The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-02-27

fectuate it's purpose
 Bentleys Case, 217 Mass. 79. 80 Panasky's Case, PIT Mass. 5S9,
 592.
 The originators of these Acts also believed that they would lessen acci- dent.
 Some of the considerations behind them were economic: The hardships and dificulty involved in proving the workman'S s case, the great waste in procuring a recovery, the delay. in obtaining the relief, the uncertainty oftenti1Iles in determining the cause of the accident, the vastly increased dangers and the imposfbility of per sonal supervision by the employer under modern conditions of employ ment, and the necessity of the work man accepting employment under conditions of increased danger, or suffering loss of livelihood.
 Some were moral: The preven- tion of the tendency of some work men to press unfounded claims and of lothers to exaggerate just claims and the tendency Of some employers to defend by means of questionable fair ness
 Thus the Act by eliminating the proof of negligence. by minimizing the delay in the award and by n1a.k- ing it reasonably certain seeks to avoid the great waste of the tort ac-l ton. and to promote better feeling between workman and employer, and accepts as an inevitable condition of 1 and charges it's cost to the industry
 It imposes upon the employer. pre- surnalbIy, his share of a. common loss in a, common industry. The period
 Of compensation is limited as a. con l cession'' it is said ito expediency,'' although logically. the spirit and purpose of the Act can only be met 1 by having the period commensurate with the period of injury or depend ence,
 The Act is elective rather than l compulsory in form in order to avoid l q claim of it's unconstitutio in fact it induces it's acceptance by de-s l prtvtug an employer of more than 1 five who refuses it's terms Of the three common law defenses, contrtbltory negIigence, assumption of risk and l fellow servant.
 The deprivat atfon of an employer ur- der the circumstances of these defen-
 ses is said to be merely a declara- ton by the legislature of the public 1 policy Of the state in that regard. Del 1 ber1is v. L. Belt Co., 261. III, 454,. 4B4
 Neither employer nor workman, un-g less he so choose, comes within the Act. When both so elect the Act be- lcofhes a part of the contract of em- ployment.
 -44S Cts4 ICLlk1AJ s5l tA1S3 17oCS1tpt O1 lpensation for injury follows the Act. Its procedure contennp1ates a speedy 5 5investig gation and nearing by a conn Irnissioner without the. formalities of a. court and without. as a general rule, the employment of an attorney. l It attempts to improve the condition i of the workman under modern meth T ods of industry by giving him partial I Ireconpense of an injury with a result more certain and speedy and less ex lpenaive than under the former method in tort htigastion-
 If the Act permits each cause to be l appealed and tried de novo in the Su-. 1perior Court it's objects vii be defeat led and more delay less certainty, and Imore expense will ensue to the claim ant than with the single trial of the iold method.
 We may lightly presume that the Legislature intended to set up a new asystem, the result of long agitation, and then deliberate1y in the very Act Icreating It's new system pull down the work of it's hands.
 I Compensation Acts have had a com Imon origin and a comuon history ana I the great majority Of the twenty-four
 thus far enacted in our states bear |close resemblance to each other in es-. sential features
 In only three of the twenty-four, we believe, is a. retrial Of issues of fact l permitted on appeal from an award. And unless the Acts have expressly ! given retriaI the courts have con- tstrued them to intend the contrary.
 Pigeon's Case, 216 Mass, 61, s2.
 Donoyan's Case, 217 Mass, 76. 79.
 HerTiclSls Case, PIT Mass, Ill, 112. i Bentley's Case, PIT Mass, 79, 80.
 Main ColIiery GO. v Davies, 16 T. L.. T R. 4e0
 Butterworth W. C. c. vol 2 D. 1os.
 Our Act was undoubtedly passed
 with full knowledge of other similar 'I Acts Of common purpose A u11iformf-
 ty Of construction Of provisions similar
 to ours. and essential to it's life, while not conclusive is certainly a persuasive
 reason for similarly oonstruing our L Act.
 legislature can confer upon the Supe- :. lrior Court appellate J1disdtction of his findings and awards: but if he is an $ executive officer, engaged in adrnir1ia- late Jurisdiction of his findings and
 awards. Moynlhan's Appeal, 75 Conn, If the Commissioner was a. court, his
 appointment by the Governor and not by the General Assembly was in yio- ,l tion.
 State ex rel V Creaner, s7 N. E.. 6o2, 2; s5 Ohio, 349, 400 Some of the duties devoIving upon : 1He COAl111SSloner are quasi Judicial land some are wholly executive or ad- : ninistrat1ve. He determines facts upon the classes of evidence allowed and applies the law to the facts found and renders Judgment which affects
 the property rights of Etigants before l him, and may be enforced by execu- ton issued as of course out of the SlIz perior Court. He may hear the appH- cant at his residence. He proceeds to
 hearing without p1eadings and with otu regard to the ordinary rules of ev- I idence. He may make his inuuiry through oral or written and printed records best calculated to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties. ]. He receives; files and transmits all mo- tices required by the Act He super