The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-12-30
BUCKINGHAM HOLnS RECORD FOR ADJUST
 ING C0MPENSAT I(I
(Continued from Page

 port, ~an employe exhibits his injuf to one of us, as is a daily oceurrenceS he seems fair and honest in ll4s claims, but to have an exaggerateS. idea. of the amount to which 5heSis erE titled. Very often an half hours ti4lfs spent in explanation will result in his entering into a voluntary agreemer2' and a formal hearing avoided. On. the other hand an employer frequenti will bring in claim for conpeIlsss tfon and will indicate that he does no intend to pay any compensation Il careful explanation of the law Est.5 $-often lead the employer to make fair voluntary agreement
 The report points out that the deli cate part of the coa1nafss a
 sas the collection Of awards, the usage of process of attacas5ssess s2
 asfy a. possible Judgment not a..zl
 availaEble The three means provided in Section 30s. and used to sasfesuaTss the collection of an award. E-Ssi5s I dsfydng the cornmissioner of the sos54 veney of the employer and his atsilit A to pay direct to the Injured enlploye or his dependents the awards WhIe11 may be made 2-+Iai1ing some sat1ss factory surety or guarantee with tla7s 151suraaee commissioners. 3Insur1a e the full liability
 The report discusses each featll5t of this problem. An illustratio1 given of di1e matter Of so1veney, as .L dustrial concern gave inforrnatie e 3 that stat sstics kept for seven year
 shosved that if the law had been Mforce for that length of time it Weul have been called upon to pay 2 bo{5= { ST, 900 in compensation, while the sshsapest insurance rates offered for $that period called for an annual kpte1ri1anl Of s6o, ,Ooo-
 Certffhca1es of so1vency have been iss- txued to 352 concerns aside from recog- 5<.e lif1i11 liz Etfes and state instit titutioIs, distributed las follows: First district 128; second tdistrict, 4S third, $; fourth. II; fifth, 6o. s:
 t<his regard is satisfactory. adds the Ereport.
 s4The work Of the commission has beeh attended by harmony and with Bout any member merging his individ-s kslalitv as to render a decision which Hz1e did not not think was right. 7 t1l e S4eport says We believe the statute I'm the main has been satisfactory to fthe people of the state. and that it Els fully equal to that of any state in Sv7herein the state is divided into dis t1tricts we deem tlze law is superior to fanz statute of which we have knovvl- kedge Then follows the opinion Of 34ane commissioners uphold1ng this con
 The greater part Of the report is taken up with analyses and sugges- ssFt1ons as to improvement in certain pro- esvisionss This is prefaced by this com Ez1lenf The commissioners do not con &sfder it to be within the scope Of their duties as set forth in Section 1s con fcerniag such recommendation as they behaH think proper for the mprove- f:nTe5ft of this act or it's admin strat ion EsEo presume to suggest to our exce1- k1ency or the 1egislature any change Ea1s the general policy of the law. Com ang to the question of detailed changes aaooking toward the improvement of ktfls act or its adrniIlis istration, which sra believe it to be our duty under the kter1ns of Section IS .sto Include in this Teporf, we have to say:
 1.-The present ambiguity a.s to femployers of less than five employees, kto casual employees and out-workers. RshouId be removed by e-pIicit Ian- Sguage on this subject.
 4 ,<szIt is provided in Section II that. Aconpensatdon shall in no case be more kthan SIC. or lass han s weekly for #tota1 incapacfty- Tn section P it is EproVided that for partial ineapacity *t11e 1naxin1z1n shall beAs10 weekly and Emo n1fnf1ntun is provided In thzs tspecifie injuries calling for specific ka wards By far the greater number fof cases have been those involving loss zof thumb and finger. or a portion Of athe same. g
 f Here the report says that the award
 1s looked upon as eornpensa ton for kpermanent injury, as the true Iegis- E1affve intent was to base incapaeity kupon a minimum of s5 weekly al fthough the language is ambi guous 4Ishe case of FasuIe vs. Hendryx, be- 6for Judge Reed is cited wherein the kcourt held that the commissioner eerred in awarding s a week for loss Mof a finger where the sum was more kthan half the average weekly wages Ea1though upholding the commissioner edn other respects. The report adds Ehere: We believe that young girls fand boys just learning. the 1lse of d Hose their fingers than older and more Inexperienced persons, and we feel that Eat is an injustice to award half a sum
 pf less than S1o week as compensa-
 2ive intent on this subject should be kAmade obvious.s We also HcaH attention to OUT belief that there ee5Ctsts no logical reason for consider ling the loss of the thumb and the EBfeat toe as precisely the same
 ss-3-The last sentence of Section E12 bread that the loss Of one phalanx of SEhe thumb or two phaianges of the
 dnger shall be considered half the loss k1of the finger and thumb respectively kand shah be compensated aecordirg- Fay We suggest that the section be kzamended by providing that the loss of kuse of the thumb finger or any kpha1anx thereof, shall be com pensated
 sthe same as the loss of the member katseIf
 ',ABy the present law the expenses kcf each of the five officers required kto be maintained under the act are Limited to g, 00a a year. For the req Esons set forth in our estimates to the Etreas1rer we believe that this sum kneeds to be raised tos s. GOO a year.
 .s5EIt occasionally happens that 1oc,- learning his own living, receives an Eanjury entitIing him to co1npensatIon