camps") is in Manitoba and Saskatchewan inspected by public health authorities. Again, such inspection may obviously be under a Ministry of Agriculture; or, finally, simply because it deals with a number of persons collected together in a locality and often under the influence of old local usages, such as the rules of a Kentish hop garden, it may be a matter for local authorities. It follows that the authorities administering this type of inspection in agriculture can be of four different kinds, and sometimes more than one is involved, so that a sort of conjoint administration is set up. Thus in Italy the legislation on the inspection of rice fields is part of the Public Health Code, but was enforced by the Minister of Labour, who use the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture for the purpose; this staff administered, within the terms of the Act, regulations formulated by local authorities and adopted by provincial councils. In Sweden an Act dealing with lumber workers' accommodation is enforced by the provincial governments with the assistance of a Special Inspector attached to the central inspection service and with that of the local officials of the forestry services. In addition to these two types of inspection, namely, an extended "factory" inspection of portable machinery and a health and sanitary inspection called into being because workers' conditions threaten to contravene accepted health standards, inspection in agriculture may also arise out of compensation or insurance legislation. Inspection arises out of such legislation because it is held more satisfactory to prevent accidents by previous examination of machines than to pay compensation for their effects afterwards. While the laws deal with the claims of the individual worker, inspection concentrates on the piece of machinery or particular hazard; in neither case is the factory the unit of what is done, and for this reason the introduction into agriculture of types of inspection arising out of compensation practices should not present such inherent difficulties as are encountered when it is proposed to extend to open-air occupations a system of industrial inspection which for years has been more and more closely adapted to the factory establishment. In a number of countries accident compensation covers agricultural workers, usually those employed on or about machines, and in certain of these countries the necessary inspection has been established so as to include agricultural apparatus and risks. . . . The inspection of machinery used in agricultural or forestry operations together with the prevention of accidents is undertaken as an item in the general inspection of machinery by industrial inspectors throughout a country, or arises out of compensation legislation, as has already been indicated. Thus in Italy the Act of 31 January, 1904, on workers' accident compensation covered two groups of agricultural employment, (a) all forestry enterprises employing more than 5 persons, and (b) agricultural workers employed on machinery. The same protection was formally extended by a Legislative Decree of 23 August 1917, to all other agricultural workers, and under it 54,432 compensable accidents were registered in 1922 in agricultural and forestry occupations. In Denmark protection is given under factory, and not under compensation legislation. Under Sections 17 and 18 of the Factory Act of 29 April, 1913, the Executive takes power to control machinery at the place of manufacture before it is placed on the market; it must not be sold inadequately guarded. An expert of the central inspection services is in charge of this work and visits the places of manufacture; the manufacturer is, indeed, entitled to ask the advice of this expert. He is mostly concerned with agricultural machinery, of which a large quantity is placed on the market. Agricultural undertakings employing over 16 horse-power are also under the factory regulations and inspected as factories. Less important agricultural undertakings are inspected by machinery surveyors, who are generally men experienced in running small crafts and are appointed for four years by their local authorities to inspect perhaps something under a hundred machines in their commune. They are not members of the inspection services of the country, but are responsible to the factory inspector of their district, who usually visits with them a certain number of small establishments in the course of the year and advises them. Their work is not exclusively devoted to agriculture, but includes all small-craft machinery; machines driven by animal power are covered. . . . QUESTIONS 1. Why has regulation of the safety and health of farm labor been neglected in the United States? 2. Does there seem to be any reason now that did not exist 20 years ago for such regulation? 3. On what power of the state is the California Act based? 4. What conditions gave rise to its passage? 5. Is there need for such a law elsewhere in the United States? 6. Should such a law provide the detailed regulation contained in the California Act? 7. What effect will the extension of the workmen's compensation act of a state to agricultural employees have on the safety and health of such employees? 8. Can present factory safety and health codes be adapted to cover the agricultural industries? 9. Outline the provisions to be included in a statute that adequately protects the health and safety of farm labor. 10. Is there any constitutional objection to such protection? 11. Has your state any laws relating to the health and safety of farm labor? C. REPORTING OF ACCIDENTS AND OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES A INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT AND COMPENSATION STATISTICS40 It may be stated without hesitation that, except where a workmen's compensation law is applicable, complete accident reports cannot be secured and should not be expected. Occupational accident statistics must be made up from records kept in the plants where the accidents occur, and from the reports of such accidents made to some designated administrative authority. Such records and reports must be complete, or practically so, if they are to be of the highest value. Experience has shown that employees oftentimes will not report an accident or the employer does not make a record of an accident reported unless the accident appears to be immediately serious or unless there is some financial motive. This has been confirmed in extensive and intensive investigations by the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in which original records were studied. Further evidence of this found in the failure of accident reporting laws which existed before the enactment of workmen's compensation statutes, in the incompleteness in the reporting of short time accidents causing disability for which no compensation is payable, and in the failure of the occupational disease reporting laws. In all these cases the failure of the law was due to the same cause the lack of any financial interest on the part of the injured employee, or of the employer, or of the physician, to make reports. Even in states where workmen's compensation laws have been enacted, many accidents are not and will not be reported for very definite and easily intelligible reasons: 40 Verrill, Charles H., in the American Economic Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, Suppl., pp. 142-152. 1. Many industries are not covered by the compensation law, and there is therefore no motive for reporting. Some state laws cover only hazardous industries, some only a selected list of highly hazardous industries, others while perhaps covering the same industries require an election of the compensation act on the part of the employer. In nearly all states, agricultural employments and domestic service are not covered, nor are casual workers. 2. Many of the states provide for the exclusion from the compensation law of employers with less than a specified number of workmen, this specified number being in five states as low as three, but in other states being four, five, six, or even as high as ten, eleven, or sixteen. 3. Short-time accidents are not covered by the law in most of the states. The waiting time during which no compensation is payable varies greatly, being as low as three days in several jurisdictions, but as high as seven days, ten days, or fourteen days in other jurisdictions. The exclusion of these short-time accidents greatly affects the number subject to compensation. Thus, a seven-day waiting period means for industries in general the exclusion from compensation of about 45 per cent of all accidents, a ten-day period 50 per cent, while a fourteen-day period means the exclusion of over 60 per cent. The result of all this is that even in those states where a majority of employees are covered by the workmen's compensation law, a large percentage of the accidents which occur are not under the law and are not reported. In many of the compensation states, probably more than half the lost-time accidents are never reported even in those employments which are subject to the compensation law. . . . In April, 1914, at a meeting held in Lansing, Michigan, the National Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions was organized. . . . . A committee on statistics and compensation insurance cost was created. . . . . The purpose which the committee has clearly kept before it throughout has been to work out standard definitions, classifications, forms, and methods which will be practicable in spite of the limitations of the widely varying state compensation laws, and at the same time serve the needs of the commissions, state labor department officials, employers, employees, insurance carriers, legislators, and the public. The committte found it necessary to begin with the elements and formulate definitions of given terms in order to secure some degree of uniformity and usage. It was found that some state laws attempted to require reports of all accidents, some only those involving loss. of time, others only those resulting in loss of time of more than one week, ten days, or two weeks. It was obvious that statistics based upon such variable definitions of the most elementary term could never be used to indicate accident hazard, or rate of accident occurrence. While some states are attempting to secure reports of all lost time accidents, others are deliberately neglecting from 40 to 60 per cent of them. To avoid this difficulty, the committee recommended the adoption of the term Tabulatable Accident, which it defined as one resulting in death, permanent disability, or loss of time other than the remainder of the day, shift, or turn on which the injury occurred. To describe the accidents subject to compensation under the law of each particular state, the term Compensable Accident was adopted. To cover that class of accidents resulting in no time or wage loss, but requiring some medical expenditure, the term Reportable Accident was adopted, inasmuch as it was recognized that any accident which was the subject of expenditure should be reported to the administrative authority. To assist in securing uniformity in the forms and practice of accident reports, a standard form of accident report was worked out by the committee. This provided for a first, and for supplemental and final reports. The first report followed closely, with slight changes, the form originated by the American Association for Labor Legislation in December, 1911. It was recommended that, subject to the requirement of state laws, all reportable accidents should be reported to the proper state authority within forty-eight hours after occurrence. While the exact time within which an accident should be reported is not especially important, it seemed necessary to emphasize promptness of reporting as of very decided importance in guarding against failure to report, and in permitting early investigation in case of need. The first step in preparation of a classification of causes of accidents was the adoption of a standard definition, as practice was found to vary greatly in the different jurisdictions. The whole purpose of the classification of accidents by causes is accident prevention. The committee, therefore, in its definition of cause of accident adopted the recommendation that the accident should be charged to that condition or circumstance the absence of which would have prevented the |