whom the parent was dependent. It is the natural expectation of parents that their children will provide for them or assist them in their old age, when their own earning power has greatly decreased or vanished, and to deprive the parent of compensation at the end of an eight-year period means to leave that parent in a worse condition than at the beginning of the period, when the present law imposes an obligation upon the United States to pay compensation.

Section 2 of the amending act would change section 12 of the original act to make it in harmony with two acts of Congress, (a) the appropriation act approved June 30, 1906, section 6, which established the 30-day month for all monthly and annual employees, and (b) the urgent deficiency act approved October 6, 1917, section 8, which determined that all hourly, per diem, and piecework employees should have their compensation fixed on the basis of 312 days per year. According to the act as it now is, the compensation commission is required to compute the monthly pay according to the usual practice of the service in which the employee is engaged. The practice of the service is not uniform, and this amendment is in the interest of uniformity.

Section 3 of the amending act would change section 14 of the original act to make more liberal lump-sum payments to a widow or widower of a deceased employee. Under the present act it can not exceed compensation for 60 months; the proposed change will extend to 96 months-eight years, instead of five.

The compensation commission does not look with favor upon lump-sum payments, but recognizes that occasionally it may be necessary to make such payments, and it is hardly fair to require beneficiaries to forfeit 70 or 80 per cent of the present value of the compensation benefits which they might otherwise expect to receive under the law. It is recommended, therefore that the limit be raised to 96 months, corresponding to the period fixed for such beneficiaries as grandparents, sisters, brothers, or grandchildren, under paragraph G of section 10 of the original act.

Section 5 would amend section 40 of the original act so as to include all the civil officers of the United States and of the Panama Railroad Co. whose salaries are not in excess of $3,000 per annum. If the compensation act rests upon justice as well as need, both reasons hold for civil officers as well as for employees. In the Federal service there are a great many officers whose salaries are not larger than the wages of employees, and many of these officers are subject to hazards and some of them are being injured in the service. The Attorney General has filed a formal opinion to the effect that the present act does not cover officers. Therefore the compensation commission has been unable to award compensation to a third-class postmaster whose salary was $1,300 a year and who was seriously burned while attempting to rescue valuable mail from the post office; to a fourth-class postmaster, who was injured in the performance of his duty, his salary being $50 a month; to another fourth-class postmaster, whose salary was $15 a month; to the widow of a United States attorney whose salary was $2,500 per annum and who lost his life in the service; and to the widow of a deputy marshal of the Atlanta Penitentiary who was killed by a convict and whose salary was $2,000 a year and maintenance. The amendment is not only in the interests of justice and to meet the needs of civil officers

and their dependents, but it is also urgent because of the great difficulty in distinguishing between officers and civil employees. Even the formal opinions of the Attorney General do not clarify in many cases coming before the compensation commission. The Supreme Court itself has had considerable difficulty in determining who is and who is not an 66 officer" as the following cases indicate: United States v. Mount (124 U. S., 303 and 307), United States v. Hendee (124 U. S., 309), and the celebrated United States v. Hartwell (6 Wallace, 393).

em

Notwithstanding the opinion of the Attorney General, the question as to what constitutes an "officer" and what constitutes an "" ployee" is still a bothersome question in many border-line cases. Therefore, in the interests of administration as well as justice the compensation commission believes that the compensation act should cover all civil officers whose salaries are not in excess of $3,000 per

annum.

Section 5 of the amending act would change section 11 of the original act to enable the commission to pay to an undertaker or to any other person who has paid such burial expenses not to exceed $100, in the discretion of the commission. Under the present act, the commission. can only pay funeral expenses through the personal representatives of the decedent. They often die intestate, do not have administrators, and sometimes they die far from home. Occasionally bodies have been held for several days before burial, as undertakers are unwilling at times to bury strangers when they do not know who will pay them.

Section 43 is a new provision to enable the compensation commission to pay to the widow or widower, or to the surviving child or children of a beneficiary under the act, money which is due him, but which he had not received before his death. The compensation commission attempts to pay compensation twice a month, but can not do so in many cases, and sometimes a month's compensation is due, and a check is filled out and mailed to his home, but is returned to the commission because the beneficiary has died. It seems unjust that the money should revert to the Treasury instead of being given to the widow or family.

Section 44 of the amending act is new and would authorize the commission to do three necessary things to prevent accidents and personal injuries among the civil employees of the Government: (a) To cooperate with the several executive departments and independent establishments of the Government to prevent personal injuries among employees; (b) to intelligently interpret the reports of injuries and claims on account of injury which come to the commission, and proposing a small Government safety bulletin for distribution in the Government buildings, showing accident curves, injuries, and reductions in accident frequency, cost of compensation, methods of accident prevention, safety news, and the progress the various Government establishments are making in safety work; (c) for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section the compensation commission is authorized to employ a safety engineer at a salary not to exceed $3,000 per annum, whose duty it shall be to cooperate with the safety engineers in the navy yards, arsenals, and other Government establishments.

O

INCORPORATE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

MAY 10, 1918.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

Mr. JOHNSON of Kentucky, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany H. R. 5786.]

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5786) entitled "A bill to incorporate the Medical Society of the District of Columbia," having considered the same, reports it back to the House, with the following amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be adopted and that the bill as amended be passed.

On page 1, at line 15, after the word "gage" strike out the comma; also, on page 2, at line 2, after the comma and before the word "which," strike out the word "and"; also, on the same page, and at the same line, strike out the word "may" where it appears for the second time, and insert in lieu thereof the word "shall"; also, on the same page, at line 3, after the word "situation" strike out the word "and" and insert in lieu thereof the word "or"; also, on the same page, at line 5, after the word "amend" strike out the comma.

O

65th CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 2d Session.

EXTENDING TIME OF VACATING ALLEY HOUSES IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

MAY 10, 1918.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

Mr. JOHNSON of Kentucky, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany H. R. 11628.]

The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 11628) entitled "A bill to amend an act entitled 'An act to provide, in the interest of public health, comfort, morals, and safety, for the discontinuance of the use as dwellings of buildings situated in the alleys of the District of Columbia,' approved September twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred and fourteen," having considered the same, reports it back to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

Under the act of September 25, 1914, to which reference is made in the bill, certain alley houses, accommodating approximately 10,000 people, can not be occupied as residences after July 1, next.

Because of such a distressing need for houses in the District of Columbia at the present time it is not only advisable but necessary that that time should be extended to at least one year after the war is over.