394 



GERMANY. 



same objects. This, like the bill empowering 

 the Imperial Government to acquire all the 

 German railroads, was rejected; the Reichstag 

 objecting to them because they would great- 

 ly increase the patronage of the Government 

 and its. influence in elections ; also, because 

 these monopolies would place under the control 

 of the executive the machinery for raising a 

 large part of the revenue, and the power of in- 

 creasing it at will; although its expenditure 

 would still depend on the vote of the Reichs- 

 tag, the effect would be to free the Govern- 

 ment still more from parliamentary control. 

 The Government would, moreover, by the con- 

 trol of the railway system, have power to favor 

 or coerce individuals, towns, and districts. The 

 command of the Prussian railroads already 

 places it in the power of the central authorities 

 to bring pressure on the other lines, and, as 

 the Prussian budget makes an excellent show- 

 ing for state management, there is a prospect 

 of the eventual accomplishment of the railroad 

 scheme. In the session of 1883 Prince Bis- 

 marck asked for an accession to the sources of 

 revenue in the shape of timber-duties. It was 

 opposed by the wood-working industries, and 

 after an excited contest the bill was rejected, 

 only by the temporary defection of the Polish 

 deputies from the Center. 



A favorite scheme of the German Chancel- 

 lor for rendering the Government finances in a 

 measure independent of the exigencies of party 

 politics was to induce the Reichstag to vote 

 the budget biennially. The Liberal Opposition 

 has been weakened and divided by his parlia- 

 mentary policy to such an extent that there 

 was not the material in the present Reichstag 

 to resist the Emperor's appeal. To escape the 

 necessity of voting the budget for two years, 

 and yet show becoming respect for the wishes 

 of the Emperor, the deputies took up the sick 

 and accident insurance bills. But in the end, 

 by the aid of the Clericals, who were concili- 

 ated by the modification of the May laws, the 

 supplies for two years were submissively grant- 

 ed. As soon as the budget was forced through, 

 the Emperor closed the session, June 12th. It 

 was the longest on record, having opened 

 April 27, 1882. 



The first fruit of the high tariff, in the way 

 of relief for the poorer classes, was the abo- 

 lition of the two lowest categories of the class- 

 tax in Prussia. The Prussian Diet declined to 

 grant Prince Bismarck's demand for an aug- 

 mentation of the excise duties, which he de- 

 clared necessary in default of the tobacco mo- 

 nopoly, and for the exemption of all incomes 

 below $300, but abolished the class-tax on 

 incomes below $215, whereas previously all 

 households whose annual incomes exceeded 

 $100 were liable to the class-tax that is, the 

 tax on incomes between $100 and $750. 

 Nearly 3,750,000 persons, or about ohe fifth 

 of those subject to this tax, were relieved.* 



* According to the returns of 1881, 80 per cent, of the 

 population of Prussia had less than $100 of annual income, 



The accident and sickness insurance bill, in 

 the form in which it was first laid before the 

 Reichstag in the previous session, proposed 

 that the Imperial Government should insure 

 the work-people, and the employers and com- 

 munes provide the premiums. The existing 

 law of employers' liability required masters 

 to provide the means for caring for employes 

 injured in their service without fault of their 

 own. It was ineffective, on account of the 

 difficulty of proving that an accident is not 

 due to a workman's own negligence. The in- 

 surance companies were accused of overcharg- 

 ing and defrauding the working-people. The 

 bill was opposed by a large majority of the 

 Reichstag, on the grounds that Government 

 insurance would ruin the existing companies, 

 that it would reduce the working-men to the 

 condition of pensioners and destroy their in- 

 dependence, and that it would place great 

 powers of coercion and interference in the 

 hands of the agents of the Government. The 

 bills were withdrawn and remolded, and when 

 again laid before the Reichstag in the session 

 of ] 882-'83, were freed of the feature of Gov- 

 ernment administration. The new bills pro- 

 posed that insurance should be undertaken by 

 the existing companies, trade-guilds, and com- 

 munal institutions. It was proposed that the 

 state should furnish part of the premiums. 

 This share was to be one fourth, another 

 fourth was to be assessed on the employers 

 and presumably paid out of their profits, and 

 the remaining one half was to be estopped 

 from the wages of the workmen and likewise 

 collected from the employers. Accident-in- 

 surance was made obligatory on all employed 

 in mines, factories, and other industrial estab- 

 lishments, on railroads, and by steamship 

 companies. In the case of an accident, the 

 workman was to be a charge on the sick-in- 

 surance fund for the first three months, and 

 then, if the disability continued, the charge 

 would be transferred to the accident-insurance 

 fund. There was bitter opposition to both 

 bills. The clauses making insurance compul- 

 sory and laying part of the burden on the Im- 

 perial Government, were especially obnoxious 

 to the believers in the traditional doctrines of 

 political economy. The scruples of those who 

 were alarmed at the socialistic features of the 

 project were met by the argument that the 

 bills form part of a series of projects which 

 would take the place of all other pauper legis- 

 lation. It was a matter of imperial concern to 

 legislate for the extinction of pauperism, which 

 is usually the result of sickness or accident. 

 By helping to tide the workman over periods 

 of incapacity, and enabling him to retain his 

 position as a self-supporting member of so- 

 ciety, the state would relieve the communes 

 which have already to support the indigent 

 and helpless by the poor-rates. In support of 



nearly 68 per cent, belonged to households with incomes fall- 

 ing within the class-tax, and only 2$ per cent, had over $750 

 income. 



