The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1913-11-01
Coatinued FIo,mil I 80, I. 81; 4 \.

sss - - - IL - 8 - =
Continual Eson r.xs j: y
congress- the regulation 81 commerce
it was never intended to cut the
states OFT from legislating on all
subjects relating to the health. life
and safety Of their citizens. though
the legislation might indirectly af-
feet the commerce of the country.
Question: Would a fisherman IL
censed to fish BY the state OF Mime
sofa who was injured while fishing
on the Wisconsin side Of the river
and within the boundaries Of Wis
consin recover compensation under
the Minnesota or the Wisconsin COM
pensation law. 5E.rs ?. = :: - -::
Answer: I beg to advise you that
| the states Of Minnesota and Wis.,.
consin have concurrent jurisdiction
over the waters of the Mississippi
river land in any accident which
! might happen upon those waters pro-
! ceedings could he taken under either
the law Of Wisconsin or the law Of
Minnesota. 1850 @z@I
- Status OF Chauffeurs. r
!
| the compensation law or is he a do
| nestle servant? > H. -
| Answer: THE phrase domestic
servant was held to embrace an UNI
der coachman, whose duties were
| partly to assist in keeping the sta
bles, horses and carriages in good
order, but principally to drive the
horses when his employer or any
member of his family go out in car
! rlages. or to accompany the younger
members of the family when they
go out on horseback, and who boards
with his employers coachmen and
who sleeps in room over the coach
house. .~ ~..~
Considering automobiles instead OF
horses and carriages in the defini-
ton / have given, the chauffeur, If
he came within that definition, would
be a domestic servant. 5",=
II, however, he was hired for q
single occasion or by the day, to go
with the owner of an automobile and
his family upon. a drive or about the
city, though he would not be a do
nestle servant, he would not come
under the purview of Chapter 467,
G. L. 1918, since his employment
would be casual.
Employers Alternative.
Question: Can an employer refuse
to come under Part II Of Chapter
467, G. l.. 1913 .(the compensation
act) and also notify his employees
that he will not come under Part T
either, and that he will not pay them
compensation for injuries either +un-
der Part or Part II? 49,.
Answer: No; If an employer re-
fuses to abide by Part II Of the act
he must abide by Part I. - -.
Question: It: an >employe who
would be entitled to $3.50 by virtue
OF his period Of disability settle his
claim by accepting a lump of 800 at q
the beginning Of his period Of d1sabtl-
lty, would he: be barred from the
recovery of the, $50. which his dis
ability finally made him entitled to?
Answer: Yes. he could not recover /
any more: Section ~ ,ot the compenn-
sation act abrogatss the old rule that
the payment Of 4 less sum than actu.
ally due would not bar the recovery
for the balance. -.
Labor Always Gets Worst Of It.
Question: Section % of the COM
pensation law provides that an en-
ployer may deposit. with ANY saw
inss bank or, trust company of this
state to be approved and designated
by the court ca sum equal to the
present value Of all future INSTALL
ments of compensation calculated on
SO basis and that "such sum, to-
gether with all interest thereon"
shall thereafter be held in trust for
the employe or his dependents and
payments from said fund be made
by the trustee in the same amounts
and at the same time as are herein
required of the, employer until said
fund and interest shall be ex-
hausted' 49, 49,
The banks of st. Paul pay 5k%
interest on savings. If an employer
should deposit the present value Of
$1,000, payable in SO payments at in
tervals OF two weeks, discounted at
SO, he would have to deposit $936.25.
This would constitute discount to
the employer of $63.75.. II the bank
should pay. 3h%a interest on the
amount deposited and pay out to-
the employe $40 every two weeks
until the trust fund should be ex,
hausted, the employee would receive
S95S.09. He would therefore lose
S4l.91 Of his compensation
Would this be permissible under the
compensation act or would the bank
have to pay rate Of interest that
would give the employ his full $1,000?
Answer: 1t would be permissible,
and the employe would receive only
the discounted sum- s,. -. e
Children Are Protected.
Question: Suppose that In a fam.
lily Of five, consisting Of husband,
wife and three children below Is
years OF age, both husband and wife
work In the event Of the wife being
killed at her work, to whom IS the