NOTES AND ABSTRACTS 287
risk should not fall primarily on the workman. At the same time, also, a practically compulsory system of insurance against such injuries is created.
The law hinges on the conditional abrogation of the "fellow servant rule." It is provided that " any corporation, company, partnership, association, individual, or indi- viduals engaged in the business of operating any coal or clay mine, quarry, steam or street railroad in the State of Maryland, and any incorporated town, city, or county engaged in the work of constructing any sewer, excavation, or other physical struc- ture, or the contractors for any such town, city, or county shall be liable in law to any employee engaged in the above-named occupations, or, in case of death, to his wife .... for the damages flowing from an injury to said employee or from the death of such employee when such injury or death is caused by the negligence of the employer or by the negligence of any servant or employee of such employer." Heretofore, the negligence of a fellow-servant has not been ground for a damage suit in Maryland. The remainder of the act offers to employers a method by which they may escape this increased liability for damages. In order to be relieved from liability to their employees for damages, they must annually pay into the hands of the state insurance commissioner the following sums per employee : coal and clay mining, $1.80 ; steam railroads, $3.00 ; street railroads and trolleys, $0.60. The commissioner fixes the amount for municipal works. One-half of the amount paid by an employer may be deducted by him from the wages of the employee. If any employee insured under this act comes to his death in the course of his employment and by causes arising therein, the insurance commissioner shall pay one thousand dollars to the family of the deceased.
The number of workmen covered by the act is small, at the present time probably not exceeding 15,000. The insurance commissioner may exempt from the provisions of the act those employers who give satisfactory evidence that they are already, and will continue, "making better provisions for the workmen employed than they would be obliged to do under the provisions hereof." The commissioner is authorized to extend the insurance sections of the act to other trades ; but he cannot change the liability of employers in such industries, and it cannot be expected that many employers will voluntarily insure their workmen.
The law is open to criticism in a number of directions. A workman insured under the law, and severely but not fatally injured, not only has no claim for compen- sation from the insurance fund, but will no longer have a right of action, even if his injury has been caused by the negligence of his employer. The system of assessment provided for gives no encouragement to employers to be careful that their workmen shall not be injured. All employers in an industry pay into the insurance fund at the same rate. The provisions for the maintenance of the insurance fund are ill-con- sidered. The intent of the law seems to be that the receipts and payments shall balance each year. A single accident in the coal-mining industry may involve the loss of the lives of many workmen, and a serious mishap of this character might deplete the fund for several years. But, despite these imperfections, the position of the workman, looked at from the standpoint of practical protection, is undoubtedly better than under the legislation formerly existing. GEORGE E. BARNETT, "The Maryland Workmen's Compensation Act," in Quarterly Journal of Economics for August, 1902.
Legislative Control over Municipal Corporations. The question of the extent of legislative control over municipal corporations has occasioned a square con- flict of opinion among the courts of this country. One line of cases, by decisions or dicta,has laid down the broad proposition that municipal corporations are the creatures of the legislature, and except for constitutional limitations, expressed or clearly implied, entirely subject to its control (Commonwealth vs. Moir, 199 Pa. St. 534). On the other hand, in many states the doctrine has been established that municipal corpora- tions cannot be deprived of the right to local self-government ; and this view is rested upon either one of two grounds : implied constitutional guarantee, or implied reserva- tion to that effect (People vs. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44). The result reached in this second class of cases commends itself as being in accordance with the spirit of our institutions and prevailing views of political expediency, but it is doubtful whether it can be sup- ported upon principle. The constitutionality of an act must be determined by reference
