-1 SECTION 24. Any referee so appointed by a justice of the 2 superior court may, at his discretion, submit any question of 3 law arising under this act to any justice of the superior court 4 for his decision; and such decision, or a decision rendered by 5 the arbitrator himself in regard to any question of law, shall be 6 conclusive, unless exceptions to the same are taken and filed 7 in the supreme judicial court for final determination: provided, 8 however, that until such final determination any justice of the 9 superior court may, in serious and worthy cases, order the 10 employer to pay such a weekly payment to the injured employee 11 as in the judgment of the said justice may be fair and reasona12 ble, but such allowance shall not exceed the amount to which 13 said employee might ultimately be entitled to receive under 14 this act.

1

SECTION 25. In the event of the death of a referee appointed 2 as aforesaid, or his refusal or inability to act, any justice of the 3 superior court, on motion of any interested party, may appoint 4 a new referee.

1 SECTION 26. Whenever the amount of compensation under 2 this act shall have been ascertained, or any weekly payment 3 amended, or any other matter decided, by any arbitrator or 4 referee, a memorandum thereof shall be filed by said arbitrator 5 or referee in the office of the clerk of the superior court for the 6 county in which said decision was rendered, in manner and 7 form prescribed by said court. The said clerk shall file 8 such memorandum without expense to any party, with other 9 memoranda of a similar nature, which shall be accessible to 10 all interested parties or their attorneys. Such memorandum 11 shall for all purposes have the same force and effect as a 12 judgment of the court: provided, that the same may at any 13 time be corrected by order of any justice of the superior court.

1

SECTION 27. The proceedings for compensation under this 2 act shall take place in the county where all the parties reside, 3 and if they reside in different counties, then the proceedings 4 shall take place in the county wherein the accident occurred 5 from which said proceedings shall arise. The hearings in re6 gard to said matters shall be held in the places most convenient 7 to all the interested parties.

1

SECTION 28. The justices of the superior court may make 2 such rules as they may deem necessary for the proper conduct

3 of proceedings under this act, as far as they pertain to the said 4 court, its officers and the referees appointed by them as here5 inbefore provided.

1 SECTION 29. No court fees shall be paid by any party in 2 relation to any proceeding in the superior court, or for the entry 3 or filing of any original papers pertaining to matters arising 4 under this act. No taxable costs shall be incurred by either 5 party in any proceedings before an arbitrator or referee under 6. this act.

1

SECTION 30. Any sum awarded as compensation hereunder 2 shall be paid to the person entitled thereto upon his receipt for 3 the same. The justices of the superior court may make rules 4 regulating the fees which may be charged by attorneys for ser5 vices rendered by them in proceedings under this act.

1

SECTION 31. The governor, with the advice and consent of 2 the council, may from time to time appoint the necessary num3 ber of physicians and surgeons required for the purposes of 4 this act, who shall each receive a fee not exceeding three dollars 5 for each examination, which fee shall be paid by the county 6 in which such examination takes place.

1 SECTION 32. This act shall take effect on the first day of 2 January, nineteen hundred and five.

Pension Fund. In regard to pension funds established and sustained by joint contributions of employers and employees, we have no recommendation to make. The proposed measure providing for compensation for accidents will, if it become a law, cover a large proportion of cases which would be subject to any pension fund established by employers. All joint funds should be matters of purely voluntary action, and not the subjects of legislation. There are so many complications connected with industrial affairs that it is quite impossible to frame an act which would be just in a majority of cases. The imperial government of Germany has what is known as a compulsory insurance law, under which employees receive certain annuities. The employees contribute one-fourth the amount necessary to carry on the institution, the employers also contribute one-fourth

and the government one-half, or very nearly these proportions. But such a scheme involves insurance by the government itself, and any scheme authorized by law which would be compulsory upon employers and employees must necessarily partake of the principle of government insurance.

While the German system has worked fairly well, and obviates a vast amount of almsgiving, we do not feel it wise to recommend its establishment in this Commonwealth. On the other hand, we recommend that voluntary schemes be undertaken wherever the conditions of industry will warrant. We receive most important lessons in this direction from usages in other countries. A recent method has come to our attention, wherein British employers set aside a small amount for the purpose of insuring their employees against accidents or other disabilities. Such schemes usually provide that for every $500 paid in wages $1.25 shall be set aside to constitute a fund for insurance purposes. Experience has shown that such a simple scheme works admirably, and that the small amount set aside soon becomes adequate to meet all ordinary drafts upon it. Of course any disaster which resulted in maiming or killing a large number of people would cripple the fund at once; but, on the whole, such a scheme works to the satisfaction of all interested.

VI. - BLACKLISTING; INTIMIDATION; BOYCOTTS; INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR DISPUTES.

-

Blacklisting. The resolve under which this committee. has acted made special reference to the matters given at the head of this section, and many bills were referred to us or brought to our attention during the hearings. Among these is a bill "relative to discharging and to prohibit blacklisting of employees" (House, No. 1003). It has seemed doubtful to the committee whether any legislation could in any possible way prevent every form of blacklisting. The bill in question provides that "it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association to blacklist any discharged employee thereof, or to put his name upon any list, or in any book, pamphlet, circular or card, written, typewritten or printed, or to communicate his name, verbally or other

wise, or otherwise to designate him, in order to prevent his employment by any other person, firm, corporation or association; or to take any other steps to prevent his employment by any other person, firm, corporation or association, or to combine or conspire with any other person, firm, corporation or association to prevent him from obtaining employment." A subsequent provision of the proposed bill provides that discharged employees shall receive statements in writing of the reasons for discharge, such statements being given at the request of the discharged employees, not being compulsory in the absence of such request. The provision against blacklisting is very drastic, and would apply equally to employers and to employees attempting to prevent the employment of any person. No employer could make any statement whatever that would designate a man as unfit for employment to any of his associates or competitors; nor could any union of employees make any statement in any form, verbally or otherwise, to prevent a non-union man or any other from obtaining employment. Evidence was offered the committee to show that blacklisting has existed at certain times, and other evidence to show that union men have prevented the employment of non-union men. Taking all the evidence offered, and considering the matter as broadly as possible, we believe it is unwise to recommend the passage of the bill in question.

Intimidation. The question of intimidation is already regulated by law. Section 11, chapter 106, Revised Laws, provides that: "No person shall, by intimidation or force, prevent or seek to prevent a person from entering into or continuing in the employment of any person or corporation.' This act applies equally to employers and to employees, and might be construed to prevent blacklisting and boycotting. It appears impossible to define in precise terms the word intimidation; pending such definition, the above statute seems sufficient in its provisions.

Boycotts. No bill relating to boycotts was referred to the committee, but the subject comes under the same general head as blacklisting. The whole question of boycotting is very subtle. It is held by many lawyers that the indi

vidual member of a body instituting a boycott is responsible in damages for any injury to person or property growing out of the boycott. Some courts have held that where a boycott is organized by employees for the purpose of injuring the property or business of an employer or of those who patronize the employer, the act is unlawful and actionable, it constituting a conspiracy; while, on the other hand, a boycott resulting from the act of a trader, or any person or corporation engaged in business, or by a combination of such persons or corporations, to secure the trade or business of competitors, even when the result of such action is the utter destruction of the competitor, is not unlawful. The repre

sentatives of labor insist that, if one be unlawful, the other should be also; but in the evolution of judicial decision there is disagreement.

The individual liability of the members of an association resorting to a boycott which results in injury to property or person has not yet been conclusively defined by the courts, The latest case which bears upon this point is that of Boutwell et al. v. Marr et al., Supreme Court of Vermont (42 Atlantic Reporter, p. 607).*

The cases of the boycott against a manufacturing hatter in Connecticut are still pending in the courts; and, until this question of the liability of an individual member of a boycotting combination or body is more specifically defined under common law, legislation is not recommended, especially in view of the existing law on intimidation, already quoted. We believe, however, that the use of the boycott as a weapon in trade, labor and other disputes has been carried to extremes which cannot be justified, and that in many cases its use is futile or unwise, even from the stand-point of the interests of those who use it.

Injunctions. Among the subjects upon which we have been called to report is the use of injunctions in industrial disputes. The issue of restraining orders by courts of equity during times of strikes has developed during the past ten years, giving rise to wide discussion and great divergence of opinion. On the one hand it is asserted that the

* See Appendix No. 11.