¹ See especially Kolko, Gabriel, The Triumph of Conservatism (New York, 1963)Google Scholar; Wiebe, Robert H., Businessmen and Reform (Cambridge, 1962)Google Scholar; Hays, Samuel P., “The Politics of Reform in Municipal Government in the Progressive Era,” Pacific Northwest Quarterly, LV (October 1964), 157–159Google Scholar and Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency (Cambridge, 1959); Weinstein, James, “Organized Business and the City Commission and Manager Movements,” Journal of Southern History, XXVIII (May 1962), 167–181.Google Scholar Most of these authors have emphasized, to varying degrees, the desire for modernization and rationalization that motivated many of the proponents of reform during the Progressive Era.

² On child labor see Felt, Jeremy P., Hostages of Fortune: Child Labor Reform in New York (Syracuse, 1965).Google Scholar Aside from my own research on New York, Massachusetts, and Minnesota, the only work attempting any in-depth analysis of the political dynamics of the movement for workmen's compensation legislation on the state level is the chapter on workmen's compensation in Schmidt, Gertrude, “History of Labor Legislation in Wisconsin,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1933.Google Scholar The chapter on workmen's compensation in Lubove's, RoyThe Search for Social Security (Cambridge, 1968)Google Scholar does not consider political problems in depth although it does contain some material on New York State.

³ By 1917 thirty-six states, including all the major industrial commonwealths, had established workmen's compensation systems. Carl Hookstadt, Comparison of Workmen's Compensation Laws of the United States up to December 31, 1917, United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin No. 240 (Washington, 1918), passim, but especially chart on page 10.

⁴ See especially the books by Kolko and Hays cited in footnote 1.

⁵ For a general analysis of the social dynamics of the transition from common law to workmen's compensation which reaches many of the conclusions of the preceding two paragraphs, see Friedman, Lawrence M. and Ladinsky, Jack, “Social Change and the Law of Industrial Accidents,” Columbia Law Review, LXVII (January 1967), 50–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Swan, Mary Fletcher, “History and Development of Workmen's Compensation in Massachusetts,” M.A. thesis, Simmons School of Social Work, 1943, 31–32Google Scholar; Fall, Charles G., Employers' Liability for Personal Injuries to Their Employees (Boston, 1883), 156–7Google Scholar; Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Evidence and Arguments before the Committee on the Judiciary on the Subject of Regulating the Liability of Employers, in Cases of Accidents to Their Operatives through the Carelessness of Fellow-employees, House No. 326, 1885, 3, 8, 39–40, 45, 50.

⁷ Ibid., 46–49, 62–68.

⁸ Ibid., 56, 75–76.

⁹ Laws and Resolves, 1887, Chapter 270.

¹⁰ Collected by the district police, accident statistics in Massachusetts for the precompensation era were quite poor. The figures for 1905 of 1,733 accidents connected with the operation of machinery, of which 46 were fatal, are undoubtely too low. Labor Bulletin of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, No. 36, June 1905, 35–36.

¹¹ The other members were Professor Davis R. Dewey of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Royal Robbins, a Waltham manufacturer, Henry Sterling of the Boston Typographical Union, and William N. Osgood, attorney and maverick politician who had been and continued to be actively interested in the industrial accident problem. See his two pamphlets, “Employers' Liability” (Boston, 1891) and “A Workmen's Compensation Act” (Boston, 1910). The Legal Protective Federation was formed by Boston unions and interested lawyers to provide low cost, trustworthy legal aid to injured workers.

¹² Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Committee on Relations Between Employer and Employee, 1903, “Hearing before the Commission on Relations Between Employer and Employee, August 18 to November 7, 1903,” typed transcript, 267–268, 288, 300–305, 311.

¹³ Ibid., 265, 284–285, 302.

¹⁴ Ibid., 313–314, 327–331.

¹⁵ Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Report of Committee on Relations Between Employer and Employee, January 13, 1904, 37–43, 47–53Google Scholar; Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Joint Special Committee on Labor, “Hearings before the Joint Special Committee on Labor on Bills Relating to Employers' Liability,” October 17–28, 1907, typed transcript, 160–161.

¹⁶ Boston Herald, May 1, 1904.

¹⁷ Boston Herald, May 17, 1904.

¹⁸ Joint Special Committee on Labor, “Hearings on Bills Relating to Employers' Liability,” 164–166, 225, 252, 259, 289.

¹⁹ Ibid., 255, 259.

²⁰ Ibid., 294–295.

²¹ Ibid., 164–175, 289.

²² Ibid., 186.

²³ Ibid., 2–9, 14, 21, 106–109, 123–143.

²⁴ Ibid., 162, 202–219.

²⁵ Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Report of the Joint Special Committee on Labor, House No. 1190, 1908, 56.

²⁶ Report of the Commission on Compensation for Industrial Accidents, July 1, 1912 (Boston, 1912), 16.

²⁷ Report of the Joint Special Committee on Labor, 62–63.

²⁸ The New York law of 1910 covered only a limited number of extra-hazardous trades. It was truly an experimental law. For a detailed analysis of the New York Commission's report see Asher, Robert, “Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation Reform in New York, 1876–1914,” Honors thesis, The College of the City of New York, June 1966, Chapter IV.Google Scholar

²⁹ New England Civic Federation Bulletin No. 12, June 1909, 2.

³⁰ New England Civic Federation Bulletin No, 13, March 1910, 5.

³¹ Contested settlements would be referred to an Industrial Accident Board for mediation or arbitration. Only if these procedures failed would the regular courts be asked to make a final judgment.

³² New England Civic Federation Bulletin No. 13, 11, 14–15.

³³ Ibid., 6–9.

³⁴ Boston Chamber of Commerce, Committee on Industrial Relations, “Report on Compensation for Industrial Accidents, May 12, 1910,” 332–27–3, Boston Chamber of Commerce Records, Baker Library, Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration. In the filing system of the Chamber of Commerce the first number referred to the committee or officer, the second to a folder generally devoted to a single topic, the last to items consecutively numbered within the folder.

³⁵ Ibid., passim.

³⁶ Ibid., 3.

³⁷ Chamber of Commerce, 332–27–104, 332–30- (Items in this folder were not numbered).

³⁸ Chamber of Commerce, 332–27–3.

³⁹ Chamber of Commerce, typed minutes of May 20, 1910 meeting of the Board of Directors, 332–27—4; “Resolution adopted on motion of Mr. Fish at Directors Meeting, May 20, 1910,” 332–30.

⁴⁰ Chamber of Commerce, Henry I. Harriman to Edward A. Filene, May 21, 1910, 332–27–110; Henry C. Metcalf to Filene, May 2, 1910, 332–27–87.

⁴¹ Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Senate Document No. 52, 1910. By 1910 the M.S.B. favored making workmen's compensation an exclusive remedy.

⁴² Massachusetts State Branch of the American Federation of Labor (hereafter M.S.B.), Proceedings, 1908, 14, 16; 1910, 42; 1911, 29–30, 56–62.

⁴³ Laws and Resolves, 1910, Chapter 120.

⁴⁴ Labor News (Worcester), May 28, 1910; Chamber of Commerce, John W. Plaisted to Louis Brandeis, June 13, 1910, 332–29–16; M.S.B., Proceedings, 1910, 22, 24.

⁴⁵ Report of the Commission on Compensation for Industrial Accidents, 13.

⁴⁶ Third National Conference on Workmen's Compensation for Industrial Accidents, Proceedings, Chicago, June 10–11, 1910, 30, 77–78, 107.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 84.

⁴⁸ Report of the Commission on Compensation for Industrial Accidents:, 20; Chamber of Commerce, typed report of September 30 Boston hearing, 332–29–36; Conference of Commissions on Compensation for Industrial Accidents, Proceedings, Chicago, November 10–12, 1910 (Clinton, Mass., 1910), 19.

⁴⁹ Commission on Compensation for Industrial Accidents, “Tentative Synopsis and Draft of a Proposed Act Providing for Payments in Case of Accidents to Employees,” released December 17, 1910.

⁵⁰ Labor News, December 31, 1910; Boston Globe, December 29, 1910; Typographical Journal, XXXVIII, February 1911, 209; Worcester Gazette, December 30, 1910; Worcester Telegram, December 30, 1910; Report of the Commission on Compensation for Industrial Accidents, 21.

⁵¹ Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Report of the Commission on Compensation for Industrial Accidents, House No. 300, January 11, 1911, 21–22.

⁵² Labor News, January 21, 1911; Boston Globe, February 14, 1911, February 15, 1911; Chamber of Commerce, John W. Plaisted to members of Committee on Industrial Relations, January 19, 1911, 332–29–59.

⁵³ Chamber of Commerce, Plaisted to William R. Evans, Chairman of the Joint Judiciary Committee, on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, February 15, 1911, 332–27–173. It appears that the president of the Chamber of Commerce talked with Senate President Treadway, although there is no record of the details of their conversation. Plaisted to Treadway, February 21, 1911, 332–27–185.

⁵⁴ Address of His Excellency Eugene N. Foss to the Two Branches of the Legislature of Massachusetts, January 5, 1911, 8.

⁵⁵ Labor News, February 18, 1911, April 1, 1911.

⁵⁶ For the views of an influential large employer see Chamber of Commerce, Frank Dresser, counsel of the American Wire Company (a branch of the United States Steel Company in Worcester, Massachusetts), to Plaisted, June 16, 1911, 332–41–5, June 22, 1911, 332–41–7; M.S.B., Proceedings, 1921, 34.

⁵⁷ Labor News, May 27, 1911; Report of the Commission on Compensation for Industrial Accidents, 22.

⁵⁸ Chamber of Commerce, Plaisted to Dresser, June 28, 1911, 332–14–8; Commonwealth of Massachusetts, House Journal, 1911, 1874.

⁵⁹ Chamber of Commerce, Plaisted to members of the Committee on Industrial Relations, July 10, 1911, 332–41–13; Boston American, July 17, 1911; Boston Herald, July 15, 1911; M.S.B., Proceedings, 19, 40.

⁶⁰ Commonweatlh of Massachusetts, Senate Journal, 1911, 1557; Boston Herald, July 18, 1911, July 19, 1911; Boston Globe, July 18, 1911; Boston Transcript, July 8, 1911; Chamber of Commerce, Plaisted to Edward A. Filene, July 18, 1911, 332–41–9. The vote against the insurance amendment, when paired votes in opposition are counted, shows six Democrats and six Republicans opposed to allowing casualty companies to write compensation insurance. This vote and others indicate that party divisions were not important when the Massachusetts Legislature considered workmen's compensation in 1911.

⁶¹ Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Senate Journal, 1911, 156–41565; Boston Herald, July 20, 1911.

⁶² Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Senate Journal, 1911, 1601; House Journal, 1911, 2154; Labor News, July 29, 1911; Boston Globe (evening edition), July 27, 1911; Boston Herald, July 28, 1911.

⁶³ M.S.B., Proceedings, 1911, 40–42.

⁶⁴ Laws and Resolves, 1911, Chapter 751.

⁶⁵ National Association of Cotton Manufacturers, Transactions, XC (1911), 153–158Google Scholar; National Association of Wool Manufacturers, Bulletin (1910), 440.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Boston Herald, July 29, 1911.

⁶⁷ Boston American, September 17, 1912; M.S.B., Proceedings, 1911, 42; Comomnwealth of Massachusetts, Industrial Accident Board, Annual Report, 1914, 89.

⁶⁸ Weinstein, James, “Big Business and the Origins of Workmen's Compensation,” Labor History, VIII (Spring 1967), 156–174.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ My research in New York, Minnesota, and Massachusetts has shown that the model workmen's compensation bill circulated by the National Civic Federation did not exert any impact on the course and final result of workmen's compensation legislation.

⁷⁰ In Minnesota large employers became interested in workmen's compensation legislation because they anticipated its eventual passage and wanted to protect their interests.

⁷¹ Few commentators have noted this point. Yellowitz, Irwin, “The Origins of Unemployment Reform in the United States,” Labor History, IX (Fall 1968), 338–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 346, 353, and Chambers, Clarke A., Seedtime of Reform: American Social Service and Social Action, 1918–1833 (Ann Arbor, 1963), 146, 219Google Scholar, have recognized the importance of the precedent of workmen's compensation legislation in later movements for other forms of social insurance. Nelson's, Daniel recent volume, Unemployment Insurance: The American Experience, 1915–1935 (Madison, 1969)Google Scholar, cites numerous examples of proponents of unemployment and health insurance arguing that these forms of insurance would give employers a financial incentive to take steps to prevent disease and unemployment just as workmen's compensation, by making employers financially responsible for accidents, had led to significant monetary savings because employers undertook effective accident prevention programs. See especially 44, 105–106, 108.