Evening journal., 1918-04-25

These states chosen because IN both tho laws had
been noperaton long enough 10 provide considerable
body Of experience and because they represented two
distinct typs OF laws including different scales OF bene
nts The Investigation Of the employers liability sys-
tenn made the State OF Pennsylvania The scope
Of the investigation was limited to industrial injuries
resulting IN death permanent total disability In the
two compensation States the period covered was the
year ended September L. 1915 while in Pennsylvania
only occurring during the first eight months Of
1915 included From the three States records were
obtained OF sC2 fatalities and Is OF permanent total
disability The emphasis Of the report is laid upon
the effect produced by industrial fatalities upon the
families Of the decedents especially OF the married
docendcnts The number OF families considered were as
follows: Fifty-ihree in Connecticut 9O6 in Ohio and i3
In Pennsylvania.
Striking differences were found in the three States
both In the proportion receiving compensation and in
tho amounts received. In Connecticut ninetyone per
cent? and IN Ohio nneyseven per cent Of the families
OF married studied had received compensation in
tho liability state Of Pennsylvania only forty-wo per
cent had received payments Of some kind For families
OF married decendents receiving compensation The aver
ase amount awarded 5000 in Connecticut and s3o98
in Ohio; while tho average amount paid to families who
received anything at all in Pennsylvania $685. less
than onehird Of the compensation received in
Connecticut than oncfourh OF that received in
Ohio.
The proportion OF the widows who took up ganful
pursuits result Of their husbands death for
the three States follows: Connecticut 1879 per cent
Ohio 2s2 per cent and Pennsylvania 3i4 per cent The
comparatively high percentage In Ohio Is explained rst
on the ground that compared with Pennsylvania n
considerably larger proportion OF The widows had no
young children and secondly, to much larger extent
than in Pennsylvania they confined themselves to taking
roomers boarders. IN many the Ohio widow OBJ
tanned partial commuation Of her award and had used
It TO build up business by which TO support herself
when the compensation ceased; nothing Of this kind
met with in Pennsylvania.
For the three States the percentage OF families re-
oeiyng aid from public authorities organized societies
follows: Connecticut. 10 per cent; Ohio. Is
per cent, and Pennsylvania, 23.i per cent.
Tho important differences between workmens com
pensation and employers liability systems may be
summed up by saying that in the compensation states
the families Of victims OF industrial fatalities with
reasonable certainty what they might expect received
10 with reasonable prompness, and found IT, in general,
sufficient to keep them from extreme hardship. In the
liability State OF Pennsylvania the families Of decedents
had such assurance general tho payments received
quite inadequate 10 the needs Of the families and
not far from onefourh OF those visited had within less
than year from the fatality been obliged to seek
liable aid.
Neither Of the compensation systems studied s beyond
criticism but their results superior TO those Of
the liability system that the claims Of their advocates
may be regarded wholly Justified
AS between the two compensation states tho situation
found to be considerably better in Ohio than IN
Connecticut The amount Of compensation received wa,
somewhat greater In tho former than the latter sta
because Of tho higher scale OF compensation benefits
higher weekly maximum. and higher level. an,
the economic DISTRESS therefore, not acuto Th
methods and needs Of making up tho family income were
however, similar IN tho two states