the following suggestions as to the phraseology of 
 the bill: 
 
 1. Section 2, line 2, should you not insert the word "conclusively" 
 before the word "presume?" Otherwise there is danger of your pro- 
 vision being construed so as to allow the presumption to be rebutted. 
 
 2. Page 4, section 17: should you not also provide that the claim 
 for compensation shall be exempt from execution? This may be included 
 under the phrase "Claims of Creditors," but I am not sure. 
 
 3. Section 18 provides broadly that the provisions of the act shall 
 apply to the employes of the state, counties, etc. Are there not some 
 
provisions that from their very nature will not apply to the govern- 
 ment; such as for example, provisions with reference to insurance? 
 
 4. Page 6, section 25, first line: should you not insert the word 
 "first" before the word "thirty", so as to read "during the first thirty 
 days"? 
 
 Sections 6 and 11 I think are substantially like the provisions of 
 the New Jersey law and other elective laws, and are sufficient to 
 coerce acceptance, which, of course, is their purpose. 
 
 Before expressing myself with reference to other matters in the 
 bill I should like to go over it with a great deal more care than I have 
 had time to do. If you have not finished the work by that time, I 
 would be glad to talk with you during the first week of October, when 
 I shall probably be in Salt Lake. 
 
 Very sincerely, 
 
 GEORGE SUTHERLAND. 
 
 Also from letter of December 7th, 1916, written from 
 Washington, D. C. : 
 
 I have again gone over the draft of your tentative workmen's 
 compensation bill, but find nothing to suggest beyond what I have 
 already said. 
 
 I still think the compensation provided is somewhat low, but it 
 may be that it will be necessary to leave the schedule as it is in order 
 to get the bill through and establish the principle. 
 
 I think the experience of most of the states has been that in actual 
 operation these compensation laws have noli been as expensive as it 
 was anticipated. 
 
 I sincerely hope you will succeed in getting the bill through at 
 the present session of the legislature. 
 
 Very sincerely yours, 
 
 GEO. SUTHERLAND. 
 
 From the Labor World of Pittsburg, Pa., with relation to 
 State Insurance : 
 
 I do believe that private enterprise is the better agency for the 
 accomplishment of general betterment and welfare than the state, in 
 maters that can be better attended to by individual effort. ' Your 
 
 law is a comprehensive one. * * * On the surface of it I do not see 
 that labor can reasonably complain about it, and I am sure) that the 
 employers will not. One thing I wish to state most emphatically is 
 that Workmen's Compensation is now in this country to stay and will 
 spread and become established in every state in the Union. Our aim 
 ought to be to secure the best and we* will never attain that without 
 making a start of some kind. * * * 
 
 Yours very sincerely, 
 
 JOHN D. PRINGLE, 
 
 Editor 
 
TAFT & SHERMAN 
 
 Attorneys and Counsellors at Law 
 15 William Street, New York 
 
 October 2, 1916. 
 
 Secretary, Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation 
 Commission, 
 
 State Capitol, 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah. 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 Yours of the 21st ult. to the Executive Council of the National 
 Civic Federation, enclosing copy of your tentative bill for workmen's 
 compensation, has been referred to me by the Secretary. I have already 
 gone over it looking for defects of form for* the Workmen's Compensa- 
 tion Publicity Bureau, and my criticisms and suggestions will doubtless 
 be communicated to you by Mr. Jones, the secretary of that Bureau. 
 
 As to substance, what the National Civic Federation approves and 
 advocates is to be gathered from its publications which, I am informed, 
 have already been sent you. Considering the difficultiess in your way 
 to making compensation compulsory and exclusive of all liability for 
 damages, I think your bill complies with the standards set by the Civic 
 Federation. Beyond that nobody is now competent and ready to speak 
 for that organization. 
 
 Speaking for myself alone (and disregarding some features about 
 which I have peculiar notions and as to which your bill follows the pre- 
 vailing and generally accepted standards), I am of the opinion that the 
 bill is very good, not only in substance, but also in detail. I would 
 like to see it more liberal for cases of serious, certain and long-continued 
 disablement; but caution about establishing' a system of long-continued 
 pensions is proper in the first step. And the bill would be a tremendous 
 improvement over your existing law. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 P. TECUMSEH SHERMAN. 
 
 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PUBLICITY BUREAU 
 
 From a letter of F. Robertson Jones, Secretary of Work- 
 men's Compensation Publicity Bureau, No. 80 Maiden Lane, 
 New York City: 
 
 Constitutional amendment. I think that it would be advisable for 
 your Commission in its report to recommend an amendment to your 
 state constitution to empower the legislature to enact a compulsory 
 Workmen's compensation law, specifically authorizing a limitation upon 
 employers' liability for compensation fro death by occupational accident. 
 But the problem of framing such an amendment is so particularly a mat- 
 ter for local counsel that we would not like to presume to advise you 
 thereon. 
 
 5 
 
Regulation of Mutuals. Foreign experience shows that mutual in- 
 surance will not be successful nor protect its members from very un- 
 expected and disturbing shocks unless the risks are peculiarly well dis- 
 tributed. The welfare of employers and their employees, therefore, 
 calls for what may appear like very severe regulations of mutuals in 
 order to secure something approaching to a proper distribution of risks. 
 
 Mutuals should be required to maintain reserves sufficiento to cover 
 all outstanding liabilities, under approximately the same conditions as a 
 stock company. Otherwise there should be severe regulations as to 
 dividends and the withdrawing members should remain liable to assess- 
 ment for 333 1-3 weeks after withdrawal. 
 
 MAY DAY MINING & MILLING CO., John Dern, President 
 
 M. P. Braffet, Vice-President 
 
 Office 515 Dooly Block j. c. Dick, General Manager 
 
 P r> Rv 141ft w - s - McCornick, Treasurer 
 
 P ' ' BOX n A. Reeves, Secretary 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah, December 22, 1916. 
 
 Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation Commission, 
 City. 
 
 Gentlemen: 
 
 I have carefully examined the draft prepared by the Commission 
 of the proposed Utah Compensation Law, and I think the Commission 
 has been wise to recommend as simple and uncomplicated a law, as 
 possible for the beginning. Experience will teach us what changes to 
 make and the recommendations of the Industrial Commission will be 
 helpful at succeeding legislative sessions. The principal thing is to 
 install a conservative, workable Compensation System. I take great 
 pride in the fact that 1 the great Chancellor Bismark was the originator 
 of the Workmen's Compensation idea in Europe, and that no country 
 has carried the principles of justice and humanity which Workmen's 
 Compensation Laws embody to a greater degree of perfection than 
 Germany. 
 
 Some criticism has been made on the schedule which you propose, 
 in that it is larger than that in: any of the surrounding States, except, 
 perhaps, Nevada. We must not put our producers under too large a han- 
 dicap in the beginning. If it appears that we are planning to at once 
 install an unduly large schedule, in comparison with Wyoming and 
 Coolrado, it will arouse the antagonism of Utah producers, whereaa 
 they would all heartily endorse a Compensation Bill that did not en- 
 danger their existence, and cheerfully pay the added cost that it will 
 entail. 
 
 The Constitutional inhibition in case of death, while unfortunate, is 
 not vital. I understand that Oklahoma had the same difficulty, but she 
 installed the system and later cured the defect by a constitutional 
 amendment. If a farmer had a stump in a fertile field he would plough 
 around it until it could be removed, and not let the field lie untilled. 
 
 Your proposed law seems to follow the usual lines laid down by 
 the majority of the thirty-two Compensation States, and strikes a very 
 fair average. 
 
 Several weeks ago I received a letter from Mr. Fr. Von Fischer 
 Tnherz, Austrian Vice-Consul at Denver, stating that he understood 
 
that a Commission had been appointed to prepare a Workmen's Com- 
 pensation and Employers' Liability measure, and report to the incom- 
 ing legislature, and inasmuch as a great many Austrians are employed 
 in the mines and smelters in Utah, he was very much interested i 
 the matter, and would appreciate iti 4f I could give him a synopsis of 
 the proposed measure. I sent him the copy of the bill which Mr. 
 Windsor had the kindness to give me, and asked him; to make such 
 criticism and recommendations as he cared to and I would be glad to 
 submit same to the Commission. I enclose herewith his reply, from 
 which you will note that in general he seems to express satisfaction! 
 with the proposed bill, but feels that the time allowed for giving notice 
 of accident, which is thirty days, and the time allowed for the filing of 
 claim in the case of death, which is one year, should be extended, and 
 that the limit allowed for recovery ($1,000) in alien cases should b 
 amplified to $1,500. He also recommends payment for life in cases 
 of total disability. He approves the provisions for the commutation of 
 alien indemnities, so that an early, complete closing of a death claim 
 can be made, but feels that the rate of discount (6 per cent) is rather 
 high. 
 
 I hope to see a Compensation Law 1 replace the present iniquitous 
 Employers' Liability System, whereby few recover and many suffer, at 
 the coming session of the legislature. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 JOHN BERN. 
 
 WESLEY KING 
 309 South Main Street 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah, December 23rd, 1916. 
 
 Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation Commission, 
 City. 
 
 Gentlemen : 
 
 In your report to the Legislature on the matter of a workman's 
 compensation act for Utah, I suggest that you discuss the question, of 
 insurance. Under any compensation plan, both employer and employ* 
 must be assured of an adequate and practical provision for insuring the 
 payments for injuries as fixed by the proposed law. 
 
 Having been interested in the! manufacturing business in eight of 
 our western states, in building construction business in Utah and in 
 the surety and casualty business in all the mountain and coast states 
 for some years past, I have taken a keen interest in this phase of the 
 subject and have studied carefully the experiments which our sister 
 states have made, and have reached some definite conclusions. 
 
 Few today contest the plan of fixed compensation for injuries in- 
 cident to industrial operations. The workingman feels that he is entitled 
 to it and most employers want him to have it. Providing for this com- 
 pensation has been considered a problem. It is exactly the same prob- 
 lem presented by fire, life, burglary or other similar loss. A problem 
 which has been satisfactorily solved through the organization of in- 
 surance companies. It has not yet been satisfactorily solved by any 
 
state insurance plan. Some states have provided for the distribution f 
 funds collected by assessments upon employers. I^oneJ have absolutely 
 insured the employer. None have absolutely insured the employe. 
 
 In the Montana law we find as follows: 
 
 "If at any time there shall not be sufficient money in the Accident 
 Fund with which to pay any warrants drawn thereon, the employer, on 
 account of whose workmen the warrant was drawn, shall pay the same, 
 and upon his next contribution to such fund he shall be credited with the 
 amount so paid." 
 
 In this provision I find no insurance. 
 
 In Section 40 of the Nevada law there occurs the following stipu- 
 lation: 
 
 "The State of Nevada shall not be liable for the payment of any com- 
 pensation under this act, save and except from the said State insurance 
 fund, to be derived from the payment of premiums as provided in this 
 act." 
 
 In a later amendment, we also find: 
 
 "The State of Nevada shall not be liable for the payment of any 
 compensation or any salary or expenses in the administration of this act, 
 save and except from the State Insurance Fund, but shall be responsi- 
 ble for the safety and preservation of the State Insurance Fund." 
 
 Other States having State Funds have similar provisions. 
 
 The criticism is certainly well founded that: 
 
 "State Funds, whether monopolistic or competitive, give no guar- 
 antee of solvency, nor provide either adequate reserves or surplus. They 
 are Public Mutuals lacking enough volume to secure an insurable 
 average; managed by officers appointed by the political heads in power 
 instead of having officers among business men responsible to those who 
 pay the premiums." 
 
 Most certainly the State should guarantee the same prompt pay- 
 ment to those who are in distress that is required of any other insurance 
 carrier, whether Stock Company or Mutual, even if a catastrophe such 
 as the Schofield disaster causes ai drawing upon other State Funds, or 
 else it should not undertake the responsibility at all, but should leave it 
 to carefully supervised companies of unquestioned responsibility. 
 
 The experience of West Virginia, whose State Fund was made in- 
 solvent by catastrophes to the amount of half a million dollars; that of 
 the New York State Compensation Fund, which has been obliged to pass 
 the payment of its dividends; that of the Wisconsin State Fire Fund, 
 which has gone bankrupt with forty-three million dollars of insurance 
 still in force; that of the Hail Insurance Fund of North Dakota, which 
 has now announced thati it would probably be able to pay 38 cents on 
 the dollar for 1916 and which never did pay its losses in full; that of the 
 State of Washington, whose Insurance Fund is impaired by over half 
 a million dollars, according to their State Auditor, Mr. C. W. Clausen, 
 who makes the charge that looseness of management has made it easy 
 for various irregularities to occur and that a vital defect in the operation 
 of the law is in the employment of men and women lacking in ability 
 and in experience, as a result of political preference, together with the 
 criticisms and comments of Chairman Caldwell of the Kentucky Com- 
 pensation Board concerning the operations of the Ohio Industrial Acci- 
 dent Fund, are interesting in the study of this important question. The 
 fact that several Insurance Companies have lately been obliged to retire 
 from business, or to reinsure on account of their experience with the 
 Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation lines and that sev- 
 eral large and well-managed Companies have lately announced that they 
 will discontinue these lines until the experience and the data and sta- 
 tistics have become more reliable, lead me to recommend that the State 
 
 8 
 
of Utah follow the example of the large majority of States having Com- 
 pensation Laws and do not, in the beginning, at least, complicate the in- 
 stalling of the proposed Act with this and other matters that should be 
 inaugurated by separate Acts or amendments' as later experience jus- 
 tifies. 
 
 The way is open for all who think there are profits in this line of 
 business to join in the establishment of privately operated Mutual In- 
 surance Companies, whose members should be under an unlimited re- 
 sponsibility for all losses, which should be under State supervision, so 
 that proper reserves to carry all installments of Compensation to ma- 
 turity, should be maintained. 
 
 I am impressed with what the Connecticut Compensation Commis- 
 sion said in its report submitting a proposed Compensation Act: 
 
 "Under the plan recommended by the act submitted herewith, there 
 is a direct responsibility by the employer' to the workman. The work- 
 man's claim is privileged, in case of insolvency, over all others. In case 
 the employer takes out insurance, as he almost universally will, the 
 claim of the injured workman is made a lien upon the policy, so that 
 the insurance company is bound to see to its payment in case of the 
 inability of the employer. The workman therefore is doubly secured for 
 payment. 
 
 "The expense of state-managed insurance must of necessity be 
 large. A high order of ability and experience would be necessary in its 
 management, which must be adequately paid, and the expenses of 
 actuaries and other employes would be heavy. 
 
 "It is against the general American policy for the State to assume 
 the transaction of business until it sufficiently appears that there is a 
 strong necessity for such a step. This does not so far appear. It is 
 the general belief in this country that, except in a certain narrow class 
 of activities, the State does not manage business with as much economy 
 and efficiency as private concerns. 
 
 "For these reasons the Connecticut Commission has deemed it not 
 advisable to recommend either state or state-managed insurance." 
 
 Our sister states, Wyoming and Nevada, are now experimenting 
 with state insurance. The compensation laws in those states cover only 
 the extra-hazardous occupations, so that their experience may not ever 
 prove much of a guide until their laws are expanded to include general 
 employment, nor indeed until they have accumulated some real experi- 
 ence, which only a lapse of several years makes possible. As yet 
 they are too young in the business to serve as a guide for Utah legis- 
 lators. 
 
 I sincerely trust that the Utah Commission will not only advise 
 against the adoption of state insurance, but will strongly oppose it. I 
 see no difference between the state engaging in this character of en- 
 terprise than in any of the hundreds of other commercial endeavors. If 
 it may write compensation insurance, then why not life, fire, personal 
 accident and health and automobile insurance; why not the hardware, 
 grocery and drug business; why not the manufacture of shoes, sugar 
 and such like, and why not conduct five-and-ten-cent stores? The prin- 
 ciple is the same, and the result would be the same bankruptcy for 
 the state and, finally, socialism. 
 
 Cordially yours, 
 
 WESLEY KING. 
 
W. H. DICKSON 
 
 ATTORNEY AT LAW 
 Kearns Building 
 
 Salt Lake City, December 9, 1916. 
 
 Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation Commission. 
 Gentlemen: 
 
 In compliance with your request that I give a brief expression of 
 my views respecting the proposed "Employers' Liability and Workmen'* 
 Compensation Act," drafted by you, I have to say that I have read and 
 considered the same attentively and find that it embodies the best 
 features of similar legislation in many of the states of the Union. 
 
 The only criticism I have to make is respecting the compensation 
 which it provides for cases of total and permanent disability. I believe 
 that in every such case the bill should provide for, at least, SOME com- 
 pensation during the life of the person so injured. Section 29 of the 
 proposed bill provides for a weekly compensation equal to 50 per cent, 
 of the injured person's average weekly wages, for a period not to exceed 
 333 1-3 weeks. It is apparent, I think, that it would be impossible for 
 such injured employe to save anything from this weekly compensation. 
 All of it would be required for his subsistence, and at the end of that 
 period, if he so long lived, he would be without any means of support, 
 and become a public charge, or be dependent upon the charity of his 
 friends. 
 
 The legislation which this bill proposes would be a great improve- 
 ment upon our present law and could not fail to prove highly beneficial 
 to the wage earner. As the law stands today, the injured employe can 
 recover nothing unless he is able to satisfy a jury that his injuries, 
 however severe, are the result of the negligence of his employer. Again, 
 he cannot recover if his injuries are the result of his contributory negli- 
 gence. Finally, he cannot recover, no matter how free from blame he 
 himself may have been, if his injuries are the result of the negligence 
 of a fellow servant, within the meaning of the law. Moreover, if he 
 should be so fortunate as to obtain judgment for ant amount which a 
 jury may find him to be entitled to, merely as adequate compensation 
 for the injuries sustained, a large proportion of his recovery, varying, 
 as I understand, from 30" to 50 per cent, thereof, must be yielded to 
 the attorney who conducted his case. 
 
 It would, of course, be impossible for the wit of man to draft a bill 
 which would result in exact justice to the employer and employe, in 
 each and every case. Whatever imperfections, if any, there may be in 
 your proposed legislation, experience alone will disclose, and when thus 
 discovered, may be readily cured by future amendments. 
 
 I have examined carefully Sections 6 and 11 of the proposed Act. 
 These sections have been drawn with great care, and I believe that the 
 courts will hold that none of the provisions of either is in conflict witfc 
 Section 5 of Article 16 of our Constitution. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 W. H. DICKSON. 
 
STATE OF UTAH 
 
 Employers' Liability and 
 
 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION 
 STATE CAPITOL 
 
 Don B. Colton, Chairman 
 
 Vernal, Utah 
 
 Le Grand Young, V. Chairman 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah 
 
 Ira R. Browning 
 
 Castle Dale, Utah 
 
 R. C. Gemmell 
 Salt Lake City, Utah 
 
 Chas. H. Pearson 
 
 Ogden, Utah 
 H. B. Windsor, Secretary 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah 
 
 H. K. Russell, Asst. Secretary 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah 
 
 Ogden, Utah, December 29, 1916. 
 
 Mr. Le Grand Young, 
 
 Deseret National Bank Building, 
 Salt Lake City, Utah. 
 
 My dear Sir: 
 
 Not being able to come to Salt Lake just at this time to sign 
 the finally corrected report, I wish you to sign same for me as fully 
 and completely as though by my own hand. 
 
 In doing so, I wish to say that the report embodies my ideas in 
 that we feel that it is best to only recommend a very conservative bill 
 for the beginning and secure the installation of the Compensation 
 
 System. 
 
 There are many things in the recommended bill that I should like 
 to modify, but I do not thing it best to enumerate them now, being sure 
 that time and experience will bring us nearer to perfection. 
 
 I sincerely hope to see the amount payable in case of total disability 
 raised to $5,000, or to be for life, and the maximum of weekly indemnity 
 raised to $15 in the near future, not only in Utah, but in all States, 
 particularly those on our borders. 
 
 I hope they will pass the bill which has cost us so much hard work 
 as it is, and improve it by later amendments. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 CHARLES H. PEARSON. 
 
 11 
 
vtr n * I T 
 T L UH I to 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY