II. On Whom Legislature May Impose Liability for Compensation. Arizona. Employer. California. Employer. New York. Employer, or employer and employe, or otherwise. Pennsylvania. Employer, or employer and employe jointly. III. Limitation of Legislative Discretion to Particular: 2. Employers in such Employments. None in any state. 3. Employes in such Employments. Arizona. Workmen engaged in manual or mechanical labor. IV. Express Authorization of Legislative Classification of Employments, Employers or Employes, and inclusion of some only of those within the Constitutional Provision. Vermont. Express authorization to classify employers and employes. Other states. No mention. V. Constitutional Description of Injuries for Which Legislature May Provide Compensation. Arizona. Arising out of and in course of employment and caused by risk inherent therein or by employer's failure to exercise due care or to comply with any law. California. In course of employment. New York. Injuries and death resulting from injuries, except intentionally self-inflicted or due to intoxication. Ohio. Death, injury or occupational diseases occasioned in course of employment. Pennsylvania. Injuries arising in course of employment and occupational diseases whether or not resulting in death. Vermont. In course of employment resulting in death or bodily hurt. Wyoming. In course of employment and death resulting therefrom, except where due to culpable negligence. VI. Amount of Compensation Which Legislature May Provide. Pennsylvania. "Reasonable." Other states. No mention. VII. Constitutional Description of Beneficiaries. Arizona. Workmen alone mentioned. California. Employes alone mentioned. Ohio. Workmen and their dependents. Vermont. Employes, their widows and next of kin. Wyoming. Workmen or their dependent families. VIII. Constitutional Provision as to Exclusiveness of Compensation System. Arizona. Injured employe expressly given option after the injury to take compensation or sue at law. California. No mention. New York. Legislature authorized to make compensation exclusive. Ohio. Legislature authorized to take away other rights of action or defense, except that employe's right of action shall not be taken away where injury results from employer's failure" to comply with any lawful requirements for the protection of the lives, health and safety of employes." Wyoming. Right to compensation made exclusive of any other right of action. IX. Settlement of Controversies. Arizona. No provision. California. "By arbitration or by an industrial accident board, Ohio. Legislature authorized to establish a board to administer Vermont. Wyoming. fund. No provision. Legislature given general control over insurance X. Express Authorization of Legislation Limiting Amount Recoverable for Death. New York. Authorization to provide that compensation "for death shall not exceed a fixed or determinable sum." Pennsylvania. Legislature authorized to fix maximum and minimum. Other states. No provision. XI. Express Authorization to Charge Compensation Cost to Operating Expenses. New York. Employers expressly authorized to charge such costs to operating expenses. Other states. No provision. (379) THE FUTURE OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION THE AMENDMENT: HENRY R. SEAGER Professor of Political Economy, Columbia University HE most satisfactory basis for the discussion of a paper is strong dissent from the views expressed in it. I am in the embarrassing situation of agreeing very cordially with nearly everything that Mr. Parkinson has said. This is perhaps because we have worked together on this compensation question from the time when the Ives case was decided, appeared together at Albany in support of this amendment, and discussed so fully every important phase of the problem that we have come to view it in very much the same way. There ought to be no question as to the future of the compensation amendment. An overwhelming majority of the people of the state-nearly all wage-earners, a very large number of employers and most disinterested citizens-desire that in the new constitution, as in the present one as amended, the legislature shall have a free hand to deal with the compensation problem as reason, a sense of justice and experience may determine to be best. The aspect we are to discuss, I take it, is not whether the result secured through the amendment shall be jeopardized, but by what means that result can most surely be preserved. Mr. Parkinson has clearly analyzed the amendment into its three parts. I agree with him that the phrase authorizing the legislature to pass laws for "the protection of the lives, health and safety of employes" ought to be put in a separate section. I think, however, that so long as the bill of rights is retained that phrase serves the useful purpose of admonishing the courts that they are not lightly to set aside enactments which have these ends in view. So long as the Fourteenth Amendment 1 Discussion at the meeting of the Academy of Political Science, November 20, 1914. stands, there is no danger that liberty or property rights will be unreasonably invaded through the exercise of this legislative power. I also agree with his formulation of the essential provisions of the amendment. After struggling over the phrasing of these essential provisions, first as a member of the Wainwright Commission, later as a member of a special committee of the Association for Labor Legislation, and lastly in consultation with Senator Bayne when he was giving the amendment its final form for introduction in the senate, I feel even more strongly than he does that the burden of proof that the phrasing can be improved should rest heavily on the proponent. As he has re-stated it, it removes all the difficulties which other provisions of the constitution might be held to oppose to a well-rounded compensation system. Form is doubtless important in constitution drafting, but substance is even more essential. I think that all agree that in the amendment as it stands we have all the substance that we are after. That the additional clauses inserted in the assembly, and accepted by the senate only to avoid the catastrophe of having no compensation resolution at all adopted, should now be dropped out as inappropriate, even though harmless, I think all will agree. This is one way of preserving the result achieved. when the amendment was adopted. If the constitutional convention is to limit itself to turning out a re-edited and expurgated edition of the present constitution it is all that we should demand. There is, however, another and more radical way of preserving the result. Instead of qualifying the provisions in the present constitution that stand in the way of compensation legislation, those provisions might themselves be dropped out. This seems at first a revolutionary proposal. We have become so accustomed to the idea that the protection of liberty and property from legislative encroachment depends on the inclusion of a bill of rights in our state constitution that the proposal that we omit this feature seems equivalent to the suggestion that we surrender a precious inheritance. But this clearly is not the case. The Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme |