MICHIGAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE. 
153 
vices for a period after the accident. The considerations that demand 
this are obvious. The necessity for competent service, the probable 
better judgment of the employer, acquisition of authentic information, 
and the natural desire to minimize the results of injury, make this a wise 
provision. 
The payments for injuries depend upon the seriousness of the injury 
and is fixed by schedule based upon wages of the workman, in most cases. 
In case of death the employer shall pay a per cent of the wages in 
weekly installments for a stipulated time, 300 weeks most frequently, 
with a minimum of $1,200 and a maximum of $3,000. 
In case of partial disability the payments are ar per cent of the wages, 
most usually 50% — 65% in Wisconsin — for a stated period — say four 
years. Wisconsin advances these payments to 100% in case of per- 
manent disability; Ohio two-tliirds wages until death; New Jersey 50% 
for eight years. 
In case of temporary disability the same principles are applied, with 
less liberal percentages. Frequently the law presents a fixed schedule 
of payments, graduated to the severity of the injury as measured by the 
part of the body injured — so much for loss of finger, or loss of hand, or 
loss of font, etc. 
Parenthetically, it may be of interest to note in this connection that 
the Federal Congress has a Workman’s Compensation measure before 
it at the present time. This measure is modelled after the state laws, 
embodying what are considered the best features of such laws. Congress 
has already legislated in this field. The first act — 1906 — was set aside 
by the courts because not limited in its application to Federal jurisdic- 
tion. The second act — 1908 — has been sustained by the courts but is 
restricted in its application to common carrier employees while the act 
at present under contemplation will extend to all employees subject to 
the authority of the Federal government. 
Finally we note that phase of our topic which is provocative of wide 
comment and discussion, i. e., the relation of these statutes to our 
fundamental law. The progress of this legislation has been impeded be- 
cause in conflict with our rigid constitutions and their established lines 
of interpretation. We adapt ourselves to this new procedure less read- 
ily than do European nations. Recently the public has had its atten- 
tion directed to this phase by court decisions in Washington, Wisconsin 
and New York. 
The New York law was pronounced unconstitutional on the ground 
that the law violated the clause of the state constitution, as well as a 
similar clause in the United States constitution, which forbids the 
taking of property without due process of law. The court holds that 
to establish liability without fault is such deprivation of property and 
at variance with the common law principle. This same contention was 
raised with the Washington law, which was charged, also, with taking 
the property of one employer to pay the obligations of another. The 
court of that state upheld its validity under the authority of the police 
power of the state, which is that power of the state to regulate the affairs 
in accordance with public welfare in the absence of express prohibition. 
The court cites numerous decisions in support of this contention. Of 
these we give only two. The court cites the Federal Statute whereby 
the owners of United States vessels may be taxed for each sailor em- 
