View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

JAMES J. DAVIS, Secretary





No. 428





JULY 14-16,1926

( S








An official call for an industrial accident prevention conference to
be held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D. C., July 14, 15,
and 16, 1926, was issued to the governors of the various States by
Secretary of Labor James J. Davis. The following is a copy of the
Secretary’s letter to the governors:
I am caUing a conference on industrial accident prevention to be held in
Washington, D. C., July 14, 15, and 16 of the present year. Invitations will be
sent to the principal agencies, pubUc and private, interested in the development
of more efficient and specific methods of industrial accident prevention.
I am particularly anxious that the State governments shall be 100 per cent
represented, and I am writing this to urge that you delegate some member or
members of that division of your State organization which deals with accident
prevention to attend this conference. If at aU practicable, I shaU be very much
pleased if you could attend in person.
There is no adequate system of industrial accident reporting in the United
States, but a conservative estimate indicates that the fatal industrial accidents
probably exceed 23,000 per year and that nonfatal injuries total 2,500,000 per
year. The number of days’ labor lost is estimated to be 227,169,970 per annum,
and the wage loss exceeds a biUion dollars. I am advised by experts that
fully 85 per cent of these accidents are preventable. In fact, many estabUshments and some industries, by dose application of safety methods to the
“ danger spots” in their industrial plants, have been able to reduce their
accidents by a percentage almost as great as this. The cooperation of aU
of the States and all other accident-reporting organizations will be sought, to
the end that attention may be caUed, not in general terms, but by specific plans
for the more general adoption of the safety methods which have been so suc­
cessful in a few instances.
The conference will be held in the ballroom of the Mayflower Hotel, and as
this room is artificiaUy cooled there need be no fear of the inconvenience of
summer heat. The manager of the Mayflower Hotel contributes the use of his
hotel as a meeting place of the conference free of charge as an evidence of his
interest in its purpose.
May I request that you advise me as soon as possible as to how many and
whom you will send to represent the State o f ----- .

While the importance of interesting the States was emphasized in
this letter, the various industries and industrial associations were also
invited. Invitation was also extended to the insurance carriers.
The following letter was sent by Ethelbert Stewart, the United
States Commissioner of Labor Statistics, to industrial firms and
organizations, individuals, safety councils, railroads, railway asso­
ciations, and trade journals, and to others interested in safety in
Dear Sirs : I am writing to invite your organization to send a representative
to the industrial accident prevention conference which the Secretary of Labor,
James J. Davis, has called in Washington, D. O., July 14, 15, and 16 of the
present year. Invitations are being sent to each of the States through their
governor, and it is believed that the officials having to do with accident pre­
vention and reporting will be very fully represented. Invitations are being




sent to the principal industrial associations and the principal agencies, both
public and private, which have manifested an interest in the development of
more efficient and specific methods of industrial accident prevention.
The conference will be held in the ballroom of the Mayflower Hotel, and as
this room is artificially cooled there need be no fear of the inconvenience of
summer heat. The manager of the Mayflower contributes the use of his hotel
as a meeting place for the conference free of charge as an evidence of his
interest in its purpose.
It is hoped that the conference will develop the best methods of accident
prevention, the best methods of reporting of accidents and of accident pre­
vention information, and the best methods of establishing a clearing house for
definite statistical data which can be made usable by all in the work of acci­
dent prevention.
Will you please advise me as soon as possible as to how many representatives
you will be able to send? Inclosed you will find an addressed envelope, which
requires no postage.


Chairman, Ethelbert Stewart, United States Commissioner of Labor Statistics:________Page
Address of Hon. James J. Davis, United States Secretary of Labor— 1-8
Should there be a national safety museum, by Louis Resnick, as­
sistant to the president American Museum of Safety____________ 8-11
Charles P. Tolman, of New York________________________ 12,13
New Jersey Industrial Museum of Safety, by Charles H. Weeks,
deputy commissioner of labor of New Jersey___________________ 14-17
George W. Knapp, jr., of Maryland_____________________
Charles H. Weeks, of New Jersey_______________________ 17-22
Ethelbert Stewart, of Washington, D. C_________________ 17-20
W. H. Rademacher, of New Jersey-------------------------------18
Frederick J. Kingsbury, of Connecticut__________________ 19,20
Louis Resnick, of New York___________________________ 20-22
John L. Thompson, of Connecticut______________________ 20,21
J. F. Green, of Illinois________________________________
J. E. Walters, of Massachusetts-------------------------------------21,22
John H. Crawford, of Kansas__________________________
A. J. Van Brunt, of New Jersey____________ :____________
Nathan B. Williams, of Washington, D. C______________
Richard H. Lansburgh, of Pennsylvania_________________

Chairman, James A* Hamilton, industrial commissioner of New Yoirk:
Remarks by Chairman Hamilton_______________________________ 24-26
The problem of national accident statistics* by Leonard W. Hatch,
director bureau of statistics and information, New York State
department of labor-------------------------------------------------------------- 26-31
John P. Jackson, of New York__________________________32-35
John Hopkins Hall, jr., of Virginia______________________
The statistical factor in the accident experience of the iron and steel
industry, by Lucian W. Chaney, of the United States Bureau of
Labor Statistics-_________________________________________ r—. 35-40
J. M. Larkin, of Pennsylvania--------------------------------------- 40-43
James. M, Woltz, of Ohio______________________________
Richard H. Lansburgh, of Pennsylvania----------------------- :_44,45
Ethelbert Stewart, of Washington, D. C----------------------— 44,45
Leonard W. Hatch, of New York----------------------------------- 45,46
John L. Thompson, of Connecticut---------------------------------45
Thomas H. Carrow, of Pennsylvania------------------------------45
N. B. Atkins, of Virginia_____ _________________________ 45,46
Workers’ interest in safety problems, by Frank Morrison, secretary
American Federation of Labor_______________________________ 47-49
Appointment of committees------------------------------------------------------50





Chairman, Andrew F. McBride, commissioner of labor of New Jersey:
Statistical activities of the sections of the National Safety Council,
by W. H. Cameron, managing director National Safety Council.-----52-56
Daniel T. Meany, of New York_________________________56-60
The interest of casualty insurance in accident-prevention statistics,
by David Van Schaack, director bureau of inspection and accident
prevention, iEtna Life Insurance Co-----------------------------------------60-66
L. L. Hall, of New York_______________________________ 66-73
Ethelbert Stewart, of Washington, D. C_________________ 69-71
J. H. Walker, of Illinois______________________________ 70, 71
Isidor Silverman, of New York___________________ _____
John S. B. Davie, of New Hampshire____________________ 72,73
Thomas J. Cahill, of New York__________________________
Dixson H. Bynum, of Indiana_____ ‘____________________
What the colleges are doing for accident prevention and human
safety, by Prof. Stewart Robertson, of North Carolina State
College____________________________________________________ 73-75
David Van Schaack, of Connecticut-------------------------------76
John L. Thompson, of Connecticut_______________________

Chairman, John Hopkins Hall, jr., commissioner of labor and industry of Virginia:
Recent statistical developments, by Carl C. Beasor, chief statisti­
cian division of safety and hygiene, Industrial Commission of
Accident prevention in relation to efficiency, by Lewis A. De Blois,
director safety engineering division, National Bureau of Casualty
and Surety Underwriters____________________________________ 82-86
J. E. Hannum, of Washington, D. C-------------------------------- 86-91
John P. Jackson, of New York__________________________88,89
Ethelbert Stewart, of Washington, D. C__________________ 89,90
R. J. Hoage, of Washington, D. C----------------------------------- 90,91
John Hopkins Hall, jr., of Virginia______________________ 91-94
Lucian W. Chaney, of Washington, D. C_________________
Thomas H. Carrow, of Pennsylvania-------------------------------92-94
Lewis A. De Blois, of New York________________________ 93,94
Fred J. Upton, of Pennsylvania_________________________
Our use of accident statistics in Canada, by R. B. Morley, general
manager Industrial Accident Prevention Associations, Toronto__ 95-99

Chairman, Robert H. Carr, chairman Maryland State industrial accident commission:
Statistical contributions to accident prevention on American rail­
ways, by Lew R. Palmer, of the Equitable Life Assurance Society- 100-110
W. N. Doak, of Washington, D. C_____________________ 110-113
Thomas H. Carrow, of Pennsylvania__________________ 113-115
Statistics for accident prevention in American mines, by W. W.
Adams, statistician, Bureau of Mines, United States Department
of Commerce_____________________________________________ 115-119
Joseph J. Walsh, of Pennsylvania----------------------------------120
Accident prevention in steel, iron, and nonferrous metal foundries,
by T. F. Jennings, superintendent of foundries, Utah Copper Co— 121-124
Dixson H. Bynum, of Indiana------------------------------------ 124-126
William S. Wollner, of California_____________________ 124,125
T. J, Jennings, of Utah______________________________ 125,126



Chairman, Robert H. Carr, chairman Maryland Stale Industrial accident commission—

Improved lighting as a factor in accident prevention, by W. H. Rademacher, illuminating engineer, Edison Lamp Works of General
Electric Co______________________________________________ 126-131
R. E. Simpson, of Connecticut________________________131-133
Chairman, A . L, Ulrick, commissioner o f labor o f Iow a:

What State departments can contribute to national accident preven­
tion statistics, by Richard H. Lansburgh, secretary of labor and in­
dustry of Pennsylvania____________________________________ 134-139
Thomas P. Kearns, of Ohio___________________________139-141
Thomas K. Lewis, of Indiana-------------------------------------141-143
Eugene B. Patton, of New York_______________ ______ 143,144
Dust explosion hazards in industrial plants, with special reference
to proper reporting methods, by David J. Price, of the Bureau of
Chemistry, United States Department of Agriculture_________ 145-147
George E. Lynch, of California_______________________ 147-149
The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics arid the accident pre­
vention program, by Ethelbert Stewart, United States Commis­
sioner of Labor Statistics---------------------------------------------------149-152
James J. Davis, of Washington, D. C------------------------------153
Report of committee on resolutions___________________________154,155
Ethelbert Stewart ,of Washington, D. C---------------------- 155,156
John Hopkins Hall, Jr., of Virginia_________________
W. W. Adams, of Washington, D. C-------------------------------155
Dixson H. Bynum, of Indiana------------------------------------ 156,157
E. Kaufmann, of New York-------------------------------------------- 156
Remarks of Leonard W. Hatch, chairman of committee on reclassi­
fication of industries______________________________________157,158
Report of committee on reclassification of industries-----------------158
Dixson H. Bynum, of Indiana-------------------------------------159,161
Richard H. Lansburgh, of Pennsylvania_________________
Leonard W. Hatch, of New York______________________ 159-161
Ethelbert Stewart, of Washington, D. C__________________
William A. Marshall, of Oregon-------------------------------161
John S. B. Davie, of New Hampshire--------------------------- 161

List of persons who attended the Industrial Accident Prevention
Conference held at Washington, D. C., July 14r-16,1926________ 163-169







S ep tem b er, 192


The C hairm an , It is not my purpose to say anything at this time.
We have named the chairmen of the various committees and have
asked them to select their own committees, which I hope will be a
better working plan.
The following were the chairmen appointed:
Resolutions.—J. H. Crawford, Kansas Public Service Commission.
Classification of industries.—L. W. Hatch, New York Department of
Determination of exposure.—L. W. Chaney, United States Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
Publicity.—A. C. Carruthers, editor Safety Engineering.

I now have the honor of introducing to you the Honorable the
Secretary of Labor, who will discuss the purposes of the conference.

In welcoming you to Washington I speak with a sincerity and
warmth I have seldom felt before. From the days when I was an
ironworker and saw men at mv side killed or injured I have had at
heart this question of cutting down the toll of accidents in American
industry. For months I have had this conference in view. It grati­
fies me to see here the representatives of so many States, so many or­
ganizations, alike filled with a zeal for preventing industrial acci­
dents. We are met to consider ways and means to that end, but
before coming to the purpose and program of this conference I
have the honor and pleasure of reading to you a letter from the
President of the United States, in which he conveys his hearty ap­
proval of the work you are here to undertake and wishes you every
June 22, 1926.

: I am pleased to note that you are calling an indus­
trial accident; prevention conference to be held at the seat of Government for
the purpose of discussing remedies.
M y D e a b M r. S e c r e t a r y




It is difficult to believe that industrial accidents have reached an irreducible
Twinimnm while the death toll is probably not under 23,000 and the nonfatal
injuries approximately two and one-half million each year. Especially should
we be hopeful of greater improvement in this record if those who claim that
85 per cent of those accidents are preventable are even approximately right.
I am particularly gratified at the large number of States that are to be rep­
resented by delegates coming directly from the governors of the States and the
large number of delegates from associations and manufacturers particularly
interested in reducing the accident records within their industries.
I thank you for the interest you have shown in this matter and wish to ex­
tend through you my best wishes to the conference and to express my hope for
its every possible success.
Very truly yours,
C a l v i n C o o lid g e .

In 1924, at a meeting of the National Safety Council in Louis­
ville, Ky., at which I had occasion to speak, I laid down three propo­
sitions which I thought to be the duty and within the province of
the Secretary o f’Labor to set forth and to commend to our lawmakers
and administrators. The propositions were:
1. To create in the Department of Labor an agency, adequately
staffed, which should cooperate with existing agencies in bringing
together complete accident statistics regarding industries not now
2. To provide for the prompt publication of accident data and its
transmission to American industry.
3. To develop in the Department of Labor an industrial safety
museum which should exhibit the latest and most efficient safeguards.
You will notice at once that this is limited to an educational pro­
gram. In my estimation an educational program is all that is
needed to reduce this wastage of life and limb that disfigures the
otherwise marvelous mechanism of American industry. I have two
reasons for keeping to an educational program. In the first place,
education is all the Government can undertake; in the second place,
education is all that American industry needs to correct its faults.
I f the management and workers of every American industry knew
the extent or accident in industry as a whole, that would be suffi­
cient to fire everyone to the utmost efforts to reduce the danger of
accident in his own particular plant. As it is, each employer knows
only the number o f injuries and of fatalities in his own experience.
Being a humane man, he takes such measures as he can to prevent
them. But if every employer knew the annual grand total of loss
by accident and injury I believe each one would double his efforts
to reduce accident to the vanishing point. It is just that informa­
tion, that education, which we must spread. I am convinced such
education will do the work.
Few of us realize the truly grave need of such an enterprise as
we have undertaken. Few of us realize how needful it is for us to
shape some wise and comprehensive scheme for informing American
industry as to just where it stands in the appalling number of acci­
dents that still occur every year. To begin with, we have no
agency whatever entitled to answer with any authority the question,
“Are accidents on the increase, or are they declining f ”
Some answer can be given in the cases of a few industrial groups,
but when it comes to the broad, national consideration of the prob­
lem we have no means of gathering the facts in the first place and



no agency for giving them out if gathered. At this moment I have
to reach to scattered sources for the facts I want. But let me give
you a few of those facts as I have been able to learn them.
From the bureau of workmen’s compensation of the State of
Pennsylvania, I learn that in that State in a period of 10 years there
were 24,699 workers killed and the appalling number of 1,811,699
workers injured. No doubt the statistics on accidents, fatal and
nonfatal, in branches of labor not covered by the workmen’s compen­
sation law, if the facts were available, would add still more to this
enormous sum of accidents, most of them preventable.
The official Labor Bulletin of the State of Illinois reports a
total of 54,184 accidents in the single year 1924. It is true that
this is a reduction of over 7,000 from the number o f accidents in
1923, but it is still a ghastly number of casualties to happen in time
of peace at the presumably peaceful labor of producing American
goods. In reporting on tnis matter of accidents the Illinois De­
partment of Labor declares that “ accidents are far too numerous,”
and that until the present high accident rate is reduced it can not
be said that the citizens of Illmois have reason to be proud of their
State’s record in the important matter of accident prevention.
It is true that Pennsylvania and Illinois are two of our greatest
industrial States. In tnese States industry has been developed and
extended as in few others. Their toll of injury is bound to be
the highest. But if to their totals of loss were added the sum total
of injury in every other State in the Union I believe the whole
country would be staggered. The casualties on the battle fields of
the recent war were no greater than this wastage of life and human
power through carelessness in the arts of peace.
Without accurate figures we can only estimate the number of in­
dustrial fatalities we permit to happen every year. These estimates
vary from 12,500 to 35,000 deaths annually. The only positive record
of fact we have has been maintained by tne United States Bureau o f
Labor Statistics. This assembles the records of the various compen­
sation jurisdictions, namely, those of the several States and the
United States Employees’ Compensation Commission. The largest
number of fatalities recorded by these agencies was 12,531, for the
year 1918; the smallest number was 9,392, in 1921. The recorded
nonfatal accidents were greatest in 1924, with a total of 1,666,522.
Even these figures, a.moment’s consideration will show, must be
short of the facts, since the compensation laws do not cover agricul­
ture and steam railways. It is nevertheless clear enough—only too
clear—that this toll ox accident has resulted in a wage loss of over
$1,000,000,000. I am firmly convinced that the shrewd American em­
ployer has only to be told of such a loss in money to be stirred to re­
doubled efforts to blot out this fearful and needless waste. I leave
out of the reckoning the stir he must feel when reminded of what
suffering this means in the ranks of his employees and their families.
The loss in money alone is enough to convince the most careless that
such a blot on the otherwise splendid structure of American industry
should not be tolerated any longer.
Failure to give proper consideration to matters of safety, and
frequent accidents and disasters within a particular plant, will have
a permanent effect upon the entire industry.



A youth reared in the shadow of an industry wherein the risk of
life or limb is great naturally shuns that industry. Mothers and
wives, familiar with the hazards, will urge their loved ones to seek
less dangerous employment. An industry that fails adequately to
protect its workers will sooner or later be affected in the quality and
character of workers who are attracted to it.
I recall a colliery accident which happened when I was a boy.
I remember the men carrying the victims home, past the place
where I lived, and the tears that came into my mother’s eyes as she
said to me, “ I hope you will never have to go into those pits to
work.” That is one thing that practically kept me away from that
in my earlier life, and so it is in all industries.
It is in fact impossible to exaggerate this annual loss and waste
through accident both to the worker and to industry in general.
We must lose no time in learning the reality and grasping the situa­
tion as we find it. Let us therefore come to grips at once with the
real purpose of this conference.
After transaction of the necessary business vou will find as the
first item on the program the establishment o f a national museum
of safety. It has been said that Washington, not being an industrial
city, is not a suitable place for the establishment of such a museum.
Since this city is becoming more and more truly national, drawing
all the people to it, this objection loses much of its force. While
an industrial city might have more visitors, its visitors would not
be so diversified nor so representative.
The importance of such a museum in Washington would not be
conditioned on the number who came to see it. Its value would be
found in no small degree in projecting to the public mind the fact
that the National Government takes an interest in the preservation
of its citizens from the hazards of their callings.
Think for a minute how unique such a museum would be. So
far in all our museums the handiwork of man has been on display.
Now we must put the worker himself on display and show how he
can save himself from harm. We build vast and beautiful exhibi­
tion halls for the display of the products of man’s art and skill.
We take the bones or prehistoric beasts, dug up by the explorer,
and house them in marble palaces. But nowhere is there evidence
of the concern we should have, as a people, for the safety of the
man who works. For the moral influence alone that would radiate
from a museum of safety appliances, I urge its building and develop­
ment. Its practical value can be seen at a glance.
You need not tell me that the American employer is not as full
of humanity as he is of business enterprise. The employers of this
country are concerned in the safety and health of the workers, and
I believe few American employers are without human interest in the
well-being of their workers, not as employers, but as men. Once
set before the American employer an object lesson in safety devices
and his spirit of enterprise will force him to introduce them in
his factories. No American employer is willing to lag behind any
other American employer. Once show him what some more pro­
gressive man is doing for his men and he will strive to outdo the
other fellow, in the same line of endeavor. In a safety museum such
as I have in mind we should form a pool of new ideas. We should



invite every man to contribute some new idea, and the sum of all
the ideas would be open for any and all to copy.
In addition to actual and practical safety devices I would have
in this museum charts and tables to prove beyond the shadow of a
doubt the hard-money saving there is in saving fingers, hands,
limbs, Mid lives of these workers of ours. Safety not only is hu­
manitarian, it is good business. We must prove both points by prac­
tical demonstration that is beyond dispute. Just now this country
of ours stands at the head of the world because of its enormous pro­
ductive power. Our skilled workmen are driving our high-speed
machinery to the utmost, with the result that we are richer than any
other people ever were in all history. But our example of pros­
perity is being copied. Other nations are learning the secrets of
our success, and in time will become sharp competitors of ours.
Against that coming competition we must look to tnis waste in lives
and limbs. I f we had no humanitarian reasons for protecting our
human machines from this needless annual total breakage, the
hard economic safety of the country would in time drive us to the
hard business principle of saving money by saving men. This is
the lesson to be taught, and we need the museum I nave urged as a
classroom where the entire business nation may go to school and
We shall take up the problem of gathering the necessary statistics
of industrial accidents. Before we can begin this campaign against
accident we must know, precisely what is happening, what it is with
which we must grapple, and where we must go to find it. For that
purpose it is proposed to create a safety section in the Bureau o f
Labor Statistics, where it properly belongs. It is shown from the
experience o f the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Bureau of
Mines, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics that some central agency
is imperative if we are to bring together in any useful form from
every source the data on accidents we need. States, municipalities,
and private concerns are all more or less limited in the range of facts
they are able to collect. The problem is to get all the facts, to learn
of every possible cause of accident, so that we may really know
what goes on throughout the Nation’s industry.
I am happy to report that certain industrial organizations have
already made remarkable strides in cutting down loss to themselves
and to their workers through accident. This is true of the iron
and steel industry a s a whole.
Finally, we must consider the worker’s own side of the safety ques­
tion. It is true that the employer has a major duty to perform in
surrounding his workers with the proper precautions in work that
involves dangerous operations or possible injury to health. But the
employer can not do it all. The worker must play his part in sav­
ing himself from needless exposure to risk and injury. I f employers
need education in accident prevention, the worker needs it as much
or more. Here, fortunately, we may play to his natural desire for
self-preservation. The intelligent worker must continually be re­
minded of his own suffering in mind and body as a warning against
the carelessness that may cost him a leg or an arm. No intelligent
worker will fail to respond to the appeal to his heart when reminded
of how his family will suffer in case of his death. But we must



see that these cautions are always borne in mind. We .must work
up a means by which every man who toils may be reminded every
minute of the day of the duty he owes to himself, to his family,
and to his employer, to observe due caution in handling the machine,
so ever ready to do his will but so ready to do him harm at any
forgetful moment.
We shall also review the statistical experience of the National
Safety Council and the casualty insurance companies. We can learn
a great deal from these sources, for in some lines the facts provided
by these organizations are absolutely the only reliable statistics we
Few of you here will remember the explosion that destroyed a
great flour mill in Minneapolis. The event served to focus atten­
tion on a fact not known before, namely, that when inflammable
dusts are mixed with air in due proportion a violent explosive is
formed. It is a curious fact that in spite of this destructive ex­
plosion in a flour mill, in spite of a series of such explosions in mines,
there are mills and factories in which the same danger lurks where,
until recently, no preventive measures were taken. It is strongly
suspected by those who have been investigating these accidents that
many which were attributed to ordinary fire hazards were really the
outcome of dust explosions.
These instances serve as examples of what we must learn. It is
to be hoped that our consideration of this subject of dust explosions
will lead to closer study of conditions and so to accurate informa­
tion that will help us to wipe out these dangers forever.
We Americans, as I say, are proud of our quickness to put to use
newly acquired knowledge. Is not this pride seriously question­
able when we reflect that so simple a means as rock dusting m mines
for the prevention of dust explosions is only now coming into use
with us, when it has long been common in other mining countries?
Here we open another door to studies we need to undertake.
At one of the sessions we shall discuss a new and, to my mind, a
very impressive phase of the general subject of accident prevention.
This is the cash return, the money profit, in preventing injury. Our
employers do the right thing when they think they can afford it,
but we need to prove that safety devices are a paying investment.
We need to prove that safety is profitable as well as ethical, and
that saving lives in industry is good statesmanship as well as good
No subject has stirred keener interest than the question of the
influence of accident prevention on the volume of production. The
pioneer advocates of accident prevention were met on every hand
with the objection that such effort would interfere with production.^
While in occasional instances it has been proved that increased pro-*
duction went along with accident prevention, it has remained an
open question whether the reduced accident rate had more than a
casual relation to higher production. Two important investigations
are now under way for the purpose of throwing light on this matter,
and at this conference we shall hear of the important knowledge
On the last day of the conference a discussion of the statistical
activities of two of the Federal agencies which have for many years



and in very elaborate fashion kept records of accidents on American
railways and in American mines will prove most interesting. These
records, carefully kept and thoroughly analyzed, have been a most
important factor in helping toward accident reduction in these two
industries, and I am sure that the experience gained in these two
instances will help in the attack on accidents in other lines.
The matter of proper lighting of work acquires interest and im­
portance from two considerations. An unsatisfactory lighting
scheme injures the worker by damaging his eyes, and in itself it pro­
motes accidents wherever the worker is unable to see with sufficient
clearness what he is doing. Lighting has been for the most part
considered as a factor in production. It has been shown in many
instances that the installation of an adequate lighting system has
been followed by an increased production, which very soon more than
balanced the cost of the improvement. It is now appropriate that
more attention be given to better lighting as a factor in reducing
On Friday afternoon at our final session we shall consider the
possible contributions of the State organizations to the development
of national accident-prevention statistics and a final review of the
functions of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics in further­
ing accident prevention.
Some one has said, “An accident compensated is an apology; an
accident prevented is a benediction.” It has naturally been the case
that the multifarious details o f compensation have absorbed a large
part of the time and energy of industrial officers, to the partial
exclusion of the possibilities of preventing accidents in the first
place. I am hopeful that this conference will strike a new note in
what we all, I think, are agreed is a matter of supreme importance—
the prevention of industrial accidents, which kill and maim too many
Americans in the arts of peace. I have indicated the lines along
which we propose to attack this pressing problem, and from the
broad and responsive attendance I see garnered here from all parts
of the country I feel very sure we shall see substantial results from
our efforts.
At the time this conference was called I expected to be present at
all its sessions. But man proposes and God disposes. The things
which you are to consider are the uncertainties created by the frail­
ties of man—thoughtlessness and carelessness. You are here to con­
sider safeguards which may be thrown about human life until the
time when the Creator shall be ready to call men forth in his own
way. I shall be prevented from being with you at to-morrow’s
sessions, because I shall attend the funeral of my late colleague,
John W. Weeks, former Secretary of War, who has been called away.
In passing I want to say that My. Weeks was one of America’s great
citizens; a statesman, a wise legislator, a prudent counselor, a faith­
ful servant of the people. He was a man both of whose feet were
always on the ground, and at a time when the Nation most needed
men of his character and temperament he sat in the chambers of
those responsible for the Nation’s destiny as a peace power. His
work during the postwar reconstruction period will leave an ever­
lasting impress upon the Nation’s history. I profited by my asso­



ciation with him, as the Nation also, utilized his counsel, but I shall
always remember John Weeks as the man, and I believe I can pay no
greater tribute to his memory than to say he knew how to be a friend.
In foregoing the privilege of attending the Thursday meeting I feel
I am discharging a duty, for I have indeed lost a friend.
[Hon. James J. Davis, United States Secretary of Labor, here
acted as chairman.]
The C hairm an . The first paper on the program this morning will
be by our good friend, Louis Resnick, who will discuss the subject,
“ Should there be a national safety museum? ”

The general subject of this conference is “ The value of statistics
for accident prevention” and the subject of this particular paper
“ Should there be a national safety museum?” Let me tell you
briefly of a recent occurrence which, it seems to me, eloquently an­
swers the question raised in the title of this paper and at the same
time justifies the implication in the general subject of the conference.
For 150 years we nave celebrated Independence Day by the shoot­
ing of fireworks, and as a result more lives have been lost in the
commemoration of our independence than were lost in acquiring it.
Each year since the beginning of the safety movement the usual list
of Fourth of July “ Don’ts” has been issued and as regularly disre­
garded. Last year the American Museum of Safety decided to
tackle the Fourth of July accident problem in anotner way. In
cooperation with the National Committee for the Prevention of
Blindness the museum conducted the first thoroughgoing nation-wide
study of the number, nature, and causes of firework casualties.
This study revealed that more than 100 persons were killed and
more than 1,000 injured during the Fourth of July celebration of
1925; that 19 persons were literally blown to pieces; that 37 chil­
dren were burned to death in fires started by so-called harmless
sparklers; that 79 had been disfigured for life by the loss of arms,
legs, or fingers, or by other mutilation; and that 150 would lose the
sight o f one or both eyes—all to celebrate our independence as a
The detailed analysis of these 1,100 'casualties, together with a
statement by Arthur Williams, president of the museum, calling
attention to the seriouaiess of the situation, was published in
practically every city in America; hundreds of editorials were
written; numerous other organizations and governmental agencies
became actively interested in checking this annual slaughter; and
even the association of fireworks manufacturers jumped into the
public-safety movement, with this result—an identical study this
year, though not yet completed, indicates that the Fourth ox July
casualties for 1926 are in number approximately half those of the
year before.
In other words, there are somewhere in America to-day 50 children
alive, healthy, and happy who within the last two weeks would
have been killed and perhaps 500 other children who would have



been blinded, maimed, or otherwise seriously injured were it not
for this one activity of a safety museum—an activity in which sta­
tistics played a vital part.
I f the American Museum of Safety had done nothing else in the
last 15 years, its existence would have been wholly justified by this
one accomplishment, and if the value of statistics for accident pre­
vention had not previously been demonstrated in hundreds of in*
stances this one case would have served the purpose.
Before proceeding directly to the question “ Should there be a
national safety museum?” it may be well to review hurriedly the
experience of the closest existing approach to such an institution.
The American Museum o f Safety is an educational corporation hold­
ing a special charter from the New York State Legislature. The
museum proper, which is housed in the building adjoining the New
York City headquarters of the State department of labor, contains
several hundred exhibits of safety devices, appliances, and equip­
ment, hundreds of photographs, charts, and blue prints, and other
illustrative material through wnich the visitor may acquaint him­
self with the methods—mechanical and educational—which are
proving most successful in the prevention of accidents in industries
of all kinds throughout America. The demonstrator at the museum
is prepared to operate any of the many working exhibits and to
explain the design and method of manufacture of the many un­
patented devices. The museum is prepared also to secure informa­
tion concerning any existing safety devices not exhibited at the
Every employer of labor and every workman who has occasion to
attend the hearings on compensation claims before the New York
State department lias an opportunity on the way to and from the
hearings to step into the museum and to learn how the accident
which brought him to the hearing might have been averted. This
group constitutes a large part of the museum attendance. At the
other end of the visitors’ scale are the young men and women just
stepping into industry. For during the last year every student in
every continuation school in New York City was required to visit
the museum of safety as a part of the continuation-school work.
“ Required” is perhaps the wrong word here, for almost without
exception these boys and girls—all of whom are already employed in
industry—took greater interest in the exhibits than did the veteran
shopmen who came to the compensation hearings, and many returned
on their own initiative for a second and third visit. The museum
is, however, not merely a show place. It is primarily, as indicated
in its charter, an educational institution. Thus next September the
museum will cooperate with New York University in tne presenta­
tion of the first collegiate course in safety engineering, the details of
which will appear in a public announcement within the next few
The museum has, ,as most of you probably know, published for
more than 10 years a little magazine called Safety. And it has
throughout its existence carried on safety educational work through
the public schools and the press.



Another phase of the museum’s work has been the offering of
medals and certificates of award for outstanding achievements in
industrial accident-prevention work and health promotion. Notable
among these are: Scientific American Medal, awarded for the most
efficient safety device exhibited at the museum; Louis Livingston
Seaman Medal, awarded for progress and achievement in the pro­
motion of hygiene and the mitigation of occupational disease; E. H.
Harriman Memorial Medal, awarded to the steam railroad which,
during the year of the award, has been the most successful in pro­
tecting the lives and health of its employees and of the public;
Anthony N. Brady Memorial Medal, awarded to that electrical rail­
way company which, for the year of the award, has done moist to
conserve the safety and health of the public and its employees.
It will be seen from this rather sketchy outline that a safety
museum may inspire, encourage, and point the way to more effective
accident prevention and that it may do this by exhibits, by research,
and by propaganda and education.
The subject of this paper was, I take it, put in the form of a
uestion because of some doubt in the mind ox the Commissioner of
jabor Statistics or on the part of others who prepared the program.
Perhaps the commissioner wondered, for one thing, whether there
were not already too many safety organizations in the field. At any
rate I know that this question has often been raised, but I believe
that it is easily dispelled by the history and membership rolls of the
existing organizations.
There are, it is estimated, in the United States considerably more
than 100,000 manufacturing and industrial plants, but not more
than 5,000 or 6,000 of them are members ox either the National
Safety Council or the American Museum of Safety; perhaps an equal
number are members of local safety councils giving serious atten­
tion to industrial accident prevention. While I do not mean to
imply that membership in a safety organization is a guaranty that
good safety work is being done in a plant or that it is impossible to
do good safety work without being a member of a safety organisa­
tion, I think this audience will agree with me in the feeling that most
of the industries giving serious and permanent attention to organized
accident prevention are members o f some safety organization. The
fact is that only 10 or 12 per cent of the industries of America are
at present members of organizations actively interested in industrial
accident prevention. Even if we assume that an equal number of
plants, though not members of any safety organization, are doing
effective safety work, we are confronted with the fact that a very
large proportion of our industries are not giving the attention that
they should to safeguarding the life and health of their workers.
This fact is in turn reflected in the records of State industrial com­
missions showing increases in the frequency and severity of accidents
ranging from 5 to 50 per cent in recent years—this despite the re­
markable reductions in both fatal and nonfatal accidents in the
properties of some of our larger corporations.
It is not necessary in an audience such as this to resort to com­
parisons of our yearly accident casualties with those of the war; nor




to analyze the annual billion dollar economic loss attributed to acci­
dents. We all know, that with the exception of a few particular
industries, speaking for the country as a whole, the accident-prevention job is not being fully done. There is room for an additional
safety museum which might function on a national scale, but, be­
cause of its very nature, a museum of any sort renders its best
service locally. The American Museum of Safety functions nation­
ally as an educational institution but of necessity only locally as a
museum. Whether such a museum should be developed and main­
tained by the Federal Government or by private initiative revolves,
I believe, wholly around the availability of funds. There are, I am
sure, in the Government service men capable of developing and
maintaining such a museum with the same degree of efficiency that
may be attained anywhere outside of the Government service. The
protection of life and limb and the general education of the public,
while primarily State rather than Federal responsibilities, are like
many other fields greatly stimulated by the aid of Federal organiza­
tions. To establish and maintain a national safety museum properly
would, of course, require a large initial outlay and impressive annual
budgets, for a safety museum is valueless if it is allowed to become
merely a display room for mechanical guards; the exhibits at the
American Museum of Safety in New York are being continually
changed to present the latest model of each device. As pointed out
earlier in this paper, such a museum must function also as a research
and educational institution and these activities require probably
even greater outlays of money than the exhibits themselves.
Whether funds for tne establishment of such an institution are avail­
able and whether there is any assurance of their continuance from
year to vear are questions beyond the knowledge of the speaker.
Even if funds were available, however, would it not be better for the
Federal Government to aid the States in the establishment of such
institutions as New York State has in the American Museum of
Safety and New Jersey has in its Industrial Safety Museum.
You are perhaps already acquainted with the fact that there is
now in the process of organization a national museum of peaceful
arts for which a fund of more than $2,000,000 has been set aside by
Charles K. Towne. This work is progressing rapidly under the able
chairmanship of George F. Kunz, one of the vice presidents of the
American Museum of Safety, and it is hoped that when this museum
of peaceful arts is established the American Museum of Safety may
occupy one of its wings. A safety museum acting as a clearing
house or parent body could be of great help to the States and smaller
industrial communities in the establishment and maintenance of local
safety museums.
I might add, and I am sure this goes for the entire conference,
that if we do have a national safety museum under Government
auspices, it belongs in the Department o f Labor.
[Ethelbert Stewart, United States Commissioner of Labor Sta­
tistics, resumed the chair.]



[The following discussion o f Mr. Resnick’s paper by Charles P.
Tolman, consulting engineer of New York City, who was not present,
was read by Charles E. Baldwin:]
Mr. T o l m a n . Mr. Resnick’s paper favoring a national safety
museum at Washington under the auspices of the National Govern­
ment carries a great weight because of his long association with
safety work, both with the National Safety Council—that wellknown society made up of some 4,000 industrial members employ­
ing some millions o f men—and his later connection with the
American Museum o f Safety in New York. He is therefore speak­
ing with authority.
From what he has said, it is apparent that such a museum, suc­
cessfully to fulfill its purpose, would call for substantial initial and
continued expense.
It is essential for the success of such a museum that it be a “ live ”
thing. Industry is developing so rapidly that the modern thing
of to-day is a relic to-morrow, and unless accident-prevention meas­
ures keep apace with industrial development through live contact
therewith, the museum in a short space of years would be practi­
cally useless for the conservation of life and limb, and unable to
render economic service to the industries of the country. A live
bureau—such as we now have in the Department of Labor—would
not be helped in this important work by the adjunct of a 44dead”
museum. Whereas the aid of a “ live ” museum—which might better
be called “ institute ”—would be of invaluable assistance in render­
ing effective the present work of the bureau and expanding its field
of activity and usefulness.
The humanitarian side of the safety movement is generally dis­
cussed to the exclusion of the economic side. Without detracting
an iota from the humanitarian side, which has been characterized
as “ one of the greatest spiritual movements on foot in America
to-day,” I wish to emphasize in my discussion the cold-blooded dollars
and cents side, because if the desirability of the project from the
economic side can be demonstrated, the rest will go hand in hand.
Furthermore, any substantial business organization always has or can
find the financial means to invest in a legitimate and profitable en­
terprise. It has been frequently stated, and proved, that properly
constituted safety work in an industrial plant always pays a sub­
stantial return on the investment. I can give many cases where the
dollars-and-cents return on work undertaken from the safety stand­
point has paid larger profits than that obtained from equal invest­
ment in the regular departments of manufacture.
Time does not permit detailed discussion looking to proof of this
statement, so instead of attempting to recite a few instances out o f
the many, it may be best to examine into the basic principle, from
which it will be apparent that the statement must be true.
An accident in industry—meaning by that an injury to a worker—
shows that something has gone wrong. Repetitions of a particular
kind of accident shows that something is habitually wrong. Thus
far we are speaking only of the effect upon the worker. At the



same time the workmen are being injured the accident—that is, the
unusual effect, whatever it was—is in most cases interfering with
reduction* In practically every case the material part of the accient—that part which interferes with production—must occur a
great many times before it happens to occur under the particular
circumstance that finds a workman in the way to be injured. In
some cases a material accident may ocjcur several hundred times and
no one be injured, each time costing money entirely apart from any
question of physical injury to a workman. By correcting the condi­
tion and thereby safeguarding the worker from occasional injury,
we are at the same time stopping the material accident of many
times the frequency and saving the cost of this larger accident
experience. This is the basis upon which so-called safety work pays
its way and a profit.
Industry is a living thing and we may draw a comparison with the
human body. We are well aware that if it were not for the sensory
nervous system animal life would probably have disappeared from
or never developed on earth. Were it not for the pain of an
injury various lesions would be disregarded at the expense of life,
limb, or faculties. The human being—worker—in industry may
be properly regarded as the sensory nerve system of industry with
respect to injury and loss of efficiency in industry. The pam suf­
fered by the worker in an accident is the warning that something
is wrong. Intelligent investigation of the cause of the pain leads
to diagnosis of the trouble and cure both of the pain and the cause.
The keynote in the conservation of human life from the ravages
of disease to-day is preventive medicine. What the Surgeon Gen­
eral’s department does for the physical health of the country the
Department of Labor is accomplishing for the industrial life of
the country. The medical research institutions and laboratories
which supply the technical basis for public-health activities should
have a parallel in a safety museum or institute supplying a similar
basis in support and extension of the work of the Department of
Labor, looking toward the economic health of our industries as well
as the physical health of our industrial workers.
The C hairm an . The next speaker on the program is Charles H .
Weeks, deputy commissioner of New Jersey. New Jersey is the only
State, as far as I know, that maintains a museum as a State insti­
tution. I want to say that my idea of Washington has materially
changed in the last few years. People who go to New York go
there for a specific purpose, and, with all apologies^ to New York
representatives here, I think they get out o f there just as quickly
as they can. The people who come to Washington, as I have ob­
served for a number of years, may have some specific job to do,
which they can do and do quickly; then they want to see what
is here—they want to look around. They generally bring their
wives with them, and they want to go to Mount Vernon and to
stay here and see what they want to see. I have changed by mind
very much as to the advisability of Washington as the location for
a national museum. I just want to say that in regard to the location.
New Jersey has done tilings along the way of making the museum
a practical fact, and we will now hear from Mr. Weeks as to what
it has done.





It is indeed a privilege to have this opportunity of presenting to
this conference a paper on the New Jersey Industrial Museum of
Safety. We are proud of the fact that we have in New Jersey the
only real industrial safety museum of its kind in existence operated
by a State department of labor, but we feel that more of them
should be established, as they are worth while and provide excellent
safety educational material.
In establishing a safety museum, there are many important sub­
jects to be considered, such as the location of the museum, facilities
for properly placing exhibits, selection of the different types of
exhibits, the proper demonstration of the exhibits, keeping the ex­
hibits up to date, and making the museum a popular place to visit.
In selecting exhibits for a museum of safety nothing should be con­
sidered unless it can produce a real, sure-enough lesson for safety
education. Relics, freaks, and experimental devices should not be
considered in a live, up-to-date industrial exhibit. There are other
types of museums adopted for such displays and all efforts in con­
nection with an industrial museum should be confined to demon­
strating how accidents take place and how to prevent them. These
are the fundamental principles of a successful museum of safety.
Because health, accident, and fire prevention, as well as satis­
factory working conditions, are of interest to all the employees and
workers of the State of New Jersey, the department of labor is con­
ducting a clearing house of practical information on these subjects
by means of exhibits in the New Jersey State Industrial Safety
Museum Building, located at 571-575 Jersey Avenue, Jersey City,
four blocks from the Grove Street station of the Hudson-Manhattan
The museum is located in a four-story brick and steel building, in
which hundreds of safety exhibits are displayed which are of interest
to manufacturers, factory owners, workers, safety and welfare
organizations, and the general public. Lectures, moving pictures,
free consulting service, and demonstrations of the safety equipment
are also provided for in this museum.
The Department of Labor of New Jersey has established definite
industrial standards of safety for the protection of workmen from
fire, moving machinery, improper steam-power operating practices,
electrical apparatus, structural devices, poisonous trade substances,
industrial dust, noxious fumes, excessive heat, and bad sanitary con­
ditions in industry. The Industrial Museum of Safety is being used
to translate these standards into types of visual instruction through
the medium of practical first-class exhibits.
The museum contains practical exhibits on structural industrial
building requirements, standard fireproof windows, doors, and par­
titions, fire-escape construction as prescribed in the New Jersey fire
protection law, scaffolding, safety ladders, panic bolts, metal frames,
and wire glass.
An elevator fully equipped with all safety appliances, fire doors,
and interlocks is on exhibit. This elevator travels from two levels



a distance of 3 feet 6 inches, allowing a demonstration of the opera­
tion of the different safety appliances in connection with elevator
installations. The elevator is mclosed with specimens of different
types of safe elevator inclosures and the openings provided with
different types of approved fire doors. In addition to this elevator,
there are several other exhibits of elevator safety doors, fire doors,
and safety locks.
In an effort to be of maximum service as a safety engineering
division to industry, the department of labor undertook in the broad­
est possible manner to present, under actual working conditions,
those machines and processes responsible for the greater percentage
of industrial injury, loss of life, and the impairment of body func­
tions, in our museum building which so readily lends itself to the
visualization of a plan possessing practically all of the elements of
an institute for the broadcasting of educational matter dealing with
the manifold subjects under the heading of safety engineering.
In this State industrial museum of safety will be found informa­
tion on every standard affecting the industrial worker. I make
particular reference first to the mechanical division of our museum.
In this division will be found machines in the metal, wood, laundry,
paper, and rubber trades, each with effective standardized safeguards
tully eliminating belt, pulley, gear, and similar exposures, and what
are termed point-of-operation safeguards or controls designed to pre­
vent or reduce the possibility of the worker coming into or remain­
ing in the danger zone of operation.
My second reference is to the electrical division, under which head­
ing electric-power control equipment of the externally operated
safety type may be found in great profusion, each class of control
bearing mute evidence of the desirability of its use because of the
Also in this division,
problem of adequate
^ A *essure of present-day
_ __
industrial activity, altogether insufficient consideration is given to
the relationship of adequate lighting facilities to the big problem
“ production ” and it is most difficult for the average observer to
associate industrial accidents with poor lighting; nevertheless, we
find authority for the statement that there is some foundation for
assuming that 18 per cent of our industrial accidents are directly
or indirectly due to defects in lighting installations. On that basis,
according to the same authority, the services of approximately
108,000 men for one year are lost annually in the United States
because the illumination provided is not adequate for the safety of
the workmen. It has also been determined through research work
and the maintenance of statistical records that the advantages of
adequate lighting result in the following:
Eeduction of accidents.
Greater accuracy in workmanship.
Increased production for the same labor cost.
Less eyestrain.
Promote better working and living conditions*
Produce greater contentment to the workmen.
Promote order and neatness in the plant.
Supervision of the workers made easier.



Interesting examples of completely lighted areas which represent
factory conditions have been placed in service throughout the four
floors of our industrial museum building in order to convey to the
mind an actual picture of equipment and lighting intensity known
to produce the most practical results as affecting the many processes
which must of necessity be treated in our vast manufacturing field.
A very prominent section of our museum contains extensive ex­
hibits or steam boilers, refrigerating equipment, valves, steel mix­
ture, and other appliances to demonstrate practically the proper
method under the New Jersey law of construction and installation
of such equipment to be used m our State; also, material used in the
fabrication of steam boilers by manufacturers must conform chemi­
cally to our specifications in accordance with the New Jersey Stand­
ard Boiler Code, adopted by the New Jersey Board of Boiler Rules
and enforced by the Steam Boiler Inspection Bureau of New Jersey.
Refrigerating equipment is installed for constructional informa­
tion ana the application of the necessary safety appliances. Valves
and other auxiliaries are exhibited primarily to demonstrate the
proper design, thickness, and grade of material to be used in and
becoming part of the equipment of steam boilers. The purpose of
the exhibit is to demonstrate in a practical way to manufacturers
of steam boilers and other appliances, to proposed purchasers of
same, to engineers and inspectors, what they must do and with what
they must comply when installing equipment of this nature. In
other words, the exhibit eliminates any doubt, obviating the pos­
sibility of anyone pleading ignorance.
There is also on display in this industrial museum building ex­
haust systems showing how dust, foul air, and noxious fumes may
be eliminated. Full-sized exhaust equipment is on exhibition in
connection with chemical tanks, dipping tanks, grinding wheels,
polishing wheels, jewelry machinery, woodworking machinery,
laundry machinery, and lacquering booths.
Improved safety sanitary arrangements are shown, such as shower
and washing equipment for foundries, also washing and toilet equip­
ment for industrial plants.
Displays of approved industrial fire equipment, which includes
fire extinguishers, safety cans, chemical engines, fire buckets, and
safety waste cans, are also in the different parts of the building.
I might add that all machinery and exhaust grinding and polish­
ing wheel equipment are under power and can be at any time prac­
tically demonstrated.
In addition to the visual instruction that may be gained at the in­
dustrial museum, a lecture service is carried on that radiates an in­
fluence to every part of the State. Lectures are given in the museum
to factory representatives, safety committees, factory chiefs, schools,
and foremen’s committees.
It is apparent that in the rapid strides of modern safety engineer­
ing, much work of an educational character must be undertaken in
order to accomplish the most practical results, and therefore the
greatest degree of cooperation must of necessity exist between the
industries as a whole and the supervising body, the department of
labor, which is in effect the safety engineering division of each and
every industrial plant in our State.



The business of the New Jersey State Industrial Safety Museum
is under the direct supervision o f Andrew F. McBride, M. D., com­
missioner of labor. ’Hie approval of equipment is conducted oy the
bureau of structural inspection, bureau of hygiene and sanitation,
bureau of electrical and mechanical equipment, bureau of engineer’s
license and steam boiler inspection of the department of labor.
There are six committees, composed of manufacturers of the State
of New Jersey, which transact the general business of the museum—
known as executive committee, finance committee, industrial hygiene
committee, safety, public and industrial committee, fire prevention
committee, and exhibits committee. These committees work in co­
operation with the commissioner of labor and the different bureaus.
All equipment, after being approved by the department of labor,
is placed in the museum on consignment by the manufacturers. It
is estimated that there is about $175,000 worth of safety equipment
on display.
We consider the museum building at Jersey City a wonderful
institution for the following reasons: In the museum it is shown how
accidents can be prevented; the workmen’s compensation department
arranges for compensation for the injured; the rehabilitation divi­
sion provides, if possible, for the return of some of the earning capa­
city of the injured; the employment division secures a position for
the injured persons if they are not in condition to return to their
former occupation. This makes an entirely cooperative method of
preventing accidents and aiding the unfortunate should an accident
Before closing, I want to mention the rehabilitation clinic, in our
New Jersey Industrial Museum, especially the part devoted to the
Zander apparatus. Doctor McBride, commissioner of labor and
New Jersey director of rehabilitation, has had a functional appa­
ratus installed that has been pronounced the most complete in ex­
istence. Half of it is power driven, and when demonstrations are go­
ing on in the building we always desire to include this valuable part
of the clinic in our demonstration.
In closing, I want to say that the commissioner of labor extends a
cordial invitation to the representatives at this conference to visit
the Industrial Museum of Safety, 571-575 Jersey Avenue, Jersey
City, to view what has been outlined in this paper.
The C h airm an . I would like to ask for any discussion from the
floor on this subject; I would like to hear from anyone who wishes to
discuss this question of the morning.
Mr. K napp. Could Mr. Weeks give us some idea of what appropri­
ation is made to keep up that museum ?
Mr. W eeks. The State of New Jersey has, for the past several
years, appropriated $1,500 for the carrying on of the work in our
museum. That money is for clerical hire, transportation of exhibits,
framing exhibits, etc. All our live exhibits are placed there by
manufacturers free of charge, no expense at all for that; they are on
consignment,-with the privilege of removing the exhibit at any time.
The C hairm an. Is that amount simply for the clerical hire im­
mediately connected with the museum? You do not mean to say



that that covers the overhead, the amount of time that the various
divisions give to that—in other words, that is not the whole cost?
Mr. W eeks. No, there are different bureaus; in fact, the entire
department of labor cooperates with the museum, and the clerical
hire I spoke of is simply that of the clerk who answers the telephone,
replies to telegrams, etc.
The C h airm an . And you do not subdivide—for instance, you do
riot charge the time of other chiefs to that bureau?
Mr. W eeks. N o, that is not charged to the museum. Every mem­
ber of the department of labor is notified regularly to keep in touch
with anything new, or anything live, or anything that means some­
thing in regard to safety, and to report it to the different bureaus
along with their regular work.
The C h airm an . The research work is done by the different de­
partments, the department of health, etc. ?
M r. W eeks. Yes; that is an advantage we have, having the deartment of labor under a single head and all the different
ranches—compensation,, employment, and rehabilitation—under a
single head.
The C h airm an . I think that would be generally true of any Na­
tional or State department, that none of the bureaus stand on their
own feet; that is to say, you can not say what it costs to run any
particular thing, because there is not a division of pay roll. We try
to do it as best we can, but in the nature of things there can not be a
very close subdivision of cost.
Mr. R ademacher. I wonder if Mr. Weeks has any figures on the
approximate yearly attendance at the museum, and also if he can tell
us what means they take to develop the museum and get people
there to see the displays?
Mr. W eeks. The question was to find out how many people visited
the museum and how we advertised it?
Mr. R ademacher. What measures you used.
Mr. W eeks. We planned a general safety campaign in New Jersey
among all our manufacturers. We have organized safety commit­
tees, foremen’s clubs, etc., which meet at our industrial museum.
They appear there and the different devices, whatever would be of
interest to them, are demonstrated and they are shown how they
can prevent accidents; for instance, if they are the owners of brewery
plants, they inspect the brewery machinery equipment, etc., and the
same with the metals, the textiles, or any other type of industry.
Our factory inspectors continually advertise the museum and en­
deavor to have people visit it. We are having schools of young
people there, teaching them and explaining to them what safety and
safety devices mean, and showing them how accidents take place
on anv particular thing. Only the other day a man was killed on
a shaft, and we had that photographed. We show that in our mu­
seum, how the man was killed and how he need not have been killed
had the necessary safety equipment been provided. Last year’s
figures on the museum attendance I should nave brought with me,
and did not, but I can say that the museum is attended regularly by
a large number o f people.
The C h a i r m a n . Can you give us an estimate?




Mr. W eeks. I should say that in our museum, not considering
the summer months, we have probably about six or seven hundred
people a month.
Mr. K ingsbury. The statement was made here this morning that
only 25 per cent of the industries in this country were apparently
very much interested in preventive measures in connection with ac­
cidents. It seems rather an extraordinary statement, because in
these days almost every industry is interested in the prevention of
accidents. I say that from my contact with other manufacturers
and a pretty fair knowledge of the industry of the country. It has
been a question of intense interest. I would like to know whether
in New Jersey, where you have a museum of that kind, you have
any means 01 knowing how much additional interest you arouse
among the manufacturers of New Jersey, whether there is any
greater precaution taken in accident prevention than before you had
the institute? In other words, do you feel that you could give
figures actually showing a large dividend on your investment? You
must have to pay something for that building. From your descrip­
tion I could not tell whether it was a new or an old one, but at any
rate you had to fix it up for that purpose. I was wondering whether
you really knew whether New Jersey before that was taking a great
interest and whether the institution has created a still more intense
interest in accident prevention?
Mr. W eeks. A week ago we had a meeting in our industrial mu­
seum of the executive committee, at which there were about 22 rep­
resentatives of our largest industries. The commissioner put to each
individual member that very question. He wanted to know, wanted
to hear from him, if the museum was worth while and what good
it had done to his particular industry. That brought out the fact
that most of them were trying hard for a no-accident record in
their plants; and they were having their foremen, their master me­
chanics, and other people interested in safety work visit our mu­
seum to get a line on what was needed for further protection. They
all pronounced it an excellent help to them, and wanted to go fur­
ther and have other leading manufacturers have meetings there
in the museum—that is, appear before them at their meetings so
it could be thoroughly discussed in the same way it was before them
as members of the committee. In reference to the building you speak
of, we not only use that building for an industrial museum but we
also have therein a vocational court, a formal and informal compen­
sation courtroom, an employment office for males and females, a
compensation adjustment department, and the offices *of the depart­
ment of labor. Therefore we get our appropriation from the State
to carry that building through those different departments, using
part of the first floor and the entire top floor, which is very large—
half as biff as this room—for our general exhibiting purposes. Do
I answer mat question?
Mr. K ingsbury. Yes; but might I ask one other question? Did
you consider before you started this museum that New Jersey was
perhaps below the average in her interest in this question of indus­
trial accidents; was she rather lax? Did you feel that she was
so lax that a thing of this kind was necessary?



Mr. W e e k s . We did not feel that we were lax; we felt that the
entire country was that way, and that we all needed something of
that kind.
Mr. K i n g s b u r y . I wondered because I was very much surprised at
the statement that only 25 per cent of the industries in this coun­
try were interested in the prevention of accidents. My idea is that
a great many more are intensely interested, and so that percentage
seems very low to me.
The C h a i r m a n . Haven’t you put rather an exaggerated construc­
tion on what was said?
Mr. K i n g s b u r y . Possibly so; I would like to be corrected.
The C h a i r m a n . It was said that about 8 per cent of the manu­
facturers are members of an association. That does not mean that
the manufacturer who is not a member of an association is not in­
terested in accident-prevention work. The estimates I have re­
ceived—frankly, I think they are all estimates—are that anywhere
from 8, 10, and 12 per cent of the manufacturers, large and small,
are members of these associations that have for their specific work
the prevention of accidents. I do not think that you can deduce
from that, or that that means in any way that 88 or 90 or 92 per
cent of the manufacturers are not interested in accident prevention.
They are not members of these associations that are making par­
ticular drives, that is all.
Mr. K i n g s b u r y . I misunderstood you then; I understood your per­
centage in regard to membership, but I got the impression somewhere
that some one said 8 or 10 per cent and some one said 25 per cent.
Mr. B e s n i c k . I t h in k I c a n c le a r t h a t u p i f y o u w i l l g i v e m e p e r ­
m is s io n t o r e a d o n e p a r a g r a p h f r o m m y p a p e r .

There are, it is estimated, in the United States considerably more than 100,000 manufacturing and industrial plants, but not more than 5,000 or 6,000 of
them are members of either the National Safety Council or the American Mu­
seum of Safety; perhaps an equal number are members of local safety councils
giving serious attention to industiral accident prevention. While I do not
mean to imply that membership in a safety organzation is a guaranty that
good safety work is being done in a plant or that it is impossible to do good
safety work without being a member of a safety organization, I think this
audience will agree with me in the feeling that most of the industries giving
serious and permanent attention to organized accident prevention are mem­
bers of some safety organization.

The point I am making is this, that the cost of membership in
either the National Safety Council or the American Museum of
Safety is so insignificant and the service rendered so valuable in
comparison, that it is a pretty fair assumption that most of the or­
ganizations doing good safety work are members of either of those
two organizations, and while I know of a number of industrial cor­
porations that are doing good safety work that are not members of
those organizations or any local safety council, I would like to hear
from the audience whether I am right in the feeling that most of the
people doing good safety work are members of some organization.
I f tnat is so, less than 25 per cent are doing good safety work.
Mr. T h o m p s o n , Travelers Insurance Co. I would like to answer
your question a little, and perhaps supplement what Mr. Weeks said.
Naturally we do a good deal of business in New Jersey, and we find



that the museum in New Jersey has been a big help. We have occa­
sionally called upon it for speakers to go out to some of our risks and
give safety talks. It has been a help; it has helped to educate a good
many of the foremen in the plants that we insure. It is a going
proposition. A like proposition in any State will do good, and a big
proposition of some kina in Washington can not help but do good.
Answering your question a bit specifically as regards the interest
taken, Mr. Kingsbury, of course, we push this organized safety work
a good deal; we insure a good many oig plants, but I can not say at
this minute that, of the big plants that we insure, 75 per cent are inter­
ested in safety work; and when I say interested to that extent, I mean
interested to the extent of organizing safety work, not a guess and by
osh method, but really interested and carrying it on, backing it up
nancially, getting results, stopping accidents.
Mr. G r e e n . I have been located in Illinois for about two years.
I happened to be in New Jersey from six to eight years, with the
United States Government. While in the Government service I was
transferred from place to place and naturally got in touch with a
number of accidents, especially around South Amboy, N. J., and at
other places in the surrounding community, owing to numerous
explosive and ammunition plants located there. After leaving New
Jersey, I went with the Western Cartridge Co., East Alton, 111., the
concern I am now with. I believe what the gentleman on my right
wants to know is, How great was the interest in the State o f New
Jersey prior to the starting of the museum? I do not want to con­
demn any State, but I believe that the State of New Jersey is some­
what above the average when it comes to interest in safety. I do not
mean to say that the State of Illinois is not interested in safety,
because it is.
I am, however, located in a district where there are a number of
steel and other corporations, and from mv association with safety
engineers and others, I know that some or the concerns show great
lack in going about their safety work as they ought to. The concern
I am with decreased its accidents, from a severity standpoint, at
least 50 per cent in the last two years, which shows that safety work
pays in any plant. I believe that the State of New Jersey is snowing
greater interest than the average State, from experiences in making
investigations at different times when accidents occurred. In some
other plants it was just a happening and that was about all there
was to it. I believe that is one way that interest can be judged in
different States. Generally speaking, however, in my opinion it is
not the State or the manufacturer so much as the lack of efficiency
due to lack of proper type of men at the head of the safety depart­
ment. It seems, however, that the loss of life is considered greater
in some States than in others.
Mr. W a l t e r s , General Electric Co. Taking another view of the
research and museum work, we have developed at our electric light
plant what we styled in the beginning a human engineering depart­
ment. We have abandoned that name as not q*uite fitting the case
and at the present time are simply calling it a test. By the way,
this has been developed within the last three years by Dr. Johnson
O’Connor, a graduate of Harvard University, and a museum or
institute of the same kind is now being developed by him at the




West Philadelphia works. Any of you who go to the centennial
might find it of interest to stop in at the West Philadelphia works
and look it over. Especially, if you visit the West Lynn plant,
you will find it in a greater stage of development. The point that
we are driving at in this institute is testing the individual. Every
individual applying for work is given a test along vario'us lines,,
particularly as to dexterity and temperament. When I tell you that
with a pay roll of over 3,000 employees we have maintained since
that an accident rate of less than 1.5 to the hundred I think we
prove our point that we are making safe employees by taking these
people and assigning them to jobs. In other words, instead of
fitting the job to the man or the woman, we are fitting the woman
or the man to the job. We are -in hopes of seeing this work grow,
and I think any of you in this institute work who are interested
and will come to our Lynn plant will agree with me that it is one
of the forward movements oi safety work.
Mr. C r a w f o r d . I want to ask Mr. Weeks that question in a little
different way. Granting, for the sake of argimient, that all of your
employers in New Jersey are interested in accident-prevention work,
do you not find that your safety museum and your safety organiza­
tion crystallize and intensify their sentiments and provide a standard
method throughout the State of taking care of those things and
teaching accident prevention where before such work just ran along,
every fellow for himself.
Mr. W e e k s . Why, certainly, that is one of the principal reasons
that we thought the museum worth while. I f we order a certain safe­
guard to be installed at a plant, we can simply go to the plant and
order it done, but in this way it shows not only the individual but
the manufacturer what we want; it shows what our specification calls
for, what the law calls for; it places before them a sample of what
we expect in that particular plant.
Mr. V a n B r u n t . I think Mr. Resnick’s estimate is decidedly below
the facts and that the percentage who are members of the various
safety organizations is much higher than that he mentioned. In
regard to our State, New Jersey, there is no question that that
particular museum has, as Mr. Weeks said, crystallized the efforts
of everybody in the State. Mr. Resnick forgets, possibly, that there
are other organizations than those he mentioned. I think he forgot
our New Jersey State Museum. He did mention the National Safety
Council. He very possibly forgot that there were local safety
councils organized. We have three in the State of New Jersey that
are functioning, and functioning right. We also have something
that makes for safety in the home and carries it from that into the
factory—the safety patrols in the schools. In 63 of the municipali­
ties in New Jersey every school has a safety patrol. In addition
to that a large amount of work is being done among the general
public by various corporations in New Jersey.
Mr. R e s n i c k . I did specifically mention local safety councils and
assumed that the local safety councils doing industrial safety work
have as many members as the National Safety Council and the
American Museum of Safety, but even including these we will find
that less than 25 per cent are members of safety organizations.



Mr. W i l l i a m s . I want to make an observation on the estimate of
the small number of manufacturers presumed to be interested in
safety work. Practically every State, certainly every industrial
State except one or two in the United States, has workmen’s compen­
sation laws, and every manufacturer of importance is paying indus­
trial compensation insurance premiums, and to say that because he
does not belong to a particular organization he is not interested in
safety work is to indict his economic sense.
Mr. L a n s b u r g h . While we are considering the establishment of a
museum of safety, I think it would be very unfortunate if we
should limit our consideration to safeguards and safety devices. I
think that the word “ institute,” which was recommended in one of the
papers this morning, would represent what a national safety museum
should be, rather than the word “ museum.” Most of the discussion
this morning has referred to the guarding of machinery and to
safeguards of one kind and another. It is of course known to most
of the representatives here that the safeguarding of machinery has
gotten to be a very small item in the safety program of our industries
and of our industrial States, and just to bring that to your atten­
tion, I am going to quote to you a few figures on the causes of
accidents in the great industrial State of Pennsylvania during the
year 1925. The major cause of accidents was handling objects,
34,000. The second cause of accidents was cars and engines, 20,000.
Now these accidents due to cars and engines might seem to be due
to machinery, but they are not. Most of them are due to men slip­
ping and falling under cars and engines and are accidents which,
in the main, can not be handled by any kind of guarding, but rather
come under the category of safety education. The third cause of
accidents is falls of persons, 17,000. Of course, some of those falls
are due to the lack of a safeguard, such as a guard rail of some
kind or other on a scaffold. The fourth cause of accidents is moving
machinery, which is the matter we have spent most of the time
speaking about this morning, the number of accidents from that cause
being a few hundreds less than falls of persons. The next cause is
the use of hand tools, 16,000. We should never forget that included
in our huge total of industrial accidents, which after all mean
compensable accidents—accidents while on the job—are the new
hazards which can be reached only through safety education of the
community at large, such as the hazard due to the growth of motor
vehicles. Thus we find that in Pennsylvania last year 8,000 so-called
industrial accidents, or half of the accidents which were due to
moving machinery, were due to motor vehicles. So, when we are
talking about a safety museum or institute, if such finally be
brought to consummation, as I hope it will be; should it not take as
one of its primary duties the job of acquainting the United States
with the steps now being taken by our leading industrial corpora­
tions and by our leading States—with the education not only of the
worker but of the whole community in the State, which constitutes
safety? It seems to me that that is an extremely important part of
our duty and should be a part of the exhibit of any safety museum
or safety institute.
(Meeting adjourned.)


Secretary D avis. I wish to introduce the chairman of the after­
noon session, James A. Hamilton.
The C h airm an . In the call for this conference by Secretary Davis
it was noted that “there is no adequate system of industrial accident
reporting in the United States” and that in this conference “the co­
operation of all of the States and all other accident reporting organi­
zations will be sought, to the end that attention may be called” to
problems of accident prevention. The conference is entitled an
“industrial accident prevention conference” and the general subject
for it is given as “Value of statistics for accident prevention.”
There seem to be two points of emphasis in this. One is that the
conference is to interest itself particularly in the subject of proper
and adequate accident statistics as a necessary aid to effective accident-prevention work; the other that cooperation of State and
Federal Governments is needed to provide that aid. In each of
those ideas, as well as in their combination, on this occasion, it is
possible to see signs that must be regarded as auspicious for the
safety, movement, particularly, for the movement as governmental
agencies are concerned in it.
Industrial accident prevention as a government function is no
new thing in this country. State legislation on the subject goes
back more than 40 years. The State governments were the first
safety promoters. Their functions in this field have undergone a
notable development in the generation or more since they began.
This development has been quite similar in different States. Two
stages in such development may be clearly distinguished. The
earlier was marked by safety regulations of a general character em­
bodied in statute law; the later is notable for the development of
administrative rules having the force of law, supplemental to statu­
tory requirements and designed to make the latter more effective by
more detailed regulations fitted more exactly to particular hazards
or conditions. This development has been clearly in the direction not
only of more complete and thorough control of conditions but of
more technically practical regulation.
In other words, this development from more general statutory
regulation to more particular regulation by industrial code rules
represents an advance to more scientific methods in State industrial
accident prevention, and, if more scientific in the true sense of that
word, then more intelligent and effective.
What now is the next general development needed in connection
with safety work to carry it forward to greater effectiveness? What
is it other than better knowledge of what we have accomplished, what
we still have to do, and where we need to do it, in order to make sure
that our efforts are being applied where the need is greatest and
when applied are producing results? In other words, as our gov24



emmental regulations for safety become more numerous and com­
plex, we more and more need the guidance of accurate knowledge
both of what we are dealing with, namely, the different accident
hazards in different industries and occupations, and of what results
we are achieving, namely, whether and how much accident hazards
are being reduced. Put in a word, we now need to advance another
step in scientific method and have more accurate analyses of o*ur prob­
lem and our results. Not only is that scientific, but it is good busi­
ness method also, and at the same time it is the surest road to what
is paramount to all other considerations, namely, largest results in
the conservation o f human life and limb.
The only means of acquiring this modem kind of aid to our accident-prevention work is, of course, adequate statistics of accidents.
It is therefore most appropriate that this conference should make
that the prominent subject in its program. It is bringing to the fore
the present needed and logical next step in the development of gov­
ernment industrial accident prevention. Not that State safety work
can not go on without it, but it can undoubtedly go forward far more
surely, more effectively, and more speedily with that aid.
The second auspicious feature of this accident-prevention conference
is the cooperative idea that evidently dominates it. The State govern­
ments particularly, as well as private interests, are asked to sit down
with the Federal Government and take account of ways and means to
coordinate efforts to make safety work more fruitful. Two points in
that connection strike* one on a little reflection. One is that here at
least is a matter on which the tender question of conflict of Federal
and State jurisdiction has no occasion to even be suggested. The
cause to be furthered is so certainly one on which there can not be
two opinions and in which as a matter of fact Federal and State
functions are so clearly differentiated and understood that no jeal­
ousy of function or prerogative can interfere with getting together
on whatever features of accident-prevention work can be shown to
require, or to be better furthered by, cooperative arrangements.
The other point as to this cooperative idea is that it too, like the
scientific element, is in line with the more recent developments in
State safety work. One of the significant features about industrial
code rules is the cooperative method by which they are formulated.
The process of such formulation is practically standardized on the
principle of cooperative study, conference, and agreement of the
parties concerned, namely, employers, employees, safety engineers,
and public authorities. They embody the idea of cooperative effort
to prevent industrial accidents. Here again, therefore, this con­
ference is soundly in line with the later developments in State
safety work.
I f one not concerned in its inception may venture to characterize
this conference from the point of view of a State official deeply in­
terested in every move promising better things for industrial acci­
dent prevention, I see in it an effort that is in line with the develop­
ment of scientific and cooperative method by which State safety
work has advanced, and which accordingly offers hope of helpful aid
to greater progress in that all-important work.
6819° — 26— 3



On the general topic of accident statistics or accident prevention
the State of New York is happy indeed to contribute to this con­
ference. We in our State are gratified to have had one in charge of
our labor department for almost 20 years who has rendered faithful,
valuable, and scientifically accurate service, and for that reason we
have brought along to-day from the Empire State Leonard W.
Hatch, chief of our bureau of statistics, who will discuss the prob­
lem of national accident statistics.

Ten years ago the then United States Commissioner of Labor
Statistics stated in a public address, “ Industrial accident statistics
for the United States do not exist.” 1 Early in this decade a com­
plete and very thoroughly considered plan for standard accident
statistics in the different States designed to afford national statistics
by combination of uniform State figures was completed. And yet
the present commissioner, if called upon to state the situation to-day,
would have to say about the same thing as was said 10 years ago.
Evidently, there is “ a problem” in this matter. Both its importance
and its difficulties are recognized by the fact that the program of
this conference is devoted mainly to that subject.
What is the matter^ Do we not want national accident statistics?
I f we do, do we know how to get them ? Again, if we want them and
know how to get them, what is preventing our getting them? And
finally, assuming we are going after them, what is the next thing to
be done? I take it that a little frank discussion of these practical
questions is what is desired under the subject which has been assigned
to me.

This question should not detain us long. Accident statistics are
the necessary means of guiding and measuring progress in accident
prevention. That is not their only service, but it is a chief one and
the one under particular consideration in this conference. So few in­
dustries are confined, even in major part, to any one State that
national statistics are necessary for the guidance of individual in­
dustries or for comparison of one industry with another. Again,
national statistics are necessary to enable the individual States to
compare experience in the industries within their borders with that
in other States and to afford comparisons of one State’s experience
as a whole with that of other States. Comprehensively stated as a
matter of sound method, Doctor Chaney has put it “ that for setting
up reliable standards of performances national accident rates are
necessary.” “ Such standards,” he points out, “ to be satisfactory,
must be derived from a sufficiently wide experience that they may be
trusted not to be unduly influenced by local and temporary condi­
tions. The concerns of a single jurisdiction, even if it be one of the
larger industrial States, do not afford a sufficient coverage to permit
1U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bui. No. 210, p. 91.



their being used as a general standard.” 2 Put in a word as nearly as
may be perhaps, we need national base lines in our accident statistics
for comprehensive comparisons of experience.

It is the problem with reference to Government accident statistics
that we have for consideration here. Obviously, national statistics
will have to be provided by the Federal Government. The United
States Bureau ox Labor Statistics can secure the necessary material
in one or two ways—either directly from individual employers in
the various States or through the appropriate departments of State
governments which require from employers the same sort of informa­
tion. Two reasons seem sufficient to direct choice between these two
to the latter, if not actually to compel that choice. On the one hand,
to go directly to employers for industries generally would seem to
involve such an amount of work and expense for one agency for the
whole country as to make it impracticable. It is true the United
States Bureau’s figures for the iron and steel industry, the best acci­
dent statistics in me country so far, are so secured. But exceptional
concentration of employees in great plants make this method far
more feasible in that industry than would be true for others where
much greater numbers of firms would have to be covered to secure
adequately representative figures. On the other hand, and more
fundamentally, the States themselves must have the same sort of
material, and tor the Federal Government also to secure it directly
from employers, simply means duplicate reporting by employers, a
thing which should not be imposed unless absolutely necessary, which
it can not be said to be. The States can not, of course, step aside
and depend on the Federal Government for what they need. Their
exclusive function as administrators of labor laws, formulators and
enforcers of safety code rules, and administrators of workmen’s com­
pensation laws, puts their need of accident records and reports fore­
most. No other conclusion seems possible than that the necessary
route for the required material is from the employers to State depart­
ments and then to the United States department.
Allusion was made above to a plan for standard accident statistics.
That plan was for Government statistics. It was developed by the
committee on statistics of the International Association of Indus­
trial Accident Boards and Commissions. It was worked out over
a period of five years, from 1914 to 1919, after numerous confer­
ences and careful study by statisticians representing both the State
and Federal Governments. Standard definitions of terms; standard
classifications for industries, causes, nature of injury, and extent of
disability; standard methods of measuring exposure and computing
frequency and severity rates; and standard table forms for present­
ing the figures, were all worked out, the whole plan being finally set
forth in rail in Bulletin No. 276 of tne United States Bureau o f Labor
Statistics. Incidentally, it may be noted that, in addition to being
indorsed by the International Association or Industrial Accident
Boards and Commissions, the plan has received, in whole or in part,
also the tacit indorsement of private organizations interested in
*U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bui. No. 406, p. 118.



accident statistics by being followed by them in their own com­
It can not be said that the whole purpose of this plan was to make
national figures possible. It had and has two purposes: First, to
guide individual States in the preparation of what is believed to be
generally the best kind of statistics for their own use, and second, to
lay the foundation for national figures by combination of State
figures. Here, however, the point to be emphasized is that this sec­
ond purpose was always prominently in mind as one aim of the plan
and, what is more to the point here, the plan if carried out in the
various States would have afforded, bv very simple combination of
State figures,, national figures of the fullest scope. This plan then
is a complete answer in the affirmative, so far as technical process
is concerned, to the question of whether we know how to get national
figures. We have all the plans and specifications for full national
figures and have had for several years.

Apparently then, we need national figures, and we know full well
how to get them. Still we do not have them. What then is the mat­
ter ? That seems the next question to answer in this diagnosis of the
It is already implied in what has been said that the failure of the
standard plan to produce national figures must run bacE to lack of
development of the foundation for such figures in the figures o f
the individual States. In other words, the actual application of the
plan in individual States has not yet gone far enough to produce
combinable uniform figures. The question becomes, then, What has
held back development of standard accident statistics in the States?
At this point it should be said that the lack of development of
accident statistics along the lines of the standard plan sufficient to
afford national figures is not to be interpreted as spelling complete
failure of that plan in the States. It has been useful and influential
here and there along the lines of its first purpose (above pointed
out) of aiding in the improvement of State figures in more or less
conformity with the plan. But any general uniformity, necessary
for anything like national figures (the plan’s second purpose), is
still woefully lacking.
Returning to the question of why development in the several
States has been so backward in this matter, let us for a moment turn
from the national point of view to that of an individual State de­
partment dealing with its own problem of accident statistics. It is
worth while to point out, in the first place, that it can not be ex­
pected that national accident statistics shall take first place in
importance with such a State department as compared with its own
State accident statistics. It must not be forgotten that the State
department in most cases is itself doing the very work which ac­
cident statistics, State or national, are designed to aid. As itself
engaged in accident prevention and compensation administration
each State will inevitably rate as of first importance statistics to
throw light on its own experience as a guide for its own safety or
compensation administration or legislation. Statistics in scope and

p r o b le m

o f .n a t io n a l a c c id e n t s t a t is t ic s


form dictated by its particular provisions of law or peculiarities of
administrative procedure are the very natural result.
In the second place, it is to some extent true that State needs may
to a considerable extent be pretty well met, possibly even in some
points better met and may be more easily met by statistics varying
from those of other States by reason of peculiarities in their own
laws or procedure than by statistics modified therefrom so as to pro­
duce interstate uniformity.
The above two points are not brought out to justify lack of State
uniformity in this matter, but only to indicate that State inertia
toward interstate uniformity is not unnatural from the purely State
oint of view. They suggest, too, that such national uniformity will
are to be “ sold ” to the States on the score of benefits to be derived
by the States themselves.
To other points, of a more practical sort, need to be noted to un­
derstand the State situation. One of these is that accident statistics
are not the only statistical material which the State departments
have to compile to meet their own needs or the demands of their
public. The other is that the State departments are anything but
free to expend on statistical work the money that they might desire
to or that they know would be well worth while for the best in­
terests of the public. Appropriations for statistical work are no­
toriously difficult to secure from legislatures. Limitations of
resources are a prosaic but very real difficulty which the States have
to contend with in regard to accident statistics as well as other
statistics (not to mention other matters).
These four considerations pretty well explain what has held back
the development of State accident statistics along standard and uni­
form lines. What it all comes to is that the several States are so
preoccupied with their own immediate needs, in the face of limited
means to cover them, that modification of their statistical work or
additions to it with a view to national statistics make a secondary
appeal or do not seem within the capacity of their resources.



What does the foregoing diagnosis of the existing situation sug­
gest as the most practical thing to do next? Evidently, the problem
is in general one of education. The State departments, or the State
authorities back of them which control their policies and funds,
have to be shown the value of proper accident statistics of their
own and the greater value of such statistics when developed so that
not only State-wide, but also nation-wide, comparisons can be made.
Much teaching along this line has been done in the last few years
through the reports of the committee above referred to and public
addresses or articles by those who understand and are interested in
the matter, and particularly by representatives of the United States
Bureau of Labor Statistics in negotiations with individual State de­
partments. Evidently, however, more impressive propaganda is
required, and if I am not mistaken in my interpretation of the pur­
pose of this conference, one of its chief aims is to serve that very
purpose. At any rate, one of the useful things it can do is to give
a fresh and more powerful impetus to the development of proper
State and national accident statistics.



Obviously, the more specific and pointed the pressure this con­
ference can exert the better. Now, it so happens that one particular
kind of accident statistics is the one which the States almost totally
lack, and which they most ought to have, and which also is most
needed in national figures. This is accident rates per unit of em­
ployment or exposure, by industries. I shall not pause to point out
the need of accident statistics in this form. This is simply the only
form in which accident figures will really tell us where we are, how
far we have come, and how far we have to go in safety work, whether
it be viewed in a plant, an industry, a city, a State, or the Nation.
Not only is this the kind of accident statistics which we most lack,
but, unfortunately, it is what is hardest for a State department to
get. That is because, while under compensation laws records of
accident occurrence come to a State department as a necessary inci­
dent of compensation administration, the figures for employment
do not so come in and have to be specially collected, and if at all
comprehensive in a State of any size industrially such collection is
a considerable undertaking. But the need of accident rates make
such collection imperative, nevertheless. I f it can not be under­
taken on a scale to cover all establishments, then as a beginning it
should be done for groups of representative firms. In some States
such employment returns for representative firms are collected and
published for information about employment conditions. In these
it would be a natural starting point for accident rates to coordinate
the accident aqd employment figures for such already established
representative lists.
As a matter of fact, the foregoing, arrived at by analysis of the
fundamentals of the matter, brings us precisely to the point at which
we make contact with what the United States Bureau of Labor Sta­
tistics has already under way as a beginning of national accident
statistics. For some time there has been in operation a cooperative
arrangement between that bureau and a number of the State depart­
ments for the collection of uniform reports of employment from
representative lists of firms in manufacturing. Under this arrange­
ment, where the State and the Federal Government cover the same
firms, the State collects the reports and supplies the Federal bureau
with copies, a plan which is economical for all concerned and which
serves the purposes of both State and national statistics of employ­
ment. In this is the foundation for accident rates for representative
firms, above noted as what at least should be utilized as a start
toward proper accident-rate statistics. Commissioner Stewart has
already Begun building some national figures of this scope by secur­
ing from some of the States the corresponding records of accidents
for selected lists of these firms for whicn employment reporting was
previously established. Obviously, this is going at the problem in
a practical way at the most logical and most feasible point. To what­
ever extent it may be fruitful, it will be, of course, only a partial and
incomplete solution of the problem of accident rates, either State or
national, but it will require only expansion of the reporting of em­
ployment and compiling o f the accident records for larger and larger
lists of firms to make it grow toward the ultimate goal of complete
accident rates for all firms.
For purposes of discussion, therefore, if for nothing more2 1 am
going to venture a recommendation that this conference specifically



and emphatically indorse and urge the cooperation of the State de­
partments with the United States department in the development of
both State and national accident rates along this line. It will, as a
matter of fact, further two sorts of statistics relating to labor which
are established as standard, namely, employment statistics and acci­
dent statistics. Such indorsement will be of service to the States as
well as to the Nation.
Before I close, permit me to say just a word as to the situation in
New York State on this matter. I am happy to say that while the
work required to accomplish it, with New York records and manner
of compensation procedure what they are and with the size of the
field to be covered, has heretofore delayed New York’s falling in line
to furnish the accident records for representative firms such as Com­
missioner Stewart calls for (although the employment returns have
been furnished for a number of years^, this year a beginning on the
former has been made. The accident figures for a limited list of New
York firms requested by the United States bureau have just been
furnished for 1924 and will soon be furnished for 1925, and are
planned for annually hereafter.
But this by no means gives the whole story of where New York
stands on this matter of accident rates. The present Industrial Com­
missioner of New York, who is your presiding officer to-day, during
the past winter undertook to give the whole matter its proper place
and authoritative backing by advocating an amendment of the law
relating to employers’ accident records and reports so as to require
not only record and report of accidents, but record and report o f em­
ployment by all employers subject to the compensation law. A bill
for this purpose was drafted and received the unanimous indorsement
of the State industrial council, a body representing employers and
employees which is advisory to the industrial commissioner. The bill
was introduced in the legislature and was pressed for passage by the
industrial commissioner, but although not apparently opposed was
left over, along with most other bills relating to labor laws at that
session, for consideration by a special legislative commission on labor
legislation which is to report next year. Notwithstanding the post­
ponement of action on this bill, it is notable as marking the first
attempt, so far as I am aware, to put accident rates where they
belong in the public information about industrial accidents which
every State should have. As one of the memoranda supporting the
measure, which was filed with the legislature by Commissioner Hamil­
ton, put it, it proposed “ to remedy the present defects in public
accident statistics in a comprehensive and constructive way by the
only method, and through the proper agency, to provide what is now
lacKing and what there is a wide public demand for.”
In closing I am going to suggest for consideration of this confer­
ence whether, if sound accident statistics are as important as we
believe, and if national accident rates must be built on State data, it
might not well recommend to the States that the New York course
should be followed generally and that a foundation of specific legis­
lative authority should be secured for the building up of such acci­
dent statistics as will furnish the best aid to prevention of accidents,
as well as to the solution of other problems connected with industrial



The C h airm an . The discussion on Doctor Hatch’s paper will be led
by Col. John P. Jackson, of the New York Edison Co., and former
commissioner of labor of the State of Pennsylvania.
Col. J o h n P r ic e J a c k s o n . I received on Saturday a note from
Commissioner Stewart stating that I was to open the discussion on
Mr. Hatch’s valuable and informative paper. I must speak extemporarily since there has not been as much available time as I
should have liked to prepare a written discussion. I have some
thoughts, however, on Mr. Hatch’s subject, which I believe may
prove of value.
Before taking up my subject I wish to say that it is a privilege to
have the opportunity of expressing appreciation to Secretary Davis
and Commissioner Stewart for having arranged this important
meeting. Their action is opportune and was impelled by conditions
in this country, which, in their awfulness, as the Secretary pointed
out, are akin to those of war. It has been estimated by high au­
thority that 70,000 accidental fatalities occurred last year m the
United States—of men, women, and children—including those
caused by industry. There were even a greater number of casualties
in the form of serious permanent mutilations, and millions received
slighter injuries. These figures are terrible enough to be startling—
those that the Secretary gave for industry alone are sufficient to
stir us.
But it must be borne in mind that this work of human destruc­
tion goes on continuously; therefore, the suffering in one year of
orphans and widows, of those who are blinded, of the occupants
of wheel chairs, of the wearers of crutches, and of the families
torn and rent through the scourge of accidents, forms no adequate
picture of the human destruction. To gain a truer picture or the
situation, consider a period of, say, 10 years; gather together the
widows and orphans and the mutilated who have been created
through accidents during these 10 years and who are now living
quietly and unheralded among us, and they will number enough
to make a great city, a city equal to the population of Washington
and Baltimore combined, with a good many left over. I emphasize
the cumulative nature of the ill effects of accidents, because it has
been indelibly impressed upon me. I was once asked to go to a
meeting of a single craft in a small city, and when I got there,
there were in the room about as many cripples, blind, and others
permanently and seriously injured as there are persons in this meet­
ing here to-day. I was astounded. Finally, the meeting was called
to order, and the chairman said, “ that we got these people together,
commissioner, for the purpose of teaching you a lesson.” I learned
the lesson! Those cripples were accident derelicts from that one
craft in that one small city. Some of them had been injured as
long as 25 years ago. This cumulative phase of the accident situ­
ation is worthy of continuous emphasis.
There is plenty of reason, both because of the annual toll of
accidents and their cumulative effect, just mentioned, for this con­
ference, and it is to be hoped that it may be considered as a strong,
new, national attack in the campaign to wipe out our preventable



accidents and put us at least on a level with Europe. When it is
considered that the cost of industrial accidents to the country is,
according to Secretary Davis, over a billion dollars annually, and
that this must be doubled or trebled if public accidents and all
auxiliary costs are taken into account, economy as well as humanity
warrant our getting together, as we are to-day, to revivify our
accident campaign.
I am here this afternoon, however, primarily to discuss Mr.
Hatch’s paper. Mr. Hatch has made a sound ana accurate analysis
of the situation with regard to accident statistics, for which we are
all indebted. His statement is timely, since accurate accident sta­
tistics are as important to the success or accident-prevention work as
is the intelligent keeping of books to successful promotion o f a
business. America seemingly has not vet appreciated this fact, in
spite of the activity of the National Safety Council, the Department
of Labor, and a host o f other organizations and individuals.
Mr. Hatch is entirely right in quoting the United States Secretary
of Labor, who said, “ Industrial-accident statistics for the United
States do not exist.” This was said several years ago, but it is still
accurate. Four years ago Dr. Lucian Chaney made this exceedingly
clear when, in 1922, he wrote his memorable pamphlet for the Depart­
ment o f Labor on the Statistics of Industrial Accidents in the United
States. This fundamental bulletin is a resume of the accidents of
the Nation, and it was compiled largely from information received
from the States. In his principal table the author was compelled
to insert notes to indicate tne condition o f the data obtained from the
various States. I have a list of them in my hand to indicate the
difficulties of the author in trying to build up a good national sta­
tistical table. He had to add a special column to his table to explain
the scope of the data from each State? but even that was not suf­
ficient and resort was necessary to copious footnotes. This column
and the footnotes include such statements as “ Estimated fatal
accidents, the number o f which was not reported,” “ Covers 10
months only?” “ Records destroyed by fire,” etc. The explanatory
matter also indicates a wide variety in the character of accidents
reported, running all the way from States keeping records of only
such accidents as are compensable to States having full information
on all accidents from which a day or more is lost. This pamphlet
is in itself sufficient proof that there are no national accident statis­
tics; that is no discredit to the Department of Labor, because it did
its best, and Doctor Chaney’s pamphlet is of much value.
The situation in the several States, as may be inferred from the
statements just made, is also as a whole quite unsatisfactory. When
I took the official position spoken of by the chairman in 1913
(Pennsylvania commissioner of labor and industry), I found avail­
able in my State no satisfactory compilations covering accident
statistics and nothing which was applicable to any suitable degree
in other States. The need of information of tms character was
promptly felt for carrying on our accident prevention work, and
when the workmen’s compensation law was passed data o f this kind
became imperative. We, therefore, devised and set up our own
system. We were compelled to do this largely without precedent
as.we were pioneers. The fact that I have seen the resultant Penn­



sylvania accident statistics for the years immediately preceding the
World War more quoted than those of other States would indicate
shortage elsewhere. The comments and notes in the bulletin of the
Bureau of Labor statistics, to which reference was made, show that
as late as 1922 only a few other States had begun to make reasonably
satisfactory records. Although to-day there are quite a number
which keep excellent statistics, the majority are still without adequate
records for their guidance in accident prevention. Even those
States which have records which are quite satisfactory for their own
purposes differ in their methods so much among themselves as to
make adequate interstate comparisons difficult or impossible.
In industry much the same unsatisfactory situation exists. Many
of op* industries, in fact a majority excepting railroads, mines, and
the iron and steel industries, do not have proper statistics for com­
parison of one establishment with another even in the same industry.
I am very happy to have been able to promote the passage of a
resolution by the safety committee of the association of one of our
largest and most carefully run industries under which it will take
up the problem of accident statistics. I hope that every industry
in this country that has not already done so will shortly take similar
steps. Within a recent period I studied the direct effect of accurate
and intelligent accident statistics in a single industry. After the
statistical information began to be distributed accidents began to
decrease. Scores of similar instances doubtlessly could be pointed
to by many men in this audience from their own experience.
Mr. Hatch states that there should be more uniform laws with
regard to State accident reports, and that an active educational cam­
paign should be carried on to this end. As may be inferred from
previous remarks, I fully agree with him in this. He suggests that
this can largely be accomplished by activity on the part o f National
and State officials. I believe he is right in part in this, but he does
not sufficiently emphasize the importance of the influence that might
also be obtained from the great industrial associations. These great
associations more closely touch the people in their work and can thus
more readily create the right public sentiment than is possible
through governmental agencies, and without the proper public
interest and sentiment it will be difficult to unify laws relating to
accidents for the various States, and to enforce them. This has been
quite clearly demonstrated in the attempt to enforce recently created
sumptuary laws in this country.
Would it not be well, then, to push the educational work from both
ends? The official and the nonofficial machinery is at hand. The
American Engineering Standards Committee contains representation
from a wide range o f industries. Labor sits upon it, and there are
representatives within its membership from both the National and
State Governments. It has already done a great and generally ap­
proved work in creating safety and other standards. Why not ask
this truly representative American body to approve, with modifica­
tions if need be, the statistical safety standards forms of report,
forms of tabulation, and forms of analysis as they have already oeen
prepared by the International Association of Accident Boards and
Commissions referred to by Mr. Hatch? By so doing, industry will
be strongly influenced to adopt these standards voluntarily. Under



such conditions they are borne, not only from the Government but
from industry itself, and if the State laws do not conform therewith,
the potent influence of all elements affected will demand changes.
Following up my argument, I would recommend that the com­
mittee on resolutions, in addition to passing resolutions such as Mr.
Hatch has proposed, carefully consider reporting a resolution which
calls upon the American Engineering Standards Committee to as­
sume leadership in the project of standardizing and unifying acci­
dent, statistical practice for industry, the public, the States, and the
Nation; and that this be done in connection with the National Safety
Council, the International Association of Accident Boards and Com­
missions, and the other appropriate allied bodies, both labor and
management including the engineering societies, which are associated
therewith. With such powerful and, broad backing we should rap­
idly approach the point where it would be impossible for a Secretary
in the President’s cabinet to say truthfully that industrial accident
statistics in the United States do not exist, and where people of the
United States will have available data which is imperatively needed
for accident prevention. I can see no other plan which will do so
much to aid us as a Nation to rectify existing inhuman and inde­
fensible conditions.
The C hairm an . Mr. Hatch’s paper is open for further discussion.
Is there anyone now who desires the floor!
Mr. H a l l . As a matter of information, I will say, as a repre­
sentative of the Association of Governmental Labor Officials of the
United States and Canada, that at our convention in Columbus last
month we adopted a report submitted by a committee which recom­
mends that as a basis all the States try to have uniform statistical
data submitted.
The C h airm an . Is there any further discussion or any other re­
marks on Doctor Hatch’s paper? I f not, the next subject for dis­
cussion this afternoon is “ The statistical factor in the accident ex­
perience o f the iron and steel industry,” by Dr. L. W. Chaney,
of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In 1906 the head of the legal department of the United States
Steel Corporation called a conference of the casualty managers of
the subsidiary companies, (hie purpose of the conference was to
consider the statistics of accident occurrence. From that day to
this the corporation has assembled and published statistical data
concerning accidents, some details of which will be discussed a little
What it is now desired to emphasize is that the whole accidentprevention program of the steel corporation, which has succeeded so
remarkably in maintaining a steadily declining accident rate, began
with statistics, has continued with statistics, Mid is now dependent
upon statistics.



There was very sound reason for calling that conference of cas­
ualty managers. The statistics disclosed that since the formation
of the corporation accident conditions had gone from bad to worse,
reaching a climax in 1906. They further disclosed that plants doing
apparently the same sort of work were astonishingly variable in
the matter of accidents. The year 1906 was probably the most seri­
ous period in the history of the business. A large plant of one of
the corporation subsidiaries, which now regards a single death as
a matter of most serious concern and which rarely has more than 5
fatal cases annually, had in 1906 a total of 40 cases. Not long before
this time an article had appeared in a popular magazine ‘under the
title “ Making steel and killing men,” which set forth in a very
emphatic manner the high mortality of the steel industry.
It is worth while to consider for a moment the causes which tended
to give this bad preeminence to this year of 1906: (1) It was a. year
of unexampled industrial activity; (2) a larger portion of inex­
perienced non-English speaking workers were employed than before
or since; (3) the safeguarding machinery was of a crude and unsatis­
factory sort. The situation disclosed was sufficiently serious to
demand the best attention possible to give.
Aside from humane considerations the condition was one involv­
ing very heavy financial obligations. Just how heavy this burden
was had never been fully realized while the units of the corporation
were going their separate ways and each caring for the maimed
and mutilated according to its own plans. When these scattered
members were united into a gigantic whole the size and importance
of some of the elements, such as the accident problem, began to
assume new significance.
The casualty men were sent home with a very earnest exhortation
to find ways and means for checking the rising tide of accident
occurrence and reversing it if possible. Several steps followed, so
overlapping that they can not be stated in order.
A. An extensive survey was made and large expenditures author­
ized to put the plants in better condition from the standpoint of
B. A general safety committee for the corporation was formed
with representatives from the subsidiaries.
C. Plant and department committees began to be formed. The
first of these was set up in the blast furnaces at the South Works of
the Illinois Steel Co., in March, 1908. In April, 1908, a complete
set of departmental committees was established in the Lorain Works
of the National Tube Co. In August, the South Works, having
found the committee useful in the blast furnaces, extended the com­
mittee organization to all departments.
D. Company committees were formed with representatives from
the several plants operated by the company.
In the deliberation of these several committees there was of course
constant use of statistical procedure. In fact, such procedure must
of necessity be a major factor in any careful study of accident pre­
Your attention is now directed to the experience of the entire
corporation from 1906 to 1925. This includes “ serious accidents.”
The corporation also publishes a graph in which all “ lost-time ”



accidents are included but it does not go back as far as 1906 and it is
desirable to. show the extremes. In the few instances where an
increase is shown we know that industrial conditions were such as
to favor such increase. Whenever industrial revival occurs the
building up of the force involves the taking on of relatively inex­
perienced workers and such workers always have a higher accident
rate than an experienced group. I f 1906 be compared with 1925 a
reduction of 60 per cent is found to have occurred. I f lost-time
cases are noted the reduction from 1912 to 1925 is 80 per cent. Let
it be supposed that conditions of 1906 were continued down to the
present time; 46,863 more workers would have suffered serious injury
than so suffered actually. I f 1912 conditions had been continued it
would have meant 322,468 more disabling injuries than actually
Sometimes criticism has been directed toward this method of
stating the results. It is true that it rests upon a supposition but
the supposition is a perfectly appropriate one to make. In fact it is
impossible to get a clear idea of what an accident-prevention pro­
gram really is without looking at it from some such angle. As
stated above this presentation is a composite o f the entire corpora­
tion. It might easily be the case that some elements of this com­
posite had so extraordinary a change as entirely to cover up less
satisfactory conditions existing in associated groups. It is desirable
to examine the statistics with reference to this phase of the subject.
The classification now to be considered divides the group already
presented in accordance with the principal product. This is not
wholly satisfactory since some of the companies include in their
processes blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling mills which do not
properly belong under the heading of their leading product.


1913i ............................................






Miscellaneous steel
Oroup A Group B







The rates in the above table are the number of cases of accident
per 1,000,000 hours’ exposure and are taken from a more extended
table contained in Bulletin 425 of the United States Bureau of La­
bor Statistics, which is soon to be published.
, Note, first, how the rates run for the different products in 1913:
Fabricated products, 100.3; sheets, 61.6; wire products, 59.3; tubes,
27.2; miscellaneous steel products. Group A, 70.9; miscellaneous
steel products. Group B, 41.3. After eight years—in 1921—the
^rates^run as iollows: Fabricated products, 28.4; sheets, 17.5; wire


in d u s t r ia l a c c id e n t p r e v e n tio n c o n fe r e n c e

products, 7.5; tubes, 6.1; miscellaneous steel products, Group A,
15.8; miscellaneous steel products, Group B, 12.1. These rates rep­
resent in this period the following percentages of decline: Fabri­
cated products, 72; sheets 72; wire products, 88; tubes, 78; mis­
cellaneous steel products, Group A, 78; miscellaneous steel products,
Group B, 71.
It is noticeable that while the actual rates in each industrial group
are quite varied the percentages of decline fall within rather narrow
limits. This means that the accident-prevention efforts in each of
these groups were uniformly successful. It would not have been
surprising had this been otherwise, since the intrinsic hazard in
some groups is certainly greater than in others. The conditions
disclosed justify the conclusion that no matter how difficult the situ­
ation it can be in large measure controlled by intelligent and per­
sistent effort.
The statistics utilized in accident prevention in approximately 50
per cent of the iron and steel industry have now been considered
from two points of view—namely, the group as a whole and the
group analyzed with reference to various classes of product.
There is a third aspect of these statistics which is possibly of
greater importance than either of those already presented. This is
an analysis by causes. It is not enough to determine the number of
cases attributable to each cause. The cases must be related to the ex­
posure, giving rates for each cause.
The main cause groups had the following relations in frequency
rates to each other in 1913: Machinery, 7.3; vehicles, 2.3; hot sub­
stances, 5.4; falls of person, 4.5; handling, 26.7; miscellaneous, 12.9.
It at once appears tnat “ handling ” is far and away the most pro­
lific cause of injuries. Unfortunately it is not possible to test these
classes in the matter of severity. It is known from other sources that
when severity is considered, machinery is almost invariably the most
serious menace.
In eight years the rates for the causes changed to the following:
Machinery, 1.8; vehicles, 0.5; hot substances, 1.2; falls of person,
1.7; handling, 6.5; miscellaneous, 1.3. The declines are: Machinery,
75 per cent; vehicles, 78 per cent; hot substances, 78 per cent; falls
of person, 62 per cent; handling, 76 per cent; miscellaneous, 90 per
cent. The relation of these percentages of decline to each other again
demonstrates the pervasive effect of the methods adopted.
Some of the subordinate causes are worth a moment’s attention.
For example, in the machinery group working machines have a
rate of 3.8 in 1913, while cranes have a rate of 3.5, declining in 8
years for working machines to 0.8 and for cranes to 1.0. Among
hot substances, hot metal is naturally the most important item, with
a rate of 3.6 in 1913, declining to 0.8. Handling has already been
noted as being chiefly prolific in number of cases. Of 26.7 cases
per 1,000,000 hours’ exposure in 1913, 11.2 cases were the result of
dropping objects in handling. The decline from 11.2 to 2.6 is largely
related to the substitution of mechanical for manual methods. For
example, not so long ago the pigs of iron at the blast furnace were
picked up, carried, and piled by hand. This process has been largely
superseded by the use of magnets or by casting the iron in pig



machines from which delivery is often made direct to cars for ship­
ment. It is also noticeable now large a proportion of the cases of
falls of person are due to insecure footing. The decline in rates from
3-8 to 1.4 reflects the effect of the improvement of walkways.
The foregoing gives an idea of the relations of the main and sub­
ordinate cause groups as disclosed by the study of the experience of
the entire steel corporation. A further insight will be afforded by
considering how the causes are distributed to the production units.
The rates for machinery fall into the following order ; Fabrication,
miscellaneous steel products; Group A, wire products, miscellaneous
steel products; Group B, tubes.
It is easy to see how such an analysis lends itself to the determina­
tion of where special effort is necessary and gives some clew to the
kind of effort necessary. Thus far consideration has been confined,
to the statistics kept and used by the steel corporation. It is recog­
nized that even so large an organization as this does not always
afford sufficient volume to be perfectly reliable. Further the steel
corporation has not been convinced of the utility of severity rates
and so has not maintained records from which severity rates can
be computed.
In order to get an idea of the trend of accident rates, both fre­
quency and severity, they have been computed for 5-year intervals
for the industry and for several of its departments. The data on
which these rates are based include those for the steel corporation.
For the five-year period ending in 1911 the accident frequency rates
run as follows: Industry, 69.2; blast furnaces, 76.1; open hearths,
84.2; foundries, 60.1; heavy rolling mills, 61.0; plate mills, 69.4; sheet
mills, 44.1. In the five-year period ending 1924 the record is: In­
dustry, 33.6; blast furnace, 30.7; open hearths, 32.9; foundries, 62.7;
heavy rolling mills, 21.2; plate mills, 29.4; sheet mills, 35.1.

Five-year period ending i n -


industry furnaces









This process of computing rates for overlapping periods tends to
smooth out local and temporary variations and to give an indication
of the general trend not obtainable without the use of some such



The disappointing item in this showing is foundries. The fre­
quency rate lor the last five-year period is slightly higher than the
first and nowhere along the line is there any indication of a tendency
to improve.
The severity rates for the five-year period ending with 1911 are:
Industry, 5; blast furnaces, 10.6; open hearths, 7.5; foundries, 2.7;
heavy rolling mills, 4.4; plate mills, 5.1; sheet mills, 3.1. In the fiveperiod ending with 1924 severity rates are: Industry, 2.8; blast
furnaces, 4.5,; open hearths, 4.2; foundries, 2.8; heavy rolling mills,
2.3; plate mills, 2.4; sheet mills, 2.1.

Five-year period e n d in g -


The in­






















It sometimes happens that the frequency and severity rates are at
variance with each other. In such cases tne severity rate is to be re­
garded as the more exact measure of hazard. In the present instance
both rates indicate a practically uniform condition in foundries.
This is the more unsatisfactory since among these foundries are some
companies which have made an excellent record, which is wholly
covered up by the record of those which have made no progress.
It may De regarded as established that the right kind of statistics
are an indispensable factor in successful accident prevention as illus­
trated by the experience of the iron and steel industry and particu­
larly by that of the steel corporation. _ It will be pertinent, in con­
clusion, to summarize the particulars in which this factor serves a
useful purpose.
1. Statistics serve to set standards of accomplishment.
2. They indicate whether or not progress is being made.
3. They serve to show where there is need of special effort.
4. They may be utilized in the effort to rouse interest in the prob­
The C hairm an . The discussion of Doctor Chaney’s paper will be
led by J. M. Larkin, of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation.
Mr. L arkin . Doctor Chaney’s account of the fine achievements of
the United States Steel Corporation and the steel industry as a
whole toward the elimination of accidents is a record which heartens



us all to further accomplishment. It is interesting to note, however,
that this record could not have been told without employing sta­
tistics, and so if nothing further were said his paper would Suffi­
ciently prove the value of statistics in accident prevention.
'During the past 10 years the number of accidents in the plants
and mines of Bethlehem Steel Corporation has been reduced by about
50 per cent, yet the accidents that happen in our plants from day to
day are witness to the fact that we still have room for improvement.
Analyzing the figures stating the causes of present accidents shows
that we are fast approaching the utmost that can be done in the way
of preventing accidents through mechanical means. To illustrate,
in Bethlehem plants in 1925, 22 per cent of the accidents were inci­
dent to handling material and 16 per cent resulted from falling or
tripping, while only 5 per cent were incident to working with ma­
chinery. (It is worthy of note that accidents to eyes had been prac­
tically eliminated.)
We have discovered the antiaccident serum in this country and
have now before us the job of educating people to the importance of
using this serum.
In almost every shop and factory in the country to-day some one
is studying the ways and means of preventing accidents in that
shop or factory, and that same person is endeavoring to instruct
men in the ways and means of avoiding accidents. In this educa­
tional work, however, as in any other educational work, the teacher
must have full facts at his command in order to do his job effectively,
and in doing this job effectively American industry will obliterate
one of the largest items of avoidable waste in manufacturing costs.
Even the loss of a billion dollars a year in wages does not, how­
ever, justify unbridled expense in overcoming the loss. Increasing
keenness of competition in present-day industry leads to ever greater
pressure for economy in industrial management and for the reduc­
tion of overhead expenses. All expenses of supervision are closely
scrutinized, nonproductive labor is being lopped off, and every de­
partment and function in present-day American industry is forced to
justify its existence by proving that it is actually profitable.
The making and keeping o f statistics and records comes in for a
sharp examination. Managers rightly insist upon knowing exactly
what each set of statistics is used for and what harm, if any, would
result if it were eliminated.
Accident statistics, like all other figures and records compiled as a
part of industrial management, must be charged on the basis of
utility. Nothing is to be gained by keeping accident records just
for the sake of keeping them or because they have always been kept
in a particular form.
What, then, are the purposes and uses of accident statistics?
In our company we compile accident statistics mainly, if not
wholly, for the purpose of improving our safety practices in the
interest of employees. I f we did not think the statistics did this
we would discontinue them. We find that the compilation of data
on accidents shows plant engineers how accidents may be further
eliminated and indicates to safety supervisors the points of danger
which must be stressed to the men in the plant. Furthermore, the



exchange of comparative records encourages safety work in indi­
vidual departments and individual plants. No plant manager or de­
partment superintendent likes to see his record inferior to that of
the others. I f his plant makes a bad accident showing in one month
he takes good care to see that there is improvement the next month.
Thus the use of accident statistics in our plants, mines, and quarries
enables us to find the weak spots in our safety practice and to cure
In one of our large steel plants a safety trophy is awarded each
month to the department having the best record. There is keen
rivalry among the departments and among the men in the depart­
ments for the possession of this trophy. Awards of this kina are
encouraged by the company because of their value in keeping alive
interest in accident prevention.
Throughout our properties every accident is listed and classified
according to the days lost, the occupation^ and the detailed cause.
In the case of each serious accident a special report is sent in, and
an investigation is made to determine what if anything could have
been done in the way of prevention. These individual reports are
then codified and summarized according to departments, plants, and
A series of accidents in a particular department or a particular
process or a particular occupation may show that certain methods
or certain machines are unsafe and need to be replaced by others.
Under different circumstances we may find that the employees in a
certain department are careless and that the program or saiety edu­
cation needs stiffening. Or, again, the records may indicate that
the foreman in a shop is not sufficiently interested in the protection
of his men. In fact, there is almost no limit to the useful things
that may be found out by analysis of accidents as to causes, places,
and circumstances.
Not long ago a representative of one of our large corporations
said he had decided to keep all of his accident statistics in terms
of cost per $100 of pay roll, in order to impress the operating offi­
cials with the desirability of safety from the standpoint of economy.
While I am not sure that this is a proper method of keeping acci­
dent statistics, there is no question about the value of the dollars and
cents demonstration for the benefit of the production man who is
largely interested in costs.
In our corporation accident statistics are an important part of
our safety work. Without them we would not know where we stood.
Just as a company keeps abreast of its financial status by the use
of statistics, so it needs to have data covering its accident records.
The preparation and study and analysis of these statistics within a
corporation is one of the greatest aids to its safety program, and in
our company every executive follows with keen interest the story
which these statistics tell.
These statistics are not only studied by our management but they
are scrutinized with interest by the employees themselves. At the
regular meetings of employees elected representatives under the em­
ployee representation plan and at meetings of employees especially
chosen to further the accident prevention campaign, as well as
among the 7?000 employees who have received first-aid instruction^



the statistics bearing upon accident prevention are of the utmost
Thus we are striving to make the greatest practical widespread
application of records, realizing that the records constitute the bal­
ance sheet of a needless waste, and in the hope that they will act as
an incentive to even greater accomplishment.
In a message to employees summarizing accident-prevention work,
our president recently said:
Accident-prevention work pays threefold returns—there is a return to the
employer in lower costs, a return to the employee in a physical and monetary
saving, and a return to the community through a lessening of care for the
maimed and disabled. Any one of these alone justifies the furtherance of the
work, but taken in the aggregate they constitute one of the most important
planks in the platform of good business
The C h airm an . Doctor Chaney’s paper will be further discussed

by J. M. Woltz, safety director of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
Mr. W oltz. I really can not see the need of discussing this very
excellent paper of Doctor Chaney’s. It seems to me that the points
brought out are so conclusive that it is foolish for one to attempt to
controvert them, if such were possible. I shall content myself with
a few remarks covering the importance of statistics as regarded by
our company. My first acquaintance with Doctor Chaney was in
1913, when he was in our plant, securing, I think, some or the first
statistics of the iron and steel industry used in the Department of
Labor, and our acquaintance has kept up since that time. He has
been the means of giving us most important information on points
relative to places to look for our accidents. We are interested in
the statistics not only from the point of showing the frequency and
severity of accidents but also as to the nationality of the workers,
the days and the hours of the day, the month of the year, and vari­
ous other things, such as the parts of the body injured, etc. I think
that all of these things must be taken into consideration if you are
really going to study your accidents from a statistical standpoint.
It is most difficult to make comparisons of accident statistics even in
your own organization because of the variance of the conditions, the
work done in the different plants, and the different methods by which
computations are made. I believe that is true of the whole industry,
and when that condition is true in an industry, it means when the
statistics of all industry are brought together it is almost impossible
to find a real comparable basis *upon which to prepare the figures.
Our records go back: to 1905, but I have here some figures from 1915
to date—the days lost per employee, based on the average daily work­
ing force, the fatalities being counted as 6,000 days. In 1915 the
average number of days lost was 12 per employee; the highest was in
1916, 28 days—at that time we were engaged in a great deal of con­
struction work. Last year, 1925, it went down to 5. The number of
days lost in the year, per lost-time accident, fatalities being estimated
as 6,000 days, in 1915 was 13; last year, 1925, it was 46. We had
1,808 lost-time accidents in 1915 and 1,017 in 1925. I think that
covers the point that Doctor Chaney wished to make—that the
severity of lost-time accidents has increased while the frequency
has been reduced.



The C h airm an . Are there any others who desire to discuss Doctor
Chaney’s paper?
Mr. L ansburgh. I am rising only because of something which
Doctor Chaney said in his paper and which seemed to indicate that
he might possibly have disagreed with something I said this morn­
ing with reference to the relative importance of various causes of
accidents. I am inclined to agree with Doctor Chaney, as I always
want to agree with Doctor Chaney, that severity is the measure
rather than frequency. I do, however, want to point out that as to
the Pennsylvania experience which I read this morning, what I had
to say about frequency is doubly true of severity—it is not ma­
chinery which is causing our accidents. I think that is particularly
important as we endeavor to eliminate these accidents. All that
I can do to prove the fact is to read the figures, though I am sorry
to burden this group with figures again. Certainly fatal accidents
are severe accidents, and as we have 2,000 of them a year in Pennsyl­
vania—more than in any other State—we have a fair sample from
which to draw. The first class of fatal accidents is those caused by
falling objects in mines and quarries. That, of course, includes
falling roofs. Of course, there are certain provisions and also ar­
rangements for guarding that can be made to prevent that, but that
is not guarding machinery. The second cause of fatal accidents is
cars and engines. As I indicated this morning, that was the first
cause in frequency.^ Most fatal accidents due to cars and engines are
not due to defects in machinery but to men falling in front of cars
and engines while handling their jobs. The third cause in Pennsyl­
vania is falling of persons. The fourth is explosion, mostly in
mines. The fifth is motor vehicles—the kind of street accident you
see every day recorded as nonindustrial accident—138 killed in
Pennsylvania last year by motor vehicles. And so on down until
the eighth cause, machinery, with 74 fatal accidents. Now, taking
days lost, based on the severity table of which Doctor Hatch told us
this afternoon, namely, the table of the International Association of
Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, which we use in
developing our figures, the first cause is cars and engines, 2,950,000
days lost. The second cause is falling objects in mines and quarries,
2,742,000 days lost. The third cause is falling of persons, 1,513,000
days lost. Machinery is the fourth cause, 1,253,000 days lost. Motor
vehicles follow immediately after machinery, 1,015,000 days lost.
Falling objects, 733,000 days lost, and handling objects, 850,000 days
lost, together amount to over 1,500,000 days lost, and machinery
only to 1,200,000 days lost. So it appears to me that on the basis of
these figures, any way you take them, guarding machinery is not the
important factor in preventing industrial accidents.
Commissioner S tewart. May I ask, Mr. Lansburgh, as to whether
these statistics of cars and engines include railroad accidents?
Mr. L ansburgh. In Pennsylvania, Mr. Stewart, we have a record
of every accident in the State, whether or not it is in interstate com­
merce, and that does include railroad accidents but not railroad
accidents in interstate commerce.
Commissioner S tewart. It also includes accidents in mines?
Mr. L ansburgh. Yes, sir.



Commissioner S t e w a r t . It also includes accidents of cars on t h e
Mr. L a n s b u r g h . That is a separate heading; motor vehicles.
Commissioner S t e w a r t . D o you not see that your statistics cover
three groups in which the question of handling machines is not
included in Doctor Chancey’s figures? His-figures are purely indus­
trial accident figures. By industrial we mean manufacturing; they
do not include railroad accidents at all. Therefore, the difference
between your figures and Doctor Chancey’s, is only apparent, be­
cause they cover two entirely different fields.
Mr. H a t c h . I want to point a moral. When we get the right
kind of accident statistics on a proper form basis, we will not. have
so much discussion, in conferences like this, where people get up and
speak about two different things which show opposite results, but
we will all be talking about the same kind of thing in the same kind
of way, and it will save us an awful lot of time.
The C h a i r m a n . Is there any further discussion?
Mr. T h o m p s o n . Mr. Chaney’s figures were about steel only, while
Mr. Lansburgh’s figures were about everything else; it is not a fair
Mr. C a r r o w , American Railway Association. I want to call atten­
tion to a possible error that might be developed here by this dis­
cussion of statistics. The detail is not particularly important, ex­
cept for example, in railroads; we show them by occupation, by
general causes, by railroads, by frequency, and every other way.
The necessary thing, it seems to me, is to make some arrangement by
which you will know the actual number of deaths and injuries that
occur in American industry. All of this detail stuff is very fine,
because we have it in the railroad business^—we have had it for 15
years—but the thing we want to find out is whether John Jones’s
factory has 10 fatalities and 500 injuries, and John Smith’s factory
has 2 fatalities and SO injuries. On the railroads we find that if you
just set up a statement of the injuries and fatalities, or the injuries
where there are no fatalities, and pit one shop against another shop
and one railroad against another railroad, why, as a matter of course,
the accidents go down. I do not think that we ought to waste too
much time on these delicate shadings of frequency, etc., but we ought
to concentrate on the matter of getting the actual number of casualties
and the results of casualties. It seems to me that an inference might
be drawn from the discussion here to-day, that if we get this beauti­
ful set of statistics we are going to have accident prevention as a
matter of course. I want to say to you that if we can only get the
manufacturers interested in accident prevention and get tne super­
visory forces of this country interested—get them to do as we are
doing on the railroads—put up a score board with the number of
accidents that occur in specified periods, the accidents will go down.
The C h a i r m a n . Is there any further discussion of Doctor Chaney’s
Mr. A t k i n s . I have been listening to the statistics very intently
but have not heard a great deal about how to prevent these accidents.
At the Virginia Bridge & Iron Co. we began to keep statistics about



10 years ago. Fifteen years ago our factory was dubbed a slaughter
plant. I was made superintendent there about 18 years ago, and
about 16 years ago I organized a safety committee consisting of a
few of my foremen; we have now a safety committee of 54 members
and we have reduced our accidents, the serious accidents, probably
60 per cent. The minor accidents stand about the same, but as to
the serio'us accidents we just do not have them any more, and we
did it by education. We bring the men in and talk to them once a
month, and then this standing committee has a meeting of the men
under them. We found that we had these serious accidents when
we hired new men, just as Doctor Chancey told us a while ago. They
were put on piecework gangs and on those piecework gangs they
were pushed to the limit, and as they are generally boys off of farms
who come to our place, everything looked alike to them and they
would run under this moving material. That is where the serious
accidents would occur—hardly ever was a man hurt by the machines.
We have the machines all made as nearly accident proof as possible.
When we educated these boys, and when the safety committee talked
to them and told them not to do those things, we eliminated our
serious accidents. It was all done by education.
Mr. H atch . May I cover one more point? I do not quite agree
with my friend on the left as t9 not needing anything but the num­
ber of accidents and that by quoting that you will automatically, by
the interest drawn to those figures, pull the accidents down. You have
to have in addition, the cause of accidents. This is what I am doing
every day—analyzing the cause of accidents—and if I find out what
is the matter, what caused it, I distribute that information to 500
men in the field. They have in front of them the cause of an acci­
dent arid how to cure it, and they go into every plant under their
supervision and apply that cure. That is the value of statistics; you
learn a cause, you learn how to cure it, and you will try to cure it.
You need a central organization to find out what the cure is and a
central organization to distribute that cure all over the Nation; that
is the point of statistics. Like Mr. Lansburgh, I think it is always
difficult to disagree with Doctor Chaney, and 1 am not standing up
for the purpose of disagreeing with him, but merely to cite the New
York experience in the matter of severity. I did not bring with me
the figures for the year ending June 30, 1925, but I have them for
1924, and the actual, not the estimated weeks of disability, in New
York for the year ending June 30, 1924, for accidents in which the
cause was machinery was 516,000 weeks, which was the largest num­
ber of weeks for which compensation was awarded for any set of
causes. In Doctor Chaney’s paper he states it this way: That han­
dling is far arid away the most prolific cause of injury. That is
borne out by our record; during that year there were 19,000 accidents
due to handling of objects as against 13,000 due to machinery. The
statement is also made in Doctor Chaney’s paper that the machinery
accidents are more severe. That statement is also borne out by our
figures, but I understood Doctor Chaney to say that he had never
seen an instance in which the machinery accidents were not at least
twice as great in point of severity as the others. Briefly, in New
York, 516,000 weeks’ compensation was awarded during that year



for accidents due to machinery; the second largest group was falling
of persons, 502,000 weeks; others were, falling objects, 145,000 weeks,
and hand tools, 87,000 weeks. That is the actual number of weeks,
except that in fatal accidents we made an allowance of 6,000 days
lost time; in all other cases it is the actual number of days lost.
The C h a i r m a n . I s there any further discussion? I f not, w e
will be glad to hear now from Frank Morrison, secretary of the
American Federation of Labor, on the “ Workers’ interest in safety

Industrial accidents primarily concern the workers. Whether
an accident results in a temporary or permanent disability, it is the
worker who suffers, and suffers to a degree for which the benefits
of workers’ compensation laws do not at all compensate.
In the tens of thousands of cases where the worker’s earning
capacity is decreased or destroyed, not only does his family suffer
a lowered standard of living but their aspirations and rights along
educational lines are destroyed because of the permanent decrease
of income from* the father’s earning capacity. And in the case of
fatal accidents it is again the worker and his family dependents
who pay for the great loss.
The employer suffers no physical injury himself because of in­
dustrial acciaents to his employees. His earning capacity is not
decreased. His family does not suffer. His dividends are not cur­
tailed because of accidents in the plants which he owns. In States
which have workmen’s compensation laws, a modest insurance
premium, paid out of the wealth produced by the very workers who
are injured, settles his responsibility for the maimed workers. He
charges the insurance premium to overhead expenses as a part of
the cost of production, bills it to the dealer to whom he sells his
commodities, and the dealer collects it from the ultimate consumer
in retail prices.
In States which do not have workmen’s compensation, the in­
jured worker’s resort for justice is to the courts, and experience
shows that in court procedure the employer has such a great ad­
vantage that adequate compensation is seldom secured for the
worker, and then at such a high cost for counsel and court charges
that much of the compensation award never reaches him.
The statistical aspect of the industrial-accident question simply
appalls one who lives among the workers and feels with them the
injustice they suffer in producing and distributing the wealth that
makes up America’s prosperity.
In the official call for this industrial accident conference the
Secretary of Labor states that “ a conservative estimate indicates that
the fatal industrial accidents (in the United States) probably ex­
ceed 23,000 per year, and that nonfatal injuries total 2,500,000 per
year.” Reduced to a picture which the average mind can visualize,
this means that during every one of the 300 working days in a year
77 workers are killed and 8,331 are injured in this warfare which
the workers are compelled to wage against machine production.



Ghastly as is this picture of the mortality and casualty rate in
industry, it is not by any means the most shocking aspect of the
uestion. In the official call for this conference the Secretary of
jabor also asserts that his experts advise him that “ fully 85 per
cent of these accidents are preventable.” This estimate means that
every year 19,550 workers are needlessly killed and 2,125,000 need­
lessly injured in industrial accidents. Or, expressing the facts in
the form of daily mortality and casualty figures, 64 workers are
needlessly killed in industry during every one of the 300 workingdays of the year and 7,080 are needlessly injured.
The wage loss of this army of industry workers is estimated to be
$1,000,000,000 a year, not more than one-quarter of which is covered
by compensation insurance.
I f the United States were at war and the reports from the front
declared that every day 77 soldiers were killed, 64 of whose lives
could have been saved with proper military safeguards, and that
8,331 soldiers were wounded every day, 7,080 of whom would not
have been wounded if there had been proper safeguards—if such
reports came from the military battle front, there would be a nation­
wide protest and a wholesale impeachment of the responsible mili­
tary authorities. But an equally unnecessary slaughter and injury
of human beings engaged in industry does not briiig a nation-wide
protest and the responsible industrial and political authorities keep
up their deadly warfare against the workers.
I have referred to the responsible industrial and political author­
ities. This brings up the question of who is in fact responsible for
the greater part of the 85 per cent of industrial accidents which the
expert advisers of the Secretary of Labor declare could be prevented.
It is quite apparent that the major responsibility rests with the em­
ployers and the State governments.
An illustration from one industry—the coal-mining industry—
will throw a flood of light on the responsibility of employers and
State governments. In the last 10 years more than 25,000 miners
have been killed in coal-mine explosions in the United States. Com­
petent experts declare that rock dusting is a well-known, thoroughly
tested, and adequate method of preventing coal-dust explosions.
The United States Bureau of Mines began its experiments with rock
dusting prior to 1911, demonstrated the high qualities of this method
for the prevention of explosions, and has urged its universal adop­
tion by mining companies in the United States as an effective method
to save the lives of coal miners. What has been the net result of
this urging? In a bulletin entitled 44Stone Dusting or Bock Dust­
ing to Prevent Coal-Dust Explosions, as Practiced m Great Britain
and France,” the bureau says:


Although the Bureau of Mines has recommended rock dusting, only a few
operators in the United States, one in Colorado, and several in Illinois have
adopted it, and they but to a limited extent

This was in 1924. Some progress has been made in rock dusting
since then, but the fact remains that in the United States to-day
large numbers of miners are subjected to the dangers of explosions
because the mining companies refuse to accept the recommendations
of the Bureau of Mines and install rock-dusting systems.

w o r k e r s ' in t e r e s t in

s a f e t y pr o b lem s


Bock dusting can be made compulsory by State legislatures.
To the extent that it is not compulsory, the State legislatures are re­
sponsible for the death of miners in mine explosions. The respon­
sibility o f mine accidents due to explosions rests, therefore, on the
private corporations who own the mines and refuse to install rock
dusting and also on State legislatures that refuse to enact com­
pulsory legislation.
To a great extent the responsibility for industrial accidents in
other industries rests with the employers who refuse to adopt up-todate accident-prevention methods and devices and upon State legis­
latures that refuse to enact compulsory legislation.
The major responsibility rests with the employers and the States.
When these delinquencies are remedied then we may emphasize the
alleged delinquencies o f the workers, many of wnom, it is often
claimed, deliberately court both injury and death by carelessness.
In the light of the terrible toll in both fatal and nonfatal accidents
which the workers now suffer after so many years of accident-pre­
vention laws, accident-prevention policies conceived and applied by
the employers, and accident-prevention movements of many kinds,
it is apparent to me that the workers will probably never be ade­
quately protected until they protect themselves by strong tradeunions. Experience shows that the workers can not rely either on
legislatures, politically appointed enforcement officers, or the em­
ployers to safeguard their lives and limbs in industry.
Industrial accidents maim and kill the workers. It is the workers
who pay the penalties for inadequate laws, inadequate enforcement,
and inadequate employer accident-prevention schemes. Until the
workers assert their own organized power for adequate protection
for themselves they will evidently continue to pay tne price in both
fatal and nonfatal accidents.
An indispensable auxiliary to these checks of human wastage in
industry is the need for the development of a sound public opinion.
This development, in truth, is the foundation for the successful
application of remedial legislation. I f our democracy is to function,
we can not assign changes of such sweeping character to our legis­
lative representatives. They must be supported by a united people,
who must insist that not only the letter, but likewise the spirit of
the law, shall be complied with.
Every public-opimon-molding force must play its part in this
development. Not only individual citizens but the public press and
social, civic, industrial; and religious organizations should continu­
ously point put the evil consequences that follow our disregard for
human life on the industrial field. This thought must be impressed
on the consciousness of each citizen. The value of human life must
be emphasized, and the social waste that results in the unnecessary
loss of one human being must be continually pointed out. To
approximate this goal we should dedicate our energies.
The C hairm an . Are there any remarks or any discussion in regard
to Mr. Morrison’s paper? I f not, are there any announcements that
Commissioner Stewart would like to make?



Committee appointments were announced by the chairman of the
various committees, as follows:
Publicity Committee.—A. C. Carruthers, editor Safety Engineering, New
York, chairman; Clarence E. Spayd, consulting safety engineer, Brooklyn
Edison Co., Brooklyn, N. Y .; Louis Resnick, American Museum of Safety, New
York, N. Y.
Resolutions Committee.—J. H. Crawford, Kansas Public Service Commission,
Topeka, Kans., chairman; W. W. Adams, United States Bureau of Mines, Wash­
ington, D. C .; John Hopkins HaU, jr., commissioner, bureau of labor and in­
dustry, Richmond, Va.; R. H. Lansburgh, secretary of labor and industry, Har­
risburg, Pa.; C. H. Gram, commissioner, bureau of labor, Portland, Oreg.
Committee on Classification of Industries.—L. W. Hatch, New York Depart­
ment of Labor, New York, N. Y., chairman; Charles E. Baldwin, United States
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D. C.; William J. Maguire, depart­
ment of labor, Harrisburg, Pa.; Carl C. Beasor, department of industrial rela­
tions, Columbus, Ohio; L. L. Hall, National Council on Compensation Insurance,
New York, N. Y .; C. B. Auel, Westinghouse Electric Manufacturing Co., Pitts­
burgh, Pa.
Committee on DetermMvation of Exposure.—L. W. Chaney, United States
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D. C., chairman; E. B. Patton, depart­
ment of labor, New York, N. Y .; Carl C. Beasor, department of industrial rela­
tions, Columbus, Ohio; W. W. Adams, United States Bureau of Mines, Washing­
ton, D. C.; WUUam A. Marshall, industrial accident commission, Salem, Oreg.

(Meeting adjourned.)


Commissioner S tewart. I want to say what I meant to say yes­
terday, and that is that we feel very much gratified with tne re­
sponse of the governors to this call. From Maine to Oregon and
California the governors have responded so wonderfully well that
night before last our list contained 22 States, with 49 representatives
appointed by the governors.
Frankly, what I wanted to say at this conference is that it is our
desire to get the States interested in getting down to a uniform and
efficient system of accident reporting. We have never before been
able to get representatives of so many States together, and not only
that but the associations have been wonderfully responsive. Mr.
Jennings, who comes as a representative of the State of Utah and
of the Utah Copper Co., appointed by Governor Dern, is asked
to represent “ Our Association ” at the Washington Safety Confer­
ence-^4Our Association” means the American Foundrymen’s As­
sociation—and a number of other persons represent more than one
organization here, so that I feel that we have a very large representa­
tion present.
Tour chairman this morning is Doctor McBride, commissioner of
labor of the State of New Jersey. He took hold in the State of New
Jersey in a way that has made us all sit up and take notice.
The C hairm an . I feel highly honored in being asked to preside
at this conference this morning, and I want to commend Mr. Stewart
and Secretary of Labor Davis for making possible the bringing
together of so many people who are interested in the very important
question of accident prevention.
I have practised medicine intensively for a great many years, and
I do not know anybody who is committed to safety ana safe prac­
tices more than the average doctor. For that reason the field was
not new to me, because I had dealt with the results of industrial
accidents for a great many years. I do not think that too much of
one’s time can be given to this important question. I do not know
of any more important question that confronts our Nation to-day
than that of cutting down this useless toll of accidents which takes
place in the various States every minute of the day and every day of
the year. I believe that it is worthy of the most careful thought
of everybody connected with the work, which should, I think, be
done intelligently, comprehensively, and systematically. I do not
think you can approach the question in any haphazard way, and a
conference of this kind is going to do much good, as I visualize it.
I hope the day may come when every State in the Nation will take
the interest that it should in this subject.
I personally do not think that accident prevention can be an accom­
plished fact without many elements entering into the work. I do




not think the safeguarding of machinery alone will eliminate acci­
dents, or that any other one factor will. The greatest thing we need
is the education of the Nation in the importance of employing every
available means and method for this work. That is why I say that
I believe a conference of this kind must be productive of good. I do
not think that anybody, no matter how low his mentality, would will­
ingly suffer an accident, even though accidents do occur so frequently
through carelessness and thoughtlessness. As I said before, I believe
that no one thing will bring about accident prevention or the elim­
ination of accidents, but a combination of circumstances, the most
important of which is educating th^ average person up to the im­
portance of the work; I believe that everybody should participate in
this work, not only the men engaged in production—I am talking
about the manufacturer now—but every person from the head of
the concern down to the last individual employed by the concern,
and all should appreciate equally their responsibility m the work.
I believe that accident prevention can not be carried on successfully
without the proper place being given to real statistics. That prob­
ably is as important, if not more important, than any other element
that enters into the work. I f we have proper statistics covering
the field of accidents we will approach the question much more
The first paper on the program this morning is “ Statistical activ­
ities of the sections of the National Safety Council,” by W. H.
Cameron, managing director.

The primary purpose of the National Safety Council is to assist
its members in the interchange of accident experience—to make
available to them the accumulated experience of their fellow mem­
bers and the solutions they have devised for perplexing accident
problems. This is accomplished through the National Safety News
and other publications and through the consultation service—com­
prising a clearing house of information on accident prevention.
In dealing with the question of statistical activities it should be
understood mat the council is a purely voluntary cooperative associa­
tion. It has no means of compelling its members to keep accident
records or to send the records to its headquarters. The statistical
tabulations compiled by the sections are made possible only by the
voluntary cooperation of members willing to aid the cause by con­
tributing the records of their experience—good or bad.
Although the original constitution and by-laws of the council
provide for the grouping of members into trade sections, the officers
and committees have no means of compelling uniformity, nor do the
terms of membership imply that all of the accident experience be
contributed on a uniform basis.
As the council’s membership has been expanded and the income
from dues has grown to provide enough money to employ safety
engineers competent to assist the voluntary committeemen, an ei-



fort has been made to induce the members within certain groups of
industries to send their statistical data to our headquarters5 officers
for tabulation and comparison. The time is coming when each of
the trade sectional groups will have salaried staffs to assist the
voluntary officers and committees to dig deeper into the accident ex­
perience of each member within the group. It is now apparent that
more data of this character can be secured through greater pressure
upon the members, by visualizing to them the advantages of com­
paring experiences, and by encouraging those employers having bad
records to study the methods of those having good records and
eventually to correct the conditions that lead to high accident
frequency and severity rates. These statistical records and compari­
sons of tne members of the National Safety Council will never have
the same comprehensive and inclusive comparative bases as the
statistical reports of the National and State governmental bureaus.
The council is a propagandist institution. It aims to teach the public
in a nonpartisan way how serious the accident situation is nation­
ally and to encourage employers and workers to wake up to the
seriousness of the situation and to take steps to organize definitely
for the prevention of accidents.
Even though the membership of the National Safety Council may
increase greatly, and though it may be possible through persuasive
methods to have a large percentage of the members interchange their
statistical records, nevertheless it is probable that one of the con­
tinuing functions of the council will be to encourage its members
and others to comply generously with the National and State require­
ments for statistical records. Employers will be glad to rive proof
of their accomplishments when it is realized that a creditable ac­
cident record is an asset to the conduct of their business. The stigma
of accidents is not yet a factor in industrial operations. The council
can help the administrators of the law to bring about this sensitive­
ness to public obligation.
It may interest you to hear the brief story of the council’s efforts
to collect and present the accident statistical records of 11 of the
sectional groups now contributing statistical information. These are:
Automotive, chemical, construction, metals, packers and tanners,
paper and pulp, petroleum, quarry, rubber, textile, and woodwork­
ing. Six other industrial sections are already sending their statis­
tical compilations to other agencies, and the council is not making
an effort to compete nor to duplicate these reports. They are:
Steam railroads, now reporting to the Interstate Commerce Commis­
sion; the public utilities, reporting to the American Gas Association
and the National Electric Light Association; the mining companies
to the United States Bureau of Mines; the electric street railway
companies to the American Electric Railway Association; and the
cement companies to the Portland Cement Association.
The members in the 11 industrial groups enumerated use the
council’s standard report form requiring answers to the following
four questions:
(a) Average number of employees for the year.
(b) Total number of hours worked by all employees.
(c) Number of accidents causing loss of time beyond day or shift.
(a) Number o f days lost because of the above accidents.



The answers to the questions make it possible for our engineers to
calculate the accident frequency and severity rates for each member
reporting. O f course, these rates are figured on the nationally
approved basis and provided for in our Safe Practices pamphlet
No. 21, entitled, “Accident Records.” Three of these sectional
groups—construction^ rubber, and textile—have gone one step far­
ther. The members m these groups, in addition to tabulating their
accidents according to the standard report form, tabulate them
according to a standard cause classification. Of course, the recorded
experiences of these three groups are more valuable and efforts are
being made to have the other eight groups also adopt standardized
cause classifications. The council will be glad to send to any inquirer
copies of the textile, rubber, and construction forms showing the
standardized accident causes.
In the correspondence with the member, the council points ou£
that there are six reasons for collecting and comparing these accident
statistics, viz: (a) To promote uniformity; (6) To arouse pride of
industry; (c) To secure direct comparisons; (d) To trace the na­
tional trend of accident experience; (e) To interest other companies
in accident prevention; and (/) To help each individual company
in analyzing and correcting its own accident causes.
The council impresses upon the member the need for uniformity
in compiling accident records, emphasizing the fact that these uni­
form methods of calculation from year to year should be maintained
in spite of changes in the personnel of the statistical department;
that frequent changes in the method of compilation create confusion
and misunderstanding. Uniformity makes it possible to compare
the record of one plant with the record of others having similar
accident records.
To illustrate what it means to arouse the pride of an industry, I
may say that the cement industry claims credit for making greater
progress in accident prevention during the past few years than any
other industry in the country. This industrial group is proud of its
record and broadcasts the information to all of its workers.
When publishing the tabulated accident records of a particular
industry the council gives the record of each operating plant. The
names of the plants, however, are not revealed. Each plant is given
a key number which is known only to the officials of that plant and
to the engineering staff of the council. These comparisons make it
possible for the plant executives to see their standing with reference
to other plants m their same class. The plants at the top of the
list are encouraged to continue to improve their present accidentprevention methods, and those companies not doing so well are urged
to do more and better work.
Keen interest has been developed among the paper and pulp mem­
bers of the council by offering a “ Paper industry” silver loving
cup to that mill having the best accident record for the first six
months of 1926. The operating plant in this industry having the
best record will be entitled to claim the honor of having the safest
paper mill in America.
Of course, the compilation of these statistics makes it possible to
trace the national trend of accidents within certain industries and
leads to greater effort to ascertain the causes for increases or de­



creases. For example, the 67 companies in the automotive group
reporting for the two years 1923 and 1924 show an average increase
of 22 per cent in the frequency rate and an average increase of 167 in
the severity rate. This record has stimulated these companies to
greater effort and the council is given the opportunity to hammer
away at the industry as a whole and at the companies that are not
getting results. The following additional comparative records may
interest you:
Nine companies in the chemical industry reporting accidents for
1923-24 show decreases of 29 per cent in frequency and 27 per cent
in severity.
Fifteen companies in the petroleum industry reporting accidents
for 1922-;23 show increases of 1 per cent in frequency and 20 per
cent in severity.
Five construction companies reporting for 1922-23 show a de­
crease of 23 per cent in frequency but an increase of 28 per cent in
Thirty-one paper and pulp companies reporting for 1922, 1923,
and 1924 show in three years decreases of 35 per cent in frequency
and 16 per cent in severity.
Thirty-nine companies in the woodworking industry reporting for
1923-24 show decreases of 29 per cent in frequency and 7 per cent in
Seventy-seven companies in the metals industry reporting for
1923-24 show decreases of 15 per cent in frequency and 2 per cent in
Typical reasons given for increases are: “ Speeding up of produc­
tion ; “ necessity for cheaper production means that less attention
is given to safety” ; “ increased labor turnover” ; “ too much atten­
tion to safety education and not enough to the problem of safe­
guarding new equipment.”
These sectional statistics are used to secure the interest of indi­
vidual companies not now taking an active interest in accident pre­
vention. Many companies become interested by comparing their
own safety records with those of other companies in the same indus­
try. This leads to organized effort to combat the accident situation.
Statistical records also help the safety man to study his own rec­
ords more closely. They help him to select the most important acci­
dent causes and to apply the most necessary remedies. The safety
man also uses these statistical records to emphasize to the executives
and workers of the plant the need for more safety effort. It is be­
coming clearer to the managers of industry that statistical charts,
tabulations, curves, etc., are invaluable in showing up the experience
and in leading to constructive effort.
The council is distributing widely its pamphlets giving the ap­
proved methods of compiling accident statistics. It is preparing
another pamphlet to be entitled, “ Competition as an aid in promot­
ing accident prevention.” A section of this pamphlet will present
methods for using these statistical records in accident-prevention
contests. Copies of this new pamphlet will be available to inquirers.
No- one will deny the value of recording accident experiences.
The problem is to convince industry, and particularly the 92 per cent
that employ less than ^00 workers, that such recorded experience



will reveal disgraceful economic and human losses. The extension
of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics machinery to col­
lect, tabulate, and analyze the data on industrial accidents in the
United States will be a step in the right direction. Such institu­
tions as the National Safety Council will cordially assist in the edu­
cational problem of keeping the records and in achieving the goal of
minimizing the terrific and unnecessary losses of life and money.
The C h a i r m a n . This splendid paper of Mr. Cameron’s is now
open for discussion. I am going to ask D. T. Meany, of the Inter­
national Paper Co., to lead the discussion.
Mr. M e a n t . Mr. Cameron has given us a very interesting talk on
the statistical activities of the National Safety Council. In a gen­
eral way it serves a twofold purpose: First, it has given sufficient
proof to those of you who are not members of the council that you
would profit by membership in it; and second, he has reminded those
who are members of the council that the council is always ready to
assist them in the work of accident prevention, a fact we are apt
to lose sight of or to forget in our day-to-day saiety work.
The pulp and paper section, of which Mr. Cameron spoke, has
been carrying on tor the past six months a very active campaign o f
accident prevention. Its last news letter states that three paper
companies have gone that long without a lost-time accident. That
is a splendid record. However, he forgot to tell you that there was
some difficulty in gathering the statistical data of the contest. Some
paper companies failed to report on the scheduled data and others
failed to report after the first month or two. This was probably
due to having a poor accident experience, and they just dropped out.
The International Paper Co. has been engaged in safety work
for the past 10 years and has established uniform methods for re­
cording accidents. We have ^issued form instructions governing
them in order that the men might report to us the correct data for
compiling our accident statistics. These reports are entirely sepa' rate from our insurance reports.
There can be only one real purpose for these statistics, and that is
that we may profit by our past experience and do better safety work
in the future, cutting out the causes of accidents in particular parts
of our mills. The fundamental purpose of accident reports is to get
the cause of the accident. That is what the safety man works with;
it is the meat of his work. By using that he can go out and prevent
similar accidents^ or he can get assistance from other departments
of his company m working out a method whereby he can prevent
such accidents.
We compile our data in the form of quarterly and yearly reports
showing the relative standing of each mill for the period reported,
based on “ days lost per 100 employees.” This report also gives a
comparative summary for the same period of the previous year. I
have here our quarterly report for the three months ending June
30, 1926, and I tell you frankly it is nothing to be proud of. The
summary for that period is as follows:




Number of employees_____________ ____________________________ _____
Lost-time accidents_________________________________________________
Days lost_________ : ________________________________________________
Days lost per 100 em ployees.._______________________________ •_______
Lost-time accidents per 100 employees________________________________
Fatal accidents____ ______ ____ ____ _________________________ ________
Penalty days charged........................................... ..........................................

3a 73




i Decrease.

We show also the record of each individual mill as compared with
that of other mills of the company. This table is for the executive
officers of the company and the mill managers. I am just going to
take the relative standing of the larger mills of our company. Bank­
ing first is a small pulp mill of 52 employees. It went through
three months without a lost-time accident. Second is the Otis Mill,
which has 982 employees. It runs two separate pulp mills, one 2
miles from the main mill and the other 5 miles from the main mill,
and has about 11 paper machines. It had 1 lost-time accident, and
lost 21 days. Its rate for days lost per 100 employees was 2.25.
Standing fifth in the list is our Three Rivers Mill at Three Rivers,
Province of Quebec, Canada. That is the largest paper mill in the
world. We employ there 1,199 men, mostly French Canadians; that
is, the larger percentage of the men who work in that mill speak
French, and the supervising force is comprised mostly of Englishspeaking men, who have in the four or five- years they have been
there learned to jabber the French language pretty well. This mill
had 14 lost-time accidents and the days lost were 219. Its rate per
100 employees is 18.18.
Another large mill of the company, our Hudson River Mill, rates
sixth in the relative standing. It is in New York State up on the
Hudson River at Palmer, and employs 855 men. It had 8 lost­
time accidents, and lost 204 days. Its rate per 100 employees is 23.5.
It seems that we can arouse and maintain greater interest in safety
work in our bigger mills than in our smaller mills. The mill at the
bottom of the list—I will not tell you which it was—had 201 em­
ployees and 6 lost-time accidents, and 210 days lost. The days lost
per 100 employees was 104.48.
The question arises, does that statistical data arouse interest in the
executive officers, the safety man, and the employees? The report
also contains a chart which includes (1) Causes of accidents; (2)
occupation at time of injury; and (3) description of injury. This
I think gives us better results, especially the section showing causes
of accidents. That is what the safety man needs. It shows that the
total lost-time accidents in that quarter were 117. Those caused by
handling of objects were about 57; by power-working machinery,
about 26; by falls of persons, about 17; by falling objects, 5; by hoists
tuid conveyors, 4; by vehicles, 3; by prime movers, 1; by hot sub­
stances, 1; and miscellaneous, 1.



[S ca le equals to ta l num ber (1 1 7 ) o f th e lost-tim e acciden ts]




< >C<

►w w

ZUi *A' rr< w

I 1
1 1 1
rrmsnnio fwooonumr w r

Rooty a k o Phpcx. A mo
ttM O tiN t HAN0UN6 MtSC.




vm vno

M isc.

Wo o d ,.

■i .


a 5* :*/ P 7 70 V i >






1 1 1 1 1 11


___ 1 ___

Bx m k s Spm m s
eya s
fM c ru n e s S
H ew A t
Fa t a i*



(S tc a m )



I try to get away from “ miscellaneous,” but if anyone here can
classify this accident for me he is a world beater. This is what
happened. It is a more or less common practice for men around
paper machines to go barefoot, and the man who was injured was
barefoot. He was getting off the step on the side of the paper ma­
chine and brushed his foot against a broom that was standing beside
the machine. That broom had a low tin cover on the top which was
a little worn, and he scratched his foot. He went to the first-aid
room and had the wound dressed, and the nurse told him to wear
his shoes when around the paper machine and to keep dirt out of
the wound. He did not do it nor did he come back to the first-aid
room, and an infection set in. That was the “ miscellaneous” acci­
Using this section of the chart on causes of accidents the safety
man at the mill can, by taking his own accident experience, make
the necessary comparison, and likewise he can guard against acci­
dents at his mill similar to those which the records show occurred in
other mills.
There is just one other thing which I want to show you that the
chart will Dring out. The section on occupation shows a high percentage of accidents in our wood room—something like 15. When
we go back to the mills where the accidents occurred we find that one
mill had 375 employees, 28 lost-time accidents, and 278 days lost,
showing both a high severity rate and a high xrequency rate. The
trouble was in its wood room, and we are planning to change that
wood room in order to prevent other accidents there of a similar
Another experience of longer standing—and the accident hazard is
still prevalent in many paper mills of the country—was in connec­
tion with the use of rope on the winder shafts. This rope, about
2 or 3 yards long, is used, when starting the roll on the re­
winder, to prevent the roll from bulging out. The danger in using
this rope is either that the operator may get his finger caught with
the draw of the rope and have it cut off or he may be pulled into the
winder. We found out, not alone from our statistical records, that
we had a number o f accidents from that cause, and after investiga­
tion of the mills we developed a device whereby we do not have
to 'use the rope at all. The men like it better, they can work
safer with it, and besides they can work quicker—the production
results are better. So much for the causes, although they play the
most important part in the work of the safety man.
What interest has the mill manager in these charts and tables?
The mill manager who finds he is on the bad side is going to take
safety measures for the next three months that will get results, and
greater stress will be put on accident prevention in all its phases.
There is one thing that as an individual company we can contrib­
ute to both State and National statistics, and that is we must give
those people accurate and correct information.
Betuming to Mr. Cameron’s paper, he stated that the frequency
rates and severity rates used by the National Safety Council are on
the nationally approved basis in which death is counted as equiva­
lent to 6,000 days lost. That is the standard by which, perhaps2you
are going to work out this whole system of statistics on a national



basis. My company does not believe that the method used in calcu­
lating days lost or for fatal accidents is fair. We grant that in a
general way it is fine for comparative purposes, but in reality it
destroys the individual company record. I think I can show you
that. First of all, 6,000 days represent almost 20 working years.
The fallacy in this standard is twofold: First, if the stitistician sets
this arbitrary figure of 6,000 days, what is to prevent the lawmaking
bodies o f the various States in which we operate from taking this
standard for methods of paying compensation? In fact, we are
leading the way for this when we adopt that as a standard. That
is a fact, I think, that is really worth consideration by men who are
Second, that rate is high. Taking the maximum weeks of com­
pensation paid for deaths, or fatal accidents, in five of the States
in which we operate—Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massa­
chusetts, and Louisiana—the average is less than 2,000 days. There
is a difference of 4,000 days, and yet you use 6,000 days on which to
base the rest of your table. You can see how taking 6,000 days
distorts the whole severity rate and shows a much worse condition
than really exists.
I think that is worthy of consideration by the committee on de­
termination of exposure, and I ask that committee to give it earnest
consideration and to give us a fair basis whereby an individual com­
pany can collect its data and present same to a State or the National
government for national statistics.
The C h a i r m a n . Mr. Comeron’s paper is excellent and the dis­
cussion was very full and complete. We will now listen to David
Van Schaack, of the JEtna Life Insurance Co. on the u Interest of
casualty insurance in accident prevention statistics.”

Casualty insurance has much more than an interest in statistics, for
it is absolutely dependent upon them for the successful conduct of
its business. It might seem that in making this statement I am de­
parting from the subject assigned me, the interest of casualty insur­
ance in accident-prevention statistics, but all statistics in which
casualty insurance is concerned have necessarily an accident-prevention relation as the word “ accident ” is commonly interpreted. To be
strictly accurate in the light of a true definition of the word “ acci­
dent,” some of the branches of casualty insurance would not properly
come within this statement. A burglary or theft can scarcely be
considered a fortuitous event. It may, in a way, be due to the opera­
tion of chance, but it is certainly not an undesigned contingency
or a happening without intentional causation. There are other
branches of casualty insurance which also come within this same
class, but generally speaking most of the branches of casualty in­
surance, as for instance automobile insurance and compensation in­
surance, are deeply concerned in statistics as having a direct rela­



tionship not only to the formulation of rates but also to the preven­
tion of accidents affecting those rates.
Casualty insurance is no exception in the wide and increasing
field of insurance, nor in the broader field of human endeavor gen­
erally, in its absolute dependence upon statistics not only to show
where it is at any particular time but also to point the way to im­
provement. It is a commonly accepted truism to-day, I believe,
that every worth-while enterprise must be established and kept upon
a sound statistical foundation. This is certainly, and perhaps
especially, true of insurance. Perhaps the most outstanding example
in the insurance field is found in the life insurance mortality tables,
which point very clearly, except for the occasional visitation of pes­
tilence or plague, to the pure premium which should be the basis of
the full premium to be charged a man insurable at any particular
age. These tables are so well founded upon past experience that an
insurance company knows that of 100,000 persons insured at age 30,
not more than so many will die during the first year thereafter, so
many the second year, and so on until, according to the expiration
of the table, all are, so far as insurance purposes are concerned, dead.
It is an easy matter in the light of these statistics to figure out the
net premium, dependent upon the method of making payments
thereof and the time when the face of the policy is to be paid, which
at a given rate of interest will produce this necessary sum of money
at the end of the expectancy period or other time.
It is not possible to attain such a degree of accuracy in the case
of casualty insurance statistics, for too many uncertain elements
enter into the problem, but the value of dependable statistics is so
evident in connection with casualty insurance that every effort pos­
sible is made to develop as definite a statistical basis as is practically
It would be impossible within the limits of such a paper as this
to deal with the whole range of casualty insurance statistics. On
the assumption that you are particularly interested in accident sta­
tistics as applicable to workmen’s compensation insurance, I shall
confine myself to a brief discussion of casualty insurance’s interest
in them. The casualty companies have a general interest in all in­
dustrial accident statistics, even though or mere occurence, as they
give some indication at least of the hazards which are covered by
insurance. The real concern of the casualty companies, however, is
with the statistics of loss cost, for it is upon them that their rates
are based, and they are the figures which point the way to adjust­
ment of rates.
The manual rates for workmen’s compensation insurance, which
rates naturally must vary in the several States according to the dif­
ferent provisions of their workmen’s compensation laws, are de­
veloped according to classifications of industry. The basic pure
premium for any classification depends upon the amount of money
per hundred dollars of pay roll which is necessary, as shown by ex­
perience, to cover the loss cost developing from the operation of that
classification of industry. The basic pure premium is reverted to
a given State-law requirement, and then loaded for taxes, expense
of handling claims, inspection, pay-roll audit, acquisition, ai\d gen­



eral administrative expense. It is not loaded for profits, although
insurance companies, like all other business enterprises, are in busi­
ness to make a profit. In the present state of the workmen’s com­
pensation business, the only chance the casualty insurance companies
have to derive a profit from it is through that part of interest earn­
ings upon loss reserves held in trust for the payment of incurred
losses as they come due from time to time which is not required to
maintain those reserves, and from interest earnings upon the un­
earned premium reserve carrying over from year to year.
It is rather a common misconception of the facts—far too com­
mon at any rate—that insurance companies are the owners of all
of the very large amounts of money which they show as assets in
their annual statements. A glance at the other side of the balance
sheet of these annual statements will show that the greater part by
far of these assets is offset by liabilities in the form of loss and pre­
mium reserves, which, of course, are merely trust funds only tem­
porarily in the possession of the insurance companies.
Not only are loss-cost statistics necessary to develop the basic pure
premium for each classification of industry under workmen’s com­
pensation insurance, but they are requisite to the modifications of
the loaded basic premium which have come to be an essential part
of this form of insurance. Neither schedule nor experience rating
could be applied to compensation risks were it not for sufficiently
dependable statistics. Casualty insurance companies early recog­
nized the unfairness of charging the same rate to all assured coming
under any one classification, and it was with a view to eliminating
this unfairness so far as would be practically possible that schedule
rating and experience rating, collectively known as the merit-rating
system, were devised.
Briefly, schedule rating undertakes to modify the classification
rate in the case of a particular assured because of the extent to which
accident-producing conditions in his plant vary from the average.
Schedule rating originally covered a considerable number of items,
but in the light of experience these items have been substantially re­
duced in number, concentrating as rapidly as possible upon those
accident-producing conditions which loss-cost experience showed to
be outstanding. The point of operation of machines, for instance,
is a great accident-producing cause now in many branches of in­
dustry, and it therefore occupies an especially prominent place in
the scheiiie of schedule rating. From the constantly increasing evi­
dence that organization for accident-prevention work and for med­
ical treatment of injuries is a most important factor influencing
compensation-loss cost, credits for these are also prominent in the
schedule-rating plan.
Schedule rating has played a very important part in the develop­
ment of workmen’s compensation insurance, not only because of its
undertaking to vary the rate for the individual plant according to
the actual accident-producing conditions existing therein, but also
because of the incentive which it gives an assured to take effective
measures through organization and through safeguarding to reduce
his accident experience. Schedule rating, however, did not go far
enough in all fairness to the assured, so experience rating was de­



vised to give him additional benefit, dependent upon the actual
results of accident-prevention work in his plant.
In order not only to develop rates which will apply in all fair­
ness to assured under workmen’s compensation insurance but also
to create the proper atmosphere for successful accident-prevention
work, it is necessary—
1. To bring home to the general public the large burden it must
bear due to the enormous actual cost of accidents.
2. To bring fully before the assured the exact status of his risk
and the part it plays in the general cost of accidents.
3. To gather the necessary information regarding the nature and
the causes of accidents in order that safety work may be done
The statistical departments of casualty insurance companies, there­
fore, keep these three distinct records for the above purposes: (1)
General classification experience—Schedule Z ; (2) individual risk
experience; (3) individual accident analysis experience. Let us con­
sider each of these three records in turn.
1. General classification experience—Schedule Z.—Workmen’s com­
pensation insurance at this stage in the onward march of civilization
is a necessary although expensive institution. It behooves all, par­
ticularly those more directly concerned in molding its infant career,
to bring it to an increasingly efficient and economic basis. To ac­
complish this it is necessary to know its exact cost not only as a
whole but also for each of tne approximately 750 classifications into
which industry has been divided. Inefficient methods influencing
accident costs must be located by assigning to each industry the
actual cost of its part of the wastage due to accidents to employees.
To attain this end it is necessary for a casualty company’s statis­
tical department to keep such detailed records as will enable it to
allocate pay rolls, premiums, and accident costs to each of the ap­
proximately 750 classifications. These records, which must be kept
by States and by policy years, are submitted to central organiza­
tions, where the reports of all carriers are combined and the results
presented for rate-making purposes.
By this procedure as accurate a check as possible is given to the
figures developed by the casualty companies’ experience. The ex­
hibits show figures of pay rolls and losses taken from the carriers’
authenticated records. Not only are these carriers’ records subject
to examination by the insurance departments but in many cases these
figures may be independently checked by records furnished the in­
surance department by the assured. All decisions regarding the
processes used in the compilation and the selection of pure premiums,
or the determination of any other factor which affects the ultimate
cost, are made in meetings which are open to representatives of the
insurance department, and which are presided over by a representa­
tive of the insurance convention.
Z. Individual risk experience.—To bring the cost of casualty in­
surance ultimately to the lowest economic basis, it is not enough that
the actual cost be allocated correctly to each individual classifica­
tion, but also that so far as possible the proper rate be assigned to
each risk. It is necessary to reward individual risks properly and



adequately for good experience through the medium of an effective
merit-rating system, or to penalize them suitably for poor experience.
To put inducements for the development of good risks into prac­
tice, the casualty companies have to keep detailed records of indi­
vidual risks of tiieir assured. Only through the study and examina­
tion of such individual risk records can the underwriters ferret out
any weak spots, and with the cooperation of the safety engineers
make the necessary recommendations to the assured so that his ex­
perience may be bettered. Should the assured fail to cooperate in
reducing bad experience, he should, in the interests of all other
assured in his classification, be properly penalized.
The individual risk ‘experience also the data necessary
to apply schedule rating and experience rating so that the assured
may be adequately rewarded for prospectively good experience and
properly penalized for poor experience.
3. Individual accident analysis—The prevention of industrial
accidents requires a knowledge of individual accidents in greater
detail than the total cost by nature of injury for each classification
or the information that may be derived from the classification ex­
perience. Successful accident-prevention work requires the posses­
sion of information relative to the causes which produce accidents,
the kinds of machines or the sort of work in connection with which
they are most likely to occur, the part of the body injured, and the
severity of these various accidents.
To enable casualty companies to get this information, the statis­
tical departments keep detailed records of individual accidents,
which show the cause of the accident, the machine or work to which
it has been assigned, the severity, and the total cost. This informa­
tion is reported on punch cards for every compensable accident to a
central organization where it is compiled.
I have outlined briefly in its several divisions the statistical work
which casualty insurance companies find it necessary to do in order
to conduct their workmen’s compensation business properly. The
necessity for this amount of careful detailed work is clearly indica­
tive of the absolute dependence of casualty insurance upon statistics
for the maintenance of proper rates and for the furtherance of
accident prevention. When workmen’s compensation was substi­
tuted for the inequitable employers’ liability system, which governed
for many years the handling of industrial accidents, the casualty
companies immediately recognized that they could not and should
not be content with insuring employers against hazards as they then
existed, but that it was their privilege as well as their duty to seek
to stimulate and aid in an effort to minimize accidents so far as
might be possible. It was clearly evident that casualty insurance
could not restrict itself to being a fiduciary institution spreading
the cost of industrial accidents over a wide range so that it would
not fall with crushing force in any one place, but that it must
become, so far as opportunity was afforded it, an active social force.
It has endeavored to live up to this obligation, and, I am glad to
say, with increasing success.
In living up to the obligation, casualty insurance has to make use
of the most dependable statistics which it can develop, not only to
give its assured proper rates for their insurance but to stimulate its



assured to that organized accident prevention work the results of
which will be reflected in their experience and thereby carried ulti­
mately into the rates applying to their insurance. The schedule-rat­
ing system would not be the encouragement to an assured to under­
take accident-prevention work that it is if it were not based upon
the best statistics justifying not only its possibility but the method of
its application. Experience rating could not be safely or fairly
applied to a risk if there were not accurate statistics upon which its
application could be based. The same statistics which justify the
application of both schedule rating and experience rating also point
tne way to the most intelligent working of organized accident-pre­
vention methods. It is only by careful analysis of the accident-cost
experience of the individual risk and of classes of risks that the out­
standing causes of accident loss are developed so that accidentprevention work may be applied to them.
I f it is found, for instance, by careful accident-cost analysis that
the power-press hazard is developing a considerable part of the cost
of accidents in a plant or an industry, accident-prevention work
should necessarily be applied intensively to this hazard. The sta­
tistics showing tne relativity of cost due to these particular causes
are not only convincing to the insurance company, but as a rule
they are also convincing to the manager of the risk, and lead both to
the evolution and the adoption of the most effective remedial meas­
ures possible. A mere say so or general deduction does not compare
in effect with the production of incontrovertible cost statistics.
Accident-cost analysis also shows whether that increasingly large
factor, the cost of medical handling of accidents, is exceeding in the
case or the individual risk the normal indicated by experience. Medi­
cal care should, theoretically at least, be unlimited, as the most
important thing in the working of compensation insurance, next to
the prevention of accidents, is to get the injured man back to work
as quickly as possible, and as nearly as may be in the same condition
as prior to the accident, but in the common interest of employer, in­
surer, and society, excessive cost of proper care should be eliminated
and the accident frequency which often plays a large part in that
excessive cost should Be controlled as fully as may be through organ­
ization and cooperation.
The casualty companies are interested in all industrial-accident
statistics because there is none of them, even those of mere occurrence,
which does not mean something, but they naturally are most par­
ticularly interested, and as I have said dependent, upon their own
statistics of accident-loss cost just as much for accident-prevention
purposes as for purposes of rate making. And I believe that, owing
to the wide range o f their operations, they enjoy an unequaled op­
portunity to stimulate and aid that work of accident prevention
which is, as it should be, the chief objective of the system of work­
men’s compensation. glad to say that it was a casualty insur­
ance company official who summed up the proper trend of workmen’s
compensation in the pithy sentence, “ Prevention is a benefaction;
compensation is an apology.” A well-deserved apology, of course,
for there is no question that the cost of industrial accidents should
be distributed, so far as is practicable, among the ultimate consumers



through the agency of industry itself and the cooperation of insur­
ance; but the necessity for such apology, no matter how well de­
served, should be continually reduced through the joint efforts of all
who can have any part in that reduction.
The C h a i r m a n . Mr. Van Schaack has given us a very excellent
paper, and we are going to have that paper discussed by L. L. Hall
of the National Council on Compensation Insurance.
Mr. H a l l . Mr. Van Schaack has set forth very ably the various
uses of statistics in the rate-making procedure and their application
in producing a schedule-rating plan. As to accident prevention, a
further word may be said perhaps, of what an insurance company
can do to lessen accidents and to decrease its hazard and conse­
quently its losses. Insurance companies have commonly given much
attention to the subject, partly doubtless from self-interest and, I
think it may fairly be said, in some degree out of a desire to fill a
useful and beneficent part in the community; for some of their ac­
tivities in this line are fairly remote from any possible direct per­
sonal advantage. The ordinary accident-prevention activities are
along the following lines.
1. Schedule rating.—This is designed to penalize conditions likely
to cause accidents and to reward conditions likely to diminish acci­
dents or to mitigate their consequences. The schedule deals with two
different subjects—mechanical items and the so-called morale
items. As to mechanical items, it prescribes for certain important
loss producing causes standard safeguards, and by a series of charges
and credits rewards their presence and penalizes their absence, thus
giving the employer who does certain definite acts calculated to make
nisplant safe a rate advantage over the employer who does not.
^The morale items deal with—(a) Education of the workmen in ac­
cident prevention; (b) Provisions of medical equipment for care
of injured employes. On this side there are no charges. The em­
ployer who does these things gets a credit and if his experience
shows that his plant operates at a smaller accident cost than the
average risk of the same class, he gets an added credit. The tan­
gible rew;ard offered by the rate differential does a great deal to en­
courage safety work. Equally valuable, perhaps, is the presentation
to the employer of the facts with regard to his plant, indicating that
in certain matters he is falling behind the average.
2. Experience rating.—This has its accident-prevention side as.
well. I f a plant has a good loss experience, it earns an experience
credit; if a bad experience, an experience charge. These differentials
are, as a rule, more marked than schedule differentials, especially
after a risk reaches a certain size, and, in proportion as they are more
marked, furnish a stronger incentive to better one’s experience. This
plan supplements the schedule, for the schedule covers at best only
the outstanding loss-producing elements that can be seen and esti­
mated. It may be possible to summarize these two plans by the
statement that schedule rating says to the employer that if he will
attempt to prevent accidents by doing certain things which, in the



opinion of his insurance carrier, will bring about that result, he will
receive a rate reduction, while experience rating says to the em­
ployer that if he will prevent accidents either by the method sug­
gested by the insurance carrier or by his own methods the results
will be reflected in his rate.
3. Safety engineering.—A careful company will seek to better its
risks, not only by the general plans outlined but by giving careful
study to each individual risk. This policy works in well with the
experience-rating plan. The carrier can point out the spots where ac­
cidents are likely to occur and indicate the changes to be made. It
can indicate better methods of handling materials and work in proc­
ess and point out conditions of maintenance which ought to be recti­
fied, and encourage and direct accident-prevention and safety-first
campaigns. There are cases where a carrier makes a safety inspec­
tion as often as once a month, and inspections several times in the
year are not uncommon.
It might be desirable also to add a few words concerning statistics
in general, and, in particular, statistics which do not originate in
the offices of the casualty insurance carriers. A casualty insurance
carrier is not primarily a statistical gathering organization. As a
part of its business, it finds it necessary and desirable to keep cer­
tain statistics of the results of its operations. There are, however,
many statistics which come from other sources. Insurance, in gen­
eral, is based upon the theory that history repeats itself and hence
that statistics as to the past are indicative of the future. This
theory is sound only to the extent that conditions underlying past
results will be found in the future. We must bear in mind that ac­
cident statistics are useful but not infallible. Their chief flaw is
that they are not available until some time after the events have
happened. Accordingly, casualty insurance is interested in analyz­
ing such phases of current industrial conditions as have an effect on
the business in order to be in a position to determine more accurately
what future conditions will be.
This necessitates an analysis of cause of accidents. In one sense
this means statistics that show which hazards are the immediate
causes of accidents, but in the broadest sense it means information
as to the various social, economic, and psychological conditions
which affect that kaleidoscopic phenomenon that we call American
industry. General statistics as to the immediate causes of accidents
are very valuable, because, as Mr. Van Schaack points out, they
enable the casualty insurance carrier to determine which accident
causes should appear in the rating schedule, and in conjunction with
inspection data Slowing the frequency of occurrence of such causes
make it possible to determine the rate value of the individual occur­
rence. They also give the carrier inforaation as to which causes
should receive intensive consideration if accident experience gen­
erally is to be improved. Similarly, I might repeat for emphasis
Mr. Van Schaack’s statement that a statistical exhibit as to the causes
of past accidents in a particular plant makes a very forceful argu­
ment in attempts to have the employer remove or guard the cause.
There are, however, many kinds of data which are not thought of
as accident statistics but which, nevertheless, are entitled to con­
sideration as such and which are of much interest to casually insur­



ance and, in fact, to everyone interested in the study of industry and
the accidents it produces. Information as to power consumption
and production appears to be very important.
We have commonly used a denominator representing men as a
measure of exposure. Insurance carriers have used wages, while
other interested organizations have used man-hours. It is probable
that neither of these shows the entire picture. Just a short time
ago, I was reliably informed that in Great Britain the coal-mine
accidents per man were less than in this country but that the
accidents per ton were much greater than here. I nave not as yet
had an opportunity to verify that through the United States Bu­
reau of Mines but am attempting to do so now through corre­
spondence. Obviously, if it is true it means that the man-exposure
per ton is much greater over there; in other words, that it takes more
men to produce each ton of coal than it does here. But does that
mean that the British coal miner is less efficient than his American
contemporary? Knowing that in America we use the undercutting
machine, the power loader2 and mechanical haulage much more ex­
tensively than in Great Britain, does it not mean that the American
miner is aided by mechanical methods to a greater extent and
also possibly that in introducing mechanical or other labor-saving
methods in American mines we have in the main eliminated those
engaged in the nonhazardous, rather than the hazardous, employ­
ments? In other words, without increasing the number of men
who get hurt, we may have decreased the number of those who do not.
You can look on this problem, if you like, as a problem in frac­
tions. The total number of men who get hurt represents your nu­
merator; your total exposure in men represents your denominator.
In considering a problem of accident statistics you must look at
both your numerator and your denominator. If, for instance, with­
out affecting your numerator, you decrease your denominator, the
obvious result is that you get a higher answer, which means a higher
accident rate.
The summary of the Census of Manufactures for 1923 published
by the United States Bureau of the Census shows that for the year
1914 establishments reporting to the bureau employed approximately
7,000,000 wage earners and utilized approximately 22,000,000
primary horsepower. During the year 1923, establishments
reporting to the bureau showed wage earners numbering
8,(78,000 and utilized approximately 33,000,000 horsepower. Thus
we have between the two years an increase of 25 per cent in em­
ployment and 50 per cent in the amount of power used.
I believe that this situation is worthy of study. It may show that
industry, although becoming more hazardous to the individual em­
ployee, is able to effect the same volume of production with a dimin­
ished human wastage. I f the nonhazardous employee is gradually
being eliminated it will show that safety activities must be re­
doubled in order to do more than keep even and to avoid the charge
that we are rapidly becoming a group of industrial Frankensteins.
The C h a i r m a n . We have had two splendid papers, b y Mr. Yan
Schaack and Mr. Hall. Commissioner Stewart now wants to make
an announcement.



Commissioner Stewart. No ; I want to ask some questions. I do
not think there is a man living who is going to question for one
minute that the casualty insurance companies are doing a wonderful
work in accident prevention. I do not think there’s a man living
who knows anvthing about the subject who will not admit that they
are doing pernaps more than any other agency. Admittedly they
must base their rates upon statistics, base them upon pay rolls. All,
or practically all, o f their schemes are based upon volume of payroll.
I suppose that in their accident-prevention work they come up
against the fact that it is not the pay roll that gets hurt and that
they must have some line on the exposure, the Inan-hour exposure or
the man-day exposure. So far as the pay roll is concerned, it is
absolutely vital, it is the objective of tne insurance company; but
what happens when, as in the building trades, wages are very high
and accidents are also very high? Tne truth is, you do not know
how high they are, but because of your high wages you get an
accident rate, based on pay roll, way below that of an industry
where the wages are low and the accidents not nearly so high. I
believe it is true that most of the insurance companies which are
doing good accident-prevention work realize that a rate based upon
exposure is the only guide, or practically the only guide, for their
accident-prevention work.
So far as what we are driving at here is concerned, most of the
States have access to accident reports, and know how many acci­
dents occur. They know the severity in most cases. They know
all they want to blow except the exposure on which to base accident
rates. The exposure they have not got, and so far as the States
and the Government are concerned, there is no possibility of getting
it under the present circumstances.
am not going to ask Mr. Van Schaack or Mr. Hall to answer
.this question, because they Inay not want to, but I want to suggest
-.this proposition, that if in getting your statistics of accidents and
pay roll you will, in addition thereto, get the exposure, as you do in
:a number of instances now—make it a rule to get exposure—and then
)be willing to furnish that exposure record to the States and to the
^Federal Government, our problems will all be solved. Everything
-will be done that we want done. What we want that we can not ana
do not now get is exposure. I simply want to leave that idea with
you, that what the States and Federal Government want in this
Accident business is within your power, not possibly in every instance
just now but with a minimum of time and expense, to give to us.
Mr. TTat.t,. Commissioner Stewart said that he did not expect
<either Mr. Van Schaack or Imyself to answer his question. _ I would
like to offer an answer. In the first place, the casualty insurance
carriers have enough trouble as it is getting the pay roll. They
do not always get that. In the second place, there is already a
very considerable expense attached to the so-called service item in
connection with the distribution of compensation. During the past
three or four years the casualty insurance carriers of this country
have lost quite a number of millions of dollars. I can not tell you
the exact figures offhand, but I would be willing to bet that it is
somewhere near $15,000,000. When we go out in a number of the
States and point out this condition, showing that with this loss



there is need for increased rates, many of the employers get together
and say, “ Well, you are doing too many things; you are going
through too many motions; you are keeping too many kinds of
information. That costs you money. You are doing all these
unnecessary things.”
I have personally appeared at a number of hearings throughout
this country, and I know what the sentiment is. They are at us
to cut down on the various activities which help to build up the
expense. I am pretty sure that casualty insurance carriers would
be more than willing to have additional statistics, but when they are
being constantly pounded from the top to keep the expense down it
is pretty difficult ror them to afford to get them.
Mr. W a l k e r . Mr. Hall, in speaking of the apparent accident ratio
between Great Britain and the United States, said he was seeking
information by correspondence on that subject. I thought perhaps
1 might give him some. I have worked over there and I have
worked here. During the four years I worked over there at dif­
ferent times and places I worked in a vein that averaged less than
2 feet in thickness. In our country we do not ordinarily operate
veins of that thickness. We are so rich in coal resources that, at least
up to the present time, there are hardly any veins operated unless
they are double that thickness and on up to perhaps 50 feet in thick­
ness. Over there practically all the mining is done by hand, but
more and more our wining is being done by machinery. There is a
greater output per man here, due to the machinery and to the thicker
veins of coal, as compared with the thin veins of coal and the handmining method over there. That does make a good deal of differ­
ence. Perhaps the casualty companies are trying to get information
from the point of view of a humanitarian institution, for the purpose
of making industry absolutely safe in our country, but the individual
companies^ that attempted that would find themselves in disfavor,
at least with companies which did not want that information made
known, and besides, seeking that information would naturally cost
something and would, of course, result in their being required to
charge increased rates as compared with companies that did not
do mat work, which would operate to their disadvantage. I was
wondering whether the Government could do that or not. I know,
too, that you have to keep yourself in a certain position as a Govern­
ment official or you can not function, and in that respect perhaps
it might bring some disfavor if you sought that information and
made it public, particularly as applied to individual companies.
There is no doubt that the bade purpose of this meeting and of
these activities is ultimately to eliminate accidents entirely, if that
can be done, or at least to reduce them, so far as it can be done, to a
minimum. I f we are going to do that we have to get that informa­
tion. I was wondering i f
been made to show
operating company
what relation the amount
makes—I do not mean a company that has perhaps a monopoly, but
a. company that is really operating competitively—has to the num­
ber or accidents that occur in the industry. I wondered if there
had ever been a survey as to whether the standards of education or
the workers’ general intelligence bore any relation to the number



of accidents that take place in the industry. My guess about it is
that the higher standards of education carry with them higher
standards of intelligence and that the higher those standards are
the fewer accidents there are in the industry. I was wondering also
whether or not a survey may have been made as to unusual strains—
whether speeding up—that is, speeding up beyond what the ordinary
person can reasonably do without going further than he should in
extraordinary physical effort—bears any relation to the number
of accidents that take place in industry; whether or not in industries
where simply the normal activity of the worker is required there
are not fewer accidents in proportion than where speeding up be­
yond reasonable activity on the j>art of the worker obtains.
I wanted to make these suggestions in view of the discussion that
took place between the chairman and Mr. Hall. I wanted you to
have that in mind as well.
Mr. S i l v e r m a n . On the question of obtaining information from
the insurance companies as to accidents, an answer was given that too
many things are pounded on them. W h y is it that when in Albany
the labor man appeared and asked that a State fund be given power
to control all the insurance and the paying of bills, these very com­
panies claimed that nothing can be given away, and now when it
comes up here in Washington they claim that too many things are
pounded on them? That is the question I am asking. W h y do they
object to the State of New York having its own State fund regulat­
ing this and controlling the entire insurance fund, paying out in­
surance to the workers?
Commissioner S t e w a r t . I would like to answer Mr. Walker, of
Illinois, this way. We are perfectly willing to admit that exposure,
with the cause and place or accident, is not the whole story, but we
do feel that it is so much of the story that it is hardly worth while
to tell the story without it. What few figures we have along those
lines certainly indicate, and I think every manufacturer here will
concede, that the percentage of accidents among the new men em­
ployed, within the first two weeks we will say, is greater than it is
tor the long-time employee. In other words, labor turnover is a
very potent element in this thing, and stabilization would come from
a forceful presentation of that tact. At present all the figures that
the Bureau of Labor Statistics has tend to show that; but they are
so few, the sample is so small, that we would be laughed at if we
undertook to show that in so many establishments employing so
many people the labor turnover had such and such an effect. The
ability to understand English has its effect. As far as they go,
otir figures show that, but the sample is too small for us to get out
on the housetop and make much fuss about it.
So far as speeding-up is concerned, to a certain extent that is an
open question. A fellow who is going so fast that he has to put
all of his attention and time looking at what he is doing, if you
do not carry that too far, is less apt to get hurt than the fellow
who has not much to do. On the speeding-up side I think there are
two sides. I do not believe there is a man here who would question
that there is a line where speeding becomes dangerous, and on the
other hand, there is a line where slowing becomes dangerous.



The C h a i r m a n . I f there is no further discussion we will go on.
to the next paper.
Mr. D a v i e . I would like to say just a word. I have listened with,
a great deal of interest to the last two papers presented here. Being;
one of those individuals who have some supervision in accident pre­
vention, and understanding through the paper presented by the.
casualty insurance man that certain credits are allowed, I ask this:
question: Why is it when our men are doing the accident-prevention
work and we explain to them that a just credit will be due them for*
all improvements made in their plant, that the insurance company
does not do something along that line; actually do it?
Mr. C a h i l l . I came in during the statement made by the preced­
ing speaker that in the building construction line (in which I am
interested), where the employees are receiving the highest pay, there
are a greater number of accidents than in some of the poorer paid
lines. There must be a cause for that, and I am here seeking a little
information and if possible to offer a suggestion. I think that one
reason why we have more accidents in the building construction line
is because the employers are mostly to blame. They do not consider,
that it is really necessary to supply good equipment in the line of
scaffolds and ladders, things that do not seem very important to the
outside man but are of great importance to the men employed on
the building. In the construction of a building, a scaffold, as we all
know, is really essential for the employees to work on, and if that
scaffold is not built safe, and if there are no laws laid down for the
construction of that scaffold and ladders, we are going to have acci­
dents. I f people who are erecting buildings at the present time are
not shown quite clearly and forcibly that it is really essential to
build good scaffolds and ladders, we are going to have a great many
more accidents than we have at the present time. In New York
State we have a pretty good scaffolding code, and we are very proud
of it. I think it has prevented quite a number of accidents m the
four years it has been in force, and I would suggest to this body
that it keep that thought in mind and instruct some of these care­
less contractors and also the employees that it is very important to
see that we have good ladders and good scaffolds and good equip­
ment in the erection of buildings.
Mr. B y n u m . I want to say this to Mr. Stewart: I am deeply
appreciative* of the efforts of the Federal Government. We of the
States have to look to the Govermnent for much of our information.
With that in mind I want to ask this, Mr. Stewart: We have in
Indiana some 200 self-insurers, and if you want any particular in­
formation would it not be possible to send to the various States and
let them submit those questions to the self-insurers for data? I am
sura I should be glad to do so in Indiana, if that would be of any
The C h a i r m a n . I f there is no further discussion----Mr. D a v i e . I asked a question here that has not been answered.
We have been drifting away from it, but being Scotch I do not
intend to let you do it. I made the statement that theoretically
insurance companies gave certain credits for improved conditions
in their plants. Now we have good men here who can tell us just



exactly what they would be. I think it would be educational to the
men engaged in that protective work to have one of these gentlemen
explain the method, how they really do it.
The C h a i r m a n . Mr. Hall, I thought you gave that in your paper
a little while ago.
Mr. TTat.t.. I thought so, too, and while I am perfectly willing
to answer any questions I do not want to be put in the position of
helping to turn this meeting into a discussion of the merits of com­
pensation insurance of various types. I do not think that is really
pertinent to the purposes of this meeting.
The C h a i r m a n . I rather thought that w a s covered i n your paper;
I may be wrong.
Mr. H a l l . I would be very glad to discuss the subject at any time
the Chair may designate, either publicly or privately, but I do not
want to monopolize the time of these gentlemen discussing subjects
which are perhaps not particularly pertinent to this particular
Mr. D a v ie . Compensation may not be pertinent to industrial acci­
dents, but I think that it is very pertinent.
The C h a i r m a n . What particular question did you want answered?
Mr. D a v i e . To clear up the situation, I may state that every man
engaged in practical inspection refutes the argument of employers
that they do not get credit from the insurance company.
The C h a i r m a n . But it is a well-known fact that they do give
credits. You know that in your State.
Mr. D a v ie . Theoretically they do.
The C h a i r m a n . No? no; practically they really do. I have no ob­
jection to your answering that question, Mr. Hall, if you can. I mean
in a general way; I think there is nothing specific.
Mr. D a v ie . Mr. Chairman, do you rule me out o f order?
The C h a i r m a n . No ; I do not rule you out o f order. I do not want
to’do that for a minute, Mr. Davie, but I think after our next paper,
if we have time, we will gladly have that question answered, if it
can be, to your satisfaction. We will now go on with the regular
order of business and ask Prof. Stewart Robertson, of North Caro­
lina State College, to read his paper on “What the colleges are doing
for accident prevention and human safety.”

Industrial safety is the subject of considerable attention in the
educational institutions. The professional schools of the universities,
the technical institutes, and the experiment stations are making valu­
able contributions to the safety movement by their researches in
various problems related to industrial safety, by technical instruction
in accident prevention and the elimination of hazards, and by de­
veloping in the minds of the undergraduates proper attitudes and ft
6819s—26----- 6



right sense of values. These institutions lay special emphasis on the
promotion of safety and the reduction of accident frequency because
o f their social and economic significance.
The work of the schools of engineering may be mentioned as rep­
resentative of the contributions being made to industrial safety by
the colleges. The element of safety is continually emphasized in
engineering education. This instruction is supplemented by research
studies in the engineering experiment stations conducted for the pur­
pose of eliminating waste through improvement in design, by inven­
tion, and by studies of the strength and durability of materials.
The engineering undergraduate develops a set of attitudes and a
technique that are carried over into industry, and make him a leader
in industrial safety work. In a certain sense every engineer is a
trained safety engineer. Some of the projects that have been con­
ducted in engineering might be mentioned. A valuable piece of re­
search in which the element of safety is of prime importance has
been carried on since 1919 by the University of Illinois in coopera­
tion with the National Research Council and several manufacturing
firms. It is an investigation into the fatigue of metals. Certain re­
sults have already been obtained and published in bulletin form.
This study is making a great contribution to safety work and safety
The University of Arizona has published fully a score of bulletins
under the general title “ State Safety News.” These bulletins give
results of technical safety and accident-prevention studies.
Engineering experiment stations in many of the States have con­
ducted investigations looking to protection against fire, lightning,
and diseases caused by faulty water and sewerage systems. Other
projects have dealt with automobile headlights, dust prevention,
safety of steel and reinforced structures, and safety appliances for
hazardous machines. These purposeful and intensive studies by ex­
perts seeking improvement in tne prevention of accidents and the
promotion of safety are having a very definite effect on the minds of
the undergraduates in the engineering schools of the country. But
the effect does not stop there. It is rapidly being carried over into
the industrial enterprises, for on these technical experts the manage­
ment must largely rely for guidance and assistance in matters touch­
ing the welfare of employees as well as of the physical plant.
An example of the far-reaching effect of safety education is the
tremendous influence exerted on the southern textile mills by the in­
struction acquired by safety workers and others from the South in
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and brought back to bear
fruit in the southern mills.
The safety movement in industry has come to be recognized largely
as a problem in management, and its future is therefore in the hands
o f the industrial executives. These men can not be expected to re­
spond to every appeal that is made to do something for the move­
ment. The problem of securing their interest should be handled in a
scientific way._
Most organizations have already greatly increased their overhead
by installing costly appliances and devices for guarding and in­
sulating dangerous machinery and have taken other steps which have
greatly increased their costs. What is the proper return for such



expenditures? Increases in fixed costs need to be balanced against
saving in the direct cost of operation. The guiding men of indus­
trial companies are properly concerned with the saving, or gain
to be expected from increased outlay.
The experiences of certain industrial organizations show in a
general way that accident prevention and safety pay, but results of
experiences in isolated cases do not furnish reliable data from which
to generalize. The complete cooperation of the management of the
various industries may De expected only when the gain from the
safely movement becomes a demonstrable fact.
Appliances for reducing hazards, like most labor-saving devices
o f a mechanical sort, call for an investment in some machinery
or equipment, but it remains to be determined in the case of safety
appliances wnether such improvements reduce or increase the cost
of operation, and whether they effect a saving or a loss on every unit
of output.
I f tne appliance is one that means a huge saving, or one that has
come to be regarded as fundamentally necessary to efficient operation,
it will pay to install it even though the plant is small. In measur­
ing the results of investments in safety appliances or other costs in
the interests of industrial safety, the relation of the improvements
to the health and strength of the employees, physical, mental, and
moral, must be considered. These are the basis of industrial effi­
ciency, on which the production of material wealth depends, and the
manager can not long evade this problem, even if he wishes to.
This situation, however, ought not to deprive him of his inalienable
right to get all the light on the problem that he can.
Among the variables which govern industrial efficiency, accident
frequencies and fluctuations in health conditions may be truly said
to be the least tangible of those which affect overhead costs, because
of their social influences both in the factory proper and in the com­
munity outside. This very fact demonstrates without any detailed
analysis the need for scientific studies, both of the experimental and
statistical type.
Such studies can best be made by cooperative research projects
between the industrial enterprisers and tne scientists in the educa­
tional institutions, because it is in the colleges that the scientific
method has been most completely developed and employed. No one
acquainted with the recent developments in scientific method, both
experimental and statistical, can tail to realize the advantages that
would come from such coordinated studies. But they should of
course be undertaken in the true scientific spirit; that is, free from
bias or preconceived notions. The leaders in the safety movement
should use their influence to enlist the joint interests of the industrial
executives and the scientists to make this contribution to the advance­
ment of the movement.
The C h a i r m a n . Now, so that there may be no misunderstanding
I would like to have, if it is the desire of those assembled here, Mr.
Hall answer Mr. Davie’s question, if he can. Mr. Davie, I under­
stand, says that theoretically your statement is true but that prac­



tically it does not work out; at least, that is the statement of some
of the industries.
Mr. V a n S c h a a c k . Mr. Hall has gone to a meeting of the com­
mittee on classification, but I might say just a word in that connec­
tion. The insurance companies do give the credits under schedule
rating. In New York State last year there were over 9,000 risks
which were schedule rated, of which about 3,000 took charges and
actual credits were given to over 6,000, and my recollection is that
the credit was slightly over 9 per cent.
The C h a i r m a n . Does that answer your question Mr. Davie?
Mr. D a v i e . That i s exactly what I wanted. I thank you very
Mr. T h o m p s o n . A§ Mr. Hall told you, the casualty insurance ra,te
is influenced by two factors, schedule rating and experience rating.
The two together may reduce the rate or they may increase the rate.
A man might have a case like the following, for instance, and think
that the insurance company agrees to reduce his rate theoretically
and then in actual practice it does not reduce it. The trouble is this:
A schedule rate is made of a risk and it reduces it, but the experience
in that plant has been unfavorable. It has had a number of serious,
or perhaps one or two fatal, accidents. The experience rate then
produces a charge which is in excess of the schedule rate. The plant
owner thinks he has earned something under the schedule rate, but
it is more than counterbalanced by the charge that is produced by
the unfavorable experience under the experience rate, so that in the
end his rate is increased, although he has done a lot of safety work.
The plan so works that both of them have to work in unison. The
experience has to be good along with good plant conditions, estab­
lished safety organizations, and that sort of thing; thenj combining
those two things favorably, the operator can cut his rate in half.
(Meeting adjourned.)


Commissioner S t e w a b t . I want to introduce to you the chairman
of this Afternoon, John Hopkins Hall, who is commissioner of labor
of Virginia, and who, to my personal knowledge, has been doing a
lot of good work in old Virginia;
The C h a i r m a n . I take it we are all here to discuss these things
frankly and that we all agree on the broad principle that we want
to avoid accidents. The only discussion seems to be as to methods,
as to what is the best method of avoiding accidents. I f we can not
agree on details we can probably agree on some general basis o f
operation—as Einstein would say, it is all a matter of relativity any­
way. I f we get too much detail, what might fit in an industry m
one State might not fit in the same industry in another State. As
an example, in Virginia, my native State, we have practically no
foreign labor problem, but we have the negro labor problem, which
in the same industry would present quite a different phase from that
in another State which had a different type of labor. Consequently,
we all have to adapt the methods to the conditions in our own par­
ticular State, but there are certain fundamentals we can all agree
upon, and I nope that this conference will arrive at some such con­
clusion. It defends largely on the point of view, as one gentleman
brought out this morning. Sometimes what is a question of safety
to-day .would not apply to the same industry to-morrow because of
the progress in industry. The controversy, as I see it, between
industry and the lawmaking bodies is because the legal authorities
look to precedent, what occurred a hundred or two hundred years
ago—what did Blackstone or Marshall say?—whereas industry looks
forward, lopks to improvements, looks to the future. Consequently,
the lawmaking bodies never keep pace with industrial development.
I f industry had assumed the same attitude we would still have the
tallow candle and the oxcart instead of the incandescent light and
the airplane and the automobile. We must look forward ana try to
improve on existing conditions, and try through education to con­
vince the legislators and the public generally that they must keep
pace with industry, if we want to keep down the accidents which are
an unnecessary toll in our industrial development.
I take pleasure in introducing as the first speaker of the afternoon
Carl C. Beasor, who is with the division of safety and hygiene o f
the Industrial Commission of the State of Ohio.

Until comparatively recently there was little or nothing known
about the injuries occurring to workmen in the industries of Ohio




or the industrial diseases many of Ohio’s workers were contracting.
Because of this fact, because industry in Ohio was increasing with
leaps and bounds, and because the many industrial accidents and
diseases occurring in Ohio were costing immense sums for the pay­
ment of compensation, hospital and medical bills, and the loss of
man power as well as an enormous loss of wages and inestimable
suffering, employers and employees in Ohio felt the urgent need of
something to cut this gigantic waste of money, time, and man
power to a minimum. They therefore, through their organizations
and representatives, worked out a plan to have an agency created in
the State government which would make studies of these industrial
accidents and diseases and recommend remedies for their reduction
and elimination.
These two representative bodies felt there was no better place to
have this agency than directly under the supervision of the indus­
trial commission, since this commission had charge of the collecting
and disbursing of all moneys for compensation purposes.
Accordingly they drew a bill and presented it to the last legisla­
ture. It was passed by that body without any amendments and
signed by the governor April 27, 1925. This bill was enacted as a
supplement to section 1465-89 of the General Code of Ohio and has
thereafter been known as section 1465-89A, which in part is as
The Industrial Commission of Ohio having, by virtue of the provisions of
section 35 of Article II of the Constitution of Ohio, the expenditure of the
fund therein created for the investigation and prevention of industrial accidents
and diseases, shall, in the exercise of such authority and in the performance
of such duty, employ a superintendent and such experts, engineers, investi­
gators, clerks, and stenographers, as in its opinion may be deemed necessary
and proper for the efficient operation of a bureau for the prevention of indus­
trial accidents and diseases, hereby created, and, subject to the approval o f
the governor, fix the schedule of compensation for such employees.
The commission shall set aside such portion of the contributions paid by
employers, not to exceed 1 per centum thereof in any year, as in its judgment
may be necessary for the payment of the salaries of such superintendent and
the compensation of the other employees of such bureau, and the 'expenses of
such investigations and researches for the prevention of industrial accidents
and diseases, as the commission shaU deem proper. The superintendent, under
the direction of the commission, shaU conduct investigations and researches
for the prevention of industrial accidents and diseases, and shaU, from time
to time, print and distribute such information as may be of benefit to employers
and employees.

With this authority and in the performance of such duty the
Industrial Commission of Ohio has organized, not in full, however,
what is now known as the division of safety and hygiene of the
Industrial Commission of Ohio.
Although the organizing of the division was started late last
summer, due to the formmation of plans, the drawing up of new
codes and forms to be used in the work, the changing of report
forms then in use and the securing of machinery equipment, it was
found impossible to start the regular statistical work of the division
until the beginning of this year.
The work of the division is really divided into three subdivisions,
namely, educational, engineering, and statistical. We 'hope to add
a medical subdivision in the near future. The educational program
we are instituting at present is the teaching and preaching of safety



in establishments and places where little or no work along this line
has been done, the organizing of safety groups in industrial com­
munities, particularly among chambers of commerce, employers’
organizations, etc., which do not have any such organizations and
the compilation of a set of safe practices and first-aid suggestions
to be issued shortly in bulletin form.
The engineering work being done is the making of surveys o f
plants ana operations, to determine the need of safeguards, safe
practices, etc., and to recommend to the employer such changes as
our engineer feels will reduce the accident hazard of the particular
plant or operation he is studying. The employer whose plant is
studied gets the services of a trained man in accident-prevention
work ana engineering practices and will be benefited materially if
he will follow the advice of our engineer.
The statistical work, in which I am particularly interested, is all
based upon the claims filed for industrial injuries and diseases. In
volume the average number o f claims received each full workingday during January was 720: February, 734; March, 694; April,
697; May, 791; June, 791.
Each claim, as it is received, is examined and coded for 15 different
items or fields of our code. These fields are as follows: (1) Type
of claim; (2) county or city; (3) weekly wages; (4) sex and social
conditions; (5) age; (6) nationality; (7) dependents; (8) occupa­
tion; (9) cause; (10) injury; (11) days lost; (12) compensation in­
curred; (13) medical cost; (14) manual number; (15) risk number.
The first field—type of claim—designates the case to be a State
medical case, a self-insured medical case, a public employee case,
etc. In all there are nine different types of claims used.
The second field—county or city—gives us the geographical loca­
tion of where the accident occurred. In addition to the 88 counties
of the State we carry 30 o f the principal industrial cities in this field.
Being able to segregate the accidents by cities is particularly advan­
tageous when more than one industrial center occurs in any one
county. We have one case where three industrial cities, having simi­
lar industries, are in one county—Alliance, Canton, and Massillon
are all in Stark County.
The third field carries the weekly wages of the injured or deceased.
The fourth field shows the sex of the injured and in addition
whether he or she is single, married, widowed, or divorced. ^
The fifth field shows the age of the injured at time of injury.
The sixth field carries 11 nationalities which according to the last
census appeared most frequently in Ohio industries.
The seventh field shows the number and kind of dependents the
injured or deceased had.
The eighth field is a list o f some 200 occupations which are found
in industry. This, of course, does not cover every occupation that
may be found in industry but it is approximately enough to allow
a close substitute for those that are not on the list. For example,
you will not find instructor or professor but you will find teacher.
You will not find doubler, catcher, or rougher, but you will find
rolling-mill workers.
' The ninth or cause field, is of course the chief source of informa­
tion for accident-prevention work and it is in this field where the



greatest amount of detailed coding is done. The cause code we use
is a 5-column code and is first broken up into 22 divisions or general
cause heads. These are as follows: Machinery; boilers; pumps,
compressors and prime movers; transmission apparatus; elevators;
cranes and derricks; cars and engines; motor vehicles; horse ve­
hicles; hand trucks; water craft; handling objects; hand tools;
electricity; explosives and explosions; hot, corrosive and poisonous
substances; falling objects; falling objects (mines and quarries);
falls of persons; stepping upon or striking against objects; occupa­
tional diseases; miscellaneous. Each one o f these cause heads is
further broken down which can best be explained from the code
itself. [Explanation.]
The tenth, or injury field, has four subdivisions, namely, nature of
injury, part of body, infection development, and degree. The na­
tures of injury used are: Traumatic amputations, asphyxiation,
burns and scalds, crushes and bruises, concussions, cuts ana lacera­
tions, drowning,* fractures, punctures, sprains and strains, disloca­
tions, and unclassified. The parts of the body are grouped under
head, face and neck, trunk, upper extremities, and lower extremities.
In all, these groups carry 104 parts and combinations of parts of
the body.
Each case that develops any infection from the injury is coded and
punched (1) in the fourth column of the injury field, while those
that show no infection are punched (0).
In the fourth subfield the degrees used are fatal; permanent total
disability—dismemberment; permanent total disability—other; per­
manent partial disability—dismemberment; permanent partial dis­
ability—total loss of use; permanent partial disability—impairment
of use; permanent partial disability—disfigurement; permanent par­
tial disability—other; temporary total (usability; and temporary
partial disability.
Field 11 carries the days lost due to the injury. In all fatal and
permanent cases the standard table of weights recommended by the
International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Com­
missions is used.
Field 12 carries the amount of compensation incurred in dollars,
but is not used much on our accident card.
Field 13 shows the medical cost, and it, like the compensation cost,
is shown in dollars.
Field 14 is the manual field and is composed of over 700 different
classifications or lines of work. These we group into 27 general in­
dustrial classifications, as follows: Agriculture; building erection
and demolition; construction (not building erection); chemicals and
allied products; clay, glass, and stone products; foods and beverages;
laundries; leather and leather goods; lumber and wood products;
metal industries, classified bv blast furnaces, steel works, rolling
mills, and ore refining; assembling and erecting machinery; machin­
ery manufacture; metal goods; vehicles; paper and printing in­
dustry; rubber and composition goods; textiles and clothing manu­
facture; miscellaneous industries; mining; quarries and stone crush­
ing; transportation; utilities; cartage and trucking; commercial;
clerical and professional employments; care and custody of build­
ings and grounds; and public employees.



The fifteenth or last field carries the risk number of the employer
reporting the accident. There are some 37,000 risks in the State
fund and several hundred self-insurers, but this field allows us to
segregate each risk’s experience. It is our hope to supply the em­
ployer with his own experience so that he may compare the record
of his plant or company with the industry as a whole. The ideal
way to do this, of course, is to put both the frequency and severity
rates upon a man-hour basis, and it is toward this end that we are
We appreciate it is a matter of education with a large majority
of our employers, so we make it one of our recommendations when
our engineers make their surveys. We feel that if we can get the em­
ployer interested in keeping some record of the accidents m his own
plant, we will go a long way toward getting him interested in trying
to reduce that record by accident-prevention work.
It has been frequently said that the pocketbook argument is of
little use any more. In truth, it is useless in some cases, but there are
plenty of instances where it is the one argument to put forth. Be­
cause of this fact we are keeping an entirely separate set of punched
cards for all compensable cases, from which we can get accurate com­
pensation and medical costs. These cards will allow us to tie the cost
up with any other field on the card. Our accident and compensation
card forms are identical, with the exception of the color of the card.
In each instance the full information is punched on the card, so
that the status of the card is governed by the color. Any additional
information or costs to be added to the case is carried on pinkstriped cards, substractional amounts being on green-striped cards.
I feel that the cost of maintaining this additional set of cards
for the compensation cases is offset considerably by the ease with
which later tabulations are made and the reduction of the actual
machine work in the tabulating room. It is also a help to us, due
to the manner in w;hich we must get the information we desire from
the actual cases. The basic records are filed with the department of
industrial relations and are passed from one division to another in
that department for actuarial and auditing purposes. We must
therefore get them while they are en route, which necessitates our
keeping a fairly strict schedule, the gratest length of that schedule
being one day. Some types of claims we are limited in the time we
can hold them to four hours. These, of course, are given priority
over all others as soon as we get them.
Thus far we have not been able to get many reports ip printed
form before the public excepting the monthly tables showing the
number of fatal and nonfatal claims filed and* time lost by general
industrial classifications and cause heads. We feel that we have
many individual needs in Ohio and must try to meet as many of
those as possible first of all. It is our intention, however, to follow
as closely as possible the prescribed tables set forth by the United
States Bureau of Labor Statistics in its Bulletin No. 276 for com­
parative purposes.
Knowing that we have a real job on our hands in Ohio we will
welcome any constructive criticism that will help us with that job,
for we feel that everyone here has but one question, which stands



head and shoulders above everything else and that is, How can we
eliminate or reduce the terrible toll to the lives and limbs of our
fellow workers here in America?
The C h a i r m a n . I am sure we have all enjoyed the valuable paper
*ust read. Ohio is making fine progress, and this paper by Mr.
3easor indicates that that progress will continue. I was very much
impressed by a slogan they have on their monthly bulletin which
I am fortunate enough to receive, and that is—I do not know
whether it is original or not but it is a good one—“ Safety is better
than compensation.” I believe it might be a good slogan for us all
to follow.
Mr. Beasor referred to Bulletin No. 276. That has been referred
to several times here in this conference. Mr. Stewart informs me
that there are copies on a table outside this hall, and I hope as many
of you as are interested will get a copy, because we can make valuable
progress by studying the same. I would like to open this meeting
ior discussion of any points or questions that might be asked, but
Mr. Stewart suggests that we go on with the program and have the
discussion afterwards. The question occurred to me as to whether
there were not too many different classifications and I just want to
note that suggestion in case we want to discuss it later on.
The next paper on the program is “Accident prevention in rela­
tion to efficiency,” by Lewis A. De Blois, of the National Bureau
of Casualty and Surety Underwriters, and I now take pleasure in
introducing Mr. De Blois to you.



Among the earliest discourses on industrial safety one encounters
the statement: “A safe plant is an efficient plant.” In one form or
another this thought has been expressed so repeatedly that it has be­
come embodied in the working creed of the safety engineer. The
truth of it seems to have been accepted without question—as real
truths often are—without critical analysis, without attempt at proof.
In one aspect its truth is <juite obvious. When an employee is
injured he loses more or less time from work, to which is added the
lost time of fellow employees who are, for the moment, distracted
from their usual productive occupations. Furthermore, a serious
accident, or the constant repetition of accidents, may temporarily
injure the morale of the entire establishment, with resulting dis­
traction and loss of time. Loss of time is, of course, reflected in
diminished production.
Diminished production, regardless of cause, is attended by a fall­
ing off in production efficiency. Efficiency, as we all know, is the
relation of output to input. Output is input less losses. Since the
decrease in production efficiency due to interruptions is real and
not a figure of speech, and because the nature of the losses is not
always clearly understood, it will perhaps pay us to discuss the
matter more in detail.



In every industrial establishment there are “ fixed losses” which
ersist at a rate that is practically independent of the rate of prouction output. Examples of these are interest on plant invest­
ment, depreciation of plant from age or action of the elements,
condensation and leakage losses in pipe lines, and certain losses in
electric lines that take place whether or not current is being used.
Such losses go on continuously. They should not be confused with
what we may call “ variable losses.” The latter are losses which
fluctuate more or less proportionately with use, input, or consump­
tion of plant, power, and ingredients. We all know that something
quite similar happens with our automobiles—they depreciate in
mechanical efficiency and economic value as result of use—that is,
a result of variable losses; but also, as result of fixed losses, they
depreciate when not in use. So it is with our clothing, with our
homes—even with our bodies. Lowered production, use, output, or
whatever term we employ, must always, therefore, be accompanied
by decreased efficiency, since the fixed losses become of relatively
greater importance.
Interruption to the production cycle, whether expected or unexected, avoidable or unavoidable, therefore diminishes output and,
y throwing the fixed losses into greater prominence, decreases pro­
duction efficiency. Accidents are unexpected interruptions—indeed,
the commonest form of unexpected interruption. We must remember? however,^ that in speaking thus of accidents we do not mean
accidental injuries but the unexpected occurrences from which in­
juries may result. As safety engineers we have become somewhat
nearsighted in the matter of accidents. We are very apt to con­
centrate our attention on accidental injuries—largely on tabulatable
injuries—overlooking minor injuries and near-injury accidents. As
for the occurrence of noninjury accidents that we do not happen to
regard as near-injuries, we are quite oblivious to them, forgetting
that they constitute by far the largest class and that each of these
unexpected events has its own measure of injury potentiality.
I nave not been able to uncover any very dependable figures on
the occurrence of the latter class but we may set down the following
ratios for purposes of discussion:



Number of fatal accidents__________________________
Number of permanent disability cases-----------------------5
Number of tabulatable temporary disability cases-------110
Number of minor injury cases---------------------------------34,800
Number of noninjury accidents-------------------------------- 3,480,000

The values for permanent and temporary disability cases are
reasonably reliable, being Hookstadt’s modifications of the accepted
American experience table. The value for minor-injury cases is
taken from the average experience of seven plants of E. I. du Pont
de Nemours & Co., all known to be reporting minor injuries with
reasonable consistency. The value for noninjury accidents, in which
I have assumed a ratio of 100:1, is pure conjecture. Even if we
could obtain the actual value from experience it would represent
merely a gross average, since industrial conditions vary and the
expectancy must be modified in accordance. For example, the ex­
pectancy of a noninjury accident from smoking over an open powder



keg would be low while the expectancy for smoking over a can of
heavy oil would be comparatively high. For the sake of argument,
however, it is sufficient to assume that for every tabulatable injury
accident there may be 30,000 noninjury accidents.
We have seen that accidents, functioning as process interruptions,
diminish operation efficiency and decrease output. Assume that
we have 1,000 men employed in an industrial process and that these
men have an injury frequency rate of 20 per thousand workers per
year. I f our assumption on the relative number of noninjury acci­
dents was correct, there would be 600,020 accidental process inter­
ruptions during tne year. I f their duration averaged only one min­
ute the aggregate lost time would amount to 10,000 hours! Ob­
viously, then, the prevention of accidents, as distinct from the pre­
vention of accidental injuries, has real economic possibilities.
When we prevent accidental injury by protecting the body of the
man we do not usually eliminate the accident capable of causing
injury. We know that the application of protection alone does not
greatly reduce injury occurrence and can not, of itself, make a safe
plant. Engineering revision of the plant and revision of the work­
ers’ mental attitude can accomplish it. When we prevent injuries
by eliminating the accident cause, as takes place when revision is ap­
plied, we not only extirpate injuries and accidents but materially
diminish lost time from unexpected process interruptions. This,
to my mind, is the major reason for believing that a safe plant, that
is, a plant that has largely eliminated injuries, is an efficient plant
since it has probably largely eliminated unexpected process inter­
Most accidents, however, are the result, not of a single cause, but
of the coincidence of a number of contributing causes, each of which
may be, in turn, the culmination of a long series of events. They
may have to do with the plant and its equipment or with the in­
gredients or process. In each of these some element of produc­
tion inefficiency may be introduced—improper maintenance, poor
housekeeping, defective construction, bad design, for example. On
the other hand, they may concern the personal element and here we
encounter poor technique, lack of skill, inattention, absence of proper
supervision, fatigue^ defective vision, improper illumination, and a
host of other contributing causes that affect both safety and pro­
duction efficiency. Eliminate all or any one of them for the sake
- of preventing accidents, or for any other reason, and efficiency can
not help but oe improved.
There is, moreover, an indirect relationship. It requires the highest
grade of intelligent plant management and responsive personnel to
eliminate accidents and maintain a long no-accident record. There
must be effective organization, cooperation, and spirit. Exactly the
same requirements must be fulfilled in order to attain a high degree
of operating efficiency. The industrial establishment that has at­
tained the one goal will, or can, attain the other.
Instances of the total elimination of all classes of tabulatable
injuries for long periods of time are now familiar to all. The ac­
complishment of 1,000,000 man-hours without accidental injuries
is not infrequent, and in one case the high point of 8,000,000 manhours has been attained. These no-accident records confirm the



truth of the adage that accidents do not happen but are caused. We
are facing the fact that the only unpreventable industrial accidents
are those caused by natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, tor­
nadoes, etc., and they, after all, are not really industrial accidents.
It is not generally so well known that certain plants that have
experienced remarkable no-accident records have also attained co­
incident improvements in operating efficiency or increases in quan­
tity production. For example, one plant practically eliminated
punch-press accidents and was rewarded with a 65 per cent increase
in production per press. So many rather similar instances have oc­
curred, and the matter is of £uch economic importance, that a na­
tional research into the subject has been undertaken by the American
Engineering Council.
To be sure, accident prevention is its own justification quite aside
from any direct or indirect effect which it may have upon industrial
production. Up to this time the safety movement has been accepted
largely at face value. Its humanitarian appeal, its effect on com­
pensation and liability rates, and its general “ worth-whileness ” have
carried it forward. While its progress has been little short of re­
markable, if one considers the oreadth and diversity of American
industry and the rapid changes that have been taking place within
it, disappointment greets us when we consider its progress from an­
other aspect, for the annual number of accidental industrial deaths,
in so far as it is possible to estimate them, has not yet commenced
materially to dimmish.
We are prone to regard American industry as typified by large
and progressive corporations, because it is usually with these that
we have our most intimate contacts. As a matter of fact, only onehalf of 1 per cent of our 290,000 manufacturing establishments em­
ploy over 1,000 persons and 90 per cent of them employ less than
100. American industry, therefore, is composed essentially of a
great number of small establishments. Relatively few of them, we
may conjecture, are under the type of progressive, enlightened man­
agement that is likely to propose and undertake effective accidentprevention work of its own volition. Because these establishments
are small, accidents do not seem to their managers to occur with
alarming frequency and the insurance costs are not excessive; in
other words, the incentive for doing effective safety work is largely
absent, even if its advantages were fully known and appreciated.
This is probably one reason why our national accident record has not
shown any consistent improvement; in other words, effective safety
work has been generally confined to a relatively few large establish­
To reach the managers of these thousands of small establishments
and to energize the more reluctant or less progressive -among the
managers of large establishments, we must have stronger argu­
ments at hand tor the adoption of safety work than we have
possessed heretofore. Actual proof that a definite relationship exists
between safety and production efficiency will furnish us with this.
In the past we have talked of safety in terms of lives saved, lower
compensation costs, or smaller insurance premiums; if we are able
to translate it into terms of production we shall reach a vast num­
ber of industrial executives who heretofore have regarded accident


INDUSTRIAL a c c id e n t p r e v e n t io n c o n f e r e n c e

prevention as a matter of secondary importance—even a mere trim­
ming on the fabric of industrial management. Production is the
language they know best and to convince them we must employ it
when we talk safety. It is hoped that the results of the research
by the American Engineering Council will enable us to do this.
These are the reasons, it seems to me, why the relationship of acci­
dent prevention to industrial production is, at the moment, of ex­
ceeding importance. It may well be that the future progress of the
safety movement depends, to no small extent, on our reaching a clear
understanding of this fundamental matter.
The C hairm an . I am sure we all recognize the valuable addition
made in this paper, which throws a different light on this question
from any that we have considered heretofore, and a very potent one.
I want now to introduce to you J. E. Hannum, of the American En­
gineering Council, who will lead the discussion on this paper.
Mr. H an n u m . My discussion of Mr. De Blois’s paper will be con­
fined to a brief presentment of the study of safety in production
which is being conducted by the American Engineering Council.
As Mr. De Blois has stated, this investigation is being made for the
purpose of determining the relationship between safety and pro­
Some months ago when the American Engineering Council agreed
to undertake the study, upon the request of the National Bureau
of Casualty and Surety Underwriters, a committee of prominent
engineers and industrial executives was appointed to formulate the
plans and to determine the scope of the study. This committee on
safety and production, as it is called, is headed by A. W . Berresford,
who is a past president of the American Institute of Electrical En­
gineers; L. P. Alfred, editor of Manufacturing Industries, is vice
chairman. The other members are Mr. De Blois, past president of
the National Safety Council; Leonard W. Hatch, director of the
Bureau of Statistics and Information of the New York State De­
partment of Labor; John Price Jackson, former commissioner of
labor and industry o f Pennsylvania; Charles F. Loweth, past presi­
dent of the American Society of Civil Engineers; W. W. Nichols,
vice president of the Society of Industrial Engineers; Bradley
Stoughton, past president of the American Institute of Mining and
Metallurgical Engineers. L. W. Wallace, executive secretary of the
American Engineering Council, is secretary of this committee.
There are two phases of the problem which will be studied inten­
sively. First, the accident rate and the production rate will be meas­
ured from the experience records of plants over as long periods as
records permit, and the trend of accidents and the trend of produc­
tion will be studied and compared for individual plants, for groups
of plants^ and for separate industries. The second part o f the
problem is a study to determine exactly what takes place when
industrial accidents occur as measured in terms of lost time and
lost production.
The committee at its earlier meetings decided to confine the
investigation to 10 major industries. Iron and steel, steam railways,



mining, and cement are being studied from available statistical re­
ports; and the required data for the remaining six industries, namely,
machine building and metal working, woodworking, paper and pulp,
textile, building construction^ and electric utilities, are being
gathered by extensively organized field work from the records of
several thousand individual plants.
In 15 large industrial centers field engineers are gathering the data
by calling personally upon executives of plants within their respec­
tive territories. In each of these 15 investigation centers a local
subcommittee of the main safety and production committee has been
formed to assist the field engineers. These local committees are
also made up of prominent industrial executives, safety supervisors,
engineers, and other prominent men in their respective communities.
The territory covered by the field engineers is that geographical
area bounded oy lines extending from Boston to Milwaukee, thence
to St. Louis, thence to Pittsburgh, and thence to Atlanta. This, of
course, takes in only a portion of the industrial activities of the en­
tire country, and in order to cover more adequately the entire coun­
try and to make the study a truly national one in its scope, addi­
tional subcommittees have been established or are being formed in
55 other important manufacturing centers situated outside of the
field engineers’ territory, and still further in addition there will be
approximately 1,000 plants which can not be conveniently reached
either by the field engineers or the local committee which will be
asked by direct correspondence to furnish data. Due to the functioning of the main committee and the local subcommittees the American
Enginering Council will have the advantage of the thought, experi­
ence, and observation of several hundred prominent engineers, in­
dustrial executives, and safety men throughout the country.
A data sheet prepared by the committee on safety and production
is being used for recording the experience of individual plants. A
minimum amount of information is called for on this data sheet,
this information consisting of the following items to be reported on
an annual basis for the entire plant, or by departments wherever
this is possible: The first item is the average number of employees;
the second, total number of man-hours worked; the third, total pro­
duction expressed in some physical unit; the fourth, number of lost­
time accidents, which is subdivided into deaths and permanent
disabilities; and, fifth, total number of days lost due to accidents,
which is also subdivided into days lost due to deaths and days lost
due to permanent disabilities. These items are defined on the back
o f the data sheet in accordance with the practice of the National
Safety Council, and there is also given on the back of the data
sheet a table for calculating the number of days lost due to deaths
and permanent disabilities. This table is that adopted by the Inter­
national Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commis­
sions, in this way obviating any deviation from the accepted stand­
ard practice. Accident frequency and accident severity rates and
production rates will be calculated from the data obtained in order
to show the trend and correlation of safety and production.
Through the courtesy and cooperation of sucn organizations as
the National Safety Council with its affiliated community safety
councils, compensation insurance carriers, State industrial commis­



sions, trade associations and chambers of commerce, a list of approxi­
mately 4,000 companies, who are more or less actively engaged in
accident-prevention work, will be canvassed, from which a large
body of actual data is anticipated.
A significant part of the investigation is that which has to do with
the determination of what actually takes place when accidents occur.
A number of large industrial firms throughout the country, repre­
senting a wide range of industrial activities, have already expressed
their willingness to cooperate with the American Engineering
Council by making this phase of the study. The observations made
will determine the exact amount of lost time due to each accident
that occurs, and the resulting curtailment of production will be
measured by such factors as the absence of the injured employee,
the impairment of the productive ability of the employee when able
to resume work, the distraction of other workers from their work at
the time the accident occurs, the effect of the accident upon the
morale of other workers, and the inefficiency of the new employee
hired to replace the injured worker. All data gathered for the entire
study will be carefully analyzed, and a statistical and engineering
report of the relationship of industrial accidents to economy of pro­
duction will be prepared and published in book form. I might say
that the plans are to have this book published very close to the end
of this year. The success of the study will depend in a large measure
upon the willingness of industrial executives and supervisors of
safety to furnish the information desired. The fullest cooperation
of all those who in any way are contributing to the advancement of
the safety movement in American industry is earnestly solicited.
I want to add that the data which have already come in to us
from our field engineers are very encouraging,^ and we are certainly
grateful to those companies which are furnishing them.
On behalf of the members of the safety and production committee
of the American Engineering Council and all who are intimately as­
sociated in this study, I wish to thank Commissioner Stewart for his
kind invitation to speak here this afternoon and for the opportunity
of telling you something about this important piece of work.
The C hairm an . I am going to ask if anyone wishes to discuss
these papers.
Colonel J ackson . I am impelled to say a word or two, because it
seems to me that this work of the National Engineering Council
has possibilities of very great importance. Indeed, it strikes me that
the possibilities of this investigation are almost as great as those of
getting our National, State, and industrial statistics upon a sane,
sound, and intelligable basis, which is not the case to-day.
During the past year and a half, I have been several times under
the necessity of endeavoring to find out the total cost o f accidents. I
have gone to the insurance companies and have found the medical
cost and the actual compensation cost. I have procured similar data
from establishments with which I have been connected and from
other institutions, but such data do not represent the total cost of ac­
cidents. Every man here who is connected with safety work in a
corporation knows perfectly well that many of the other losses of
which Mr. Hannum and Mr. De Blois spoke may exceed quite exten-



siveljr the actual compensation and medical cost. For instance,
'the time lost by the group in a rather serious accident may be
quite expensive. This can not be helped; we are human beings, and
we are interested. The time lost in rearranging the group, if men
have been serio’uslv injured, or even if they have not been seriously
injured, merely on a day or two, makes quite an item in the cost o f
the project. I f the injury is serious, the possible loss to the group
of a trained man may for some time affect the efficiency o f that
For instance, suppose a gang of a dozen men has one man very
seriously maimed, what happens if it is in a well-organized estab­
lishment? The probability is that there is another man in the gang
who can step into his place. The chances are, if the injured is a
man of some rank, there will be several step-ups. You get the ad­
vantage of promotion through the very bad cause of an accident,
but down at the bottom somewhere you will have to ptat on another
employee, if the injured man be out for good, due to permanent
partial disability, or total disability, or death. Now, the training o f
a new man is a very expensive process, or else some studies I have been
making are entirely at fault. So when you get together all the costs
which result from an accident you begin to get the cost of that
process of interruption, as Mr. De Blois called it, and I am inclined
to believe that Mr. Hannum and his committee are going to find that
the process of interruption is going to be nearly as costly as the
mere medical expense and the compensation paid to the injured.
Another thing I wish to speak o f is the instance, the very striking
instance, given Dy Mr. De Blois of the 65 per cent increase in pro­
duction by a punch-press gang. We do not know, from what Mr.
De Blois said, from what that comes. We have no intimation, but I
believe most of the safety men here will agree with the general
proposition that, whereas in that case they had a long period of
no-time-lost accidents—I presume Mr. De Blois meant by “ no­
time” accident no lost time; did you not, Mr. De Blois?
Mr. D e B l o is . That is i t ; not tabulatable.
Colonel J ackson. That where you have guch excellent safety work
and it is so thoroughly carried out that you have for a long period
no lost time in as dangerous a business as that of the punch press,
even with all the guards installed, you have won the interest of your
men. Now the interest of the men in making a no-lost-time accident
record also interests them in the company, in the production, and in
every phase of that corporation’s welfare, and I am rather inclined
to believe we will find that this increase of production has come
largely through the incidental effect on the spirit of the workmen in
the gang.
Commissioner S t e w a b t . I would like to say just one word about
this work. Several months ago a representative of this organiza­
tion—if I mistake not it was Mr. Hannum, although I am not sure
about that—came and told me what they wanted to do. At that
time not a word was said about the average number of employees or
the man-hours. My point at that time was that you can not get
efficiency unless you have the man-hours. Your record of accidents
6819°—26--------- 7



is not worth a whoop unless you have the man-hours. Let us see
what efficiency in relation to accidents is. In the first place, acci­
dents do not produce efficiency—it is not the accidents that turn o*ut
the pig iron—and when you relate accidents to efficiency and leave
out your man you have done nothing, as I see it now and saw it then.
For instance, we have pig-iron furnaces in this country to-day that
are producing a ton of iron per 12 man-hours, just as they were 20
years ago. We have pig-iron furnaces producing a ton of iron per
man-hour. How are you going to relate accidents to your efficiency
unless you have got that man-hour. As a statistician I can not see it.
In many blast furnaces to-day we have the old bottom filler with his
wheelbarrow, and then you pull the wheelbarrow up and there is
the fellow at the top who dumps the contents into the top. He is the
top filler; and so on. Scores of blast furnaces are run that way.
Even—to be perfectly frank—the company that is producing pig
iron at the rate of a ton every 56 minutes of one man’s time has plants
which are producing a ton of pig iron every 13 hours of one man’s
time. It does not run that furnace very often but it does run it.
It does seem to me that you not only have to connect up your man
and your man-hours, as you have admitted in reading your schedule,
but you have to relate your efficiency through your man-hours. Now,
if an organization is doing the amount of work that Mr. Hannum
states, it is getting a volume of figures of accidents and man-hours
from which we can make our rates. After all, gentlemen, all that we
are asking for is a report of accidents and man-hours, and I do not
care a rap who gets them. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has not
the time nor the money to get one-thousandth part of them, and we do
not care who gets them so long as they are turned in to the bureau
on a basis of industries. And why can’t we agree? Why can’t we
line up—I was going to say here and now, but I will let that pass—
so that these various organizations which are getting just what we
want, what the Federal Government wants, what the States want,
will be able to get it some from this source, some from that source,
and so on, until we get it.
Mr. H oage. What Mr. Stewart has just been relating is perfectly
true, that there is not much connection between accidents and effi­
ciency except in a negative way. Accidents produce inefficiency,
but as I understand it the subject this afternoon was accident pre­
vention in relation to efficiency. My experience as a statistician and
as a safety engineer has led me to several conclusions about that par­
ticular subject. I remember that in some of the plants in which I
was engaged during the war as a safety engineer I found that the
employers were very anxious not only that I should prevent acci­
dents but also that I should put on an efficiency campaign. One of
the things they particularly asked me to do was to provide material
for their men to study that would make them better men. I can
illustrate that better by stating that the superintendent of a wood­
working factory asked me if I would not get the best magazines and
the best literature I could upon methods of operation, so that the
men might be made better men for the occupation as well as learn
safety practices, and half of my time was devoted to teaching these
men better methods in the factory so that they might become more



Now if a man working in a factory is careless about his personal
appearance, wearing ragged clothes, and careless about throwing his
tools around on the floor, he is careless about piling the material
that he handles from the machine upon the truck, he is careless about
his trucks, not keeping them in good order, and, if he has charge
of a machine, he is careless about lacing the belts and keeping the
machine in order. All this carelessness produces accidents and
makes the men feel that they do not care whether they are doing
things right or not. But the man who piles his stuff upon the truck
carefully is not going to have it tumbling down over the machinists;
the man who keeps his truck in shape is not going to have the truck
falling down and tipping over and causing accidents in that way;
and the man who keeps his belts well laced is not going to have his
belts loosening up and injuring men. All these things not only aid
efficiency but they keep the factory running in better shape and
better condition. It is a case where accident prevention has a big
relation to efficiency in production. It seems to me that we are talk­
ing on one side or the question almost entirely in this conference.
We are using as a basis what we try to do but have not done, are we
not? That we are trying to prevent accidents but have not pre­
vented them, we are using as a basis to convince people that we are
on the right track. Well, that is all right as far as it goes. That
is good ; it is the only cudgel we have to Knock a man’s head open to
get an idea into it. That is all right; that is the first process; we
have to open his head if we have to do it with a shillalah, and this
is the shillalah—statistics. It seems to me, however, that in this
conference one of the big things to stress is that there is a relation
between accident prevention and efficiency. You have to use that
to put accident prevention across and sell it to the public at large—
you must prove that there is a relation between accident prevention
and efficiency. It seems to me that it is one of the simplest things
to prove, because we can show in the operations where carelessness
does produce accidents and where carefulness does produce efficiency.
I hope before we are done we will make some suggestion that can
be used in selling the proposition that we are trying to sell at this
Mr. H annum. /I should like to answer the commissioner’s ques­
tion as to why the average number of employees and also the number
of man-hours were put on our data sheet. What we are after in
this study is a large volume of data and in order to get that large
volulne of data our committee felt that if it should confine the data
sheet to asking only for the number of man-hours worked that might
preclude getting data from a great many people who were not able
to furnish us with that figure but who would be able to furnish us
with a figure as to the average number of employees; so that is put
in there for that purpose. We have the commissioner to thank for
pointing out to us in the very early days in the planning of this
study the importance of figuring our rate upon the basis of
The C hairm an . There was one phase of Mr. De Blois’s paper that
I have not heard discussed yet which I think is very important, and
that is the near-injury accidents. I think that is of extre*me im­
portance. It is in my limited experience. I have known of cases,



particularly in the mines, where in man haulage a part of the roof
would drop down, maybe catching no one at that particular time,
but it was a serious process interruption and would have been a very
serious accident if anybody had happened to be along at that par­
ticular time. It did interrupt efficiency and does interrupt efficiency
of the operation. I would like to hear a discussion on that phase
of the subject by somebody at this time.
Mr. C h an et . On the question which you have just raised as to
the near-accident occurrence, I started out with the idea that I
ought to have everything that happened in the way of an accident,
taking the definition which the insurance companies had long used—
every case no matter how trivial. That does not include the near
accident but it includes a lot that later we did not attempt to in­
clude. The difficulty with attempting to include the minor injuries
of less than a day’s disability was that you could not get an accurate
record of them. Over and over again I found that the record was
absolutely inaccurate and without value, and that was the reason why
the Bureau of Labor Statistics finally pinned itself down to cases
where some actual disability was involved. We could be tolerably
sure that if a man was off from his work a record would be made
of it, but we could not be sure of cases coming to the emergency
room, and various other things of that sort. I can illustrate what
happens in certain cases by the statement of the solicitor of the
United States Steel Corporation. He said, “ I hesitate a great deal
about giving you this information. What happened to us last year ?
We put on a chief surgeon and immediately we doubled the number
of accidents.” That simply meant that a whole lot of accidents were
being reported which had not been reported before. For the pur­
poses of statistical procedure you have to adopt something by which
you can get the basic data with a fair assurance that you are right
about it. I f you do not do that you will go far wrong, and I should
be inclined to think that if this study of efficiency undertakes to
include cases less than the tabulatable case, there will be the diffi­
culty of having a mass of material whose value is very doubtful.
Mr. C arrow. I want to call attention to the fact I have under­
taken to emphasize in railroad circles, that the most important aspect
of accident prevention is preventing accidents that have not hap­
pened. As to the near accidents, it seems to me that the tabulation
of an infinite number of reports where no time is lost is one of the
most futile, unnecessary things that could be imagined. I recall
some years ago that we had a conference in our office preliminary to
determining what sort of reports we should have, and one gentleman
said, “ I think we ought to have a report of every scratch.” “ Well,
then,” I said, “ if you carry that thing to its logical conclusion, if a
man goes up on a ladder and leaves a monkey wrench on it and you
walk under it, you ought to have a report of that because it might
have dropped down and broken your head, ad infinitum.” I want to
stress just one thing, and that is that the trouble with most safety
people and with most leaders in safety is that they do not emphasize
the necessity for using our imagination without visible evidence. In
other words, in the steel industry, the railroads, and all the other in­
dustries there are dangers that are imminent, tnat have been present



ever since the industry started. Now that does not require—if you
sit down and look oyer the field of accident statistics—that you get
the no-disability accidents or the one-day accidents or the three-day
In my judgment, if you take more than three days yo'u have
sufficient, and if you are not having accidents, all you nave to do is
to be sensible enough to use a little imagination, like you do when
going out on a cloudy day you take your umbrella. In railroad
circles we are laying great emphasis on the fact that in the midst of
life we are in danger. We are preaching “ Watch your step” on the
basis of knowledge we have already accumulated from many, many
sources. Take the crossing accident, for example. Few persons would
hardly realize that a locomotive will cross a crossing 150,000 times
on the average before there is a single accident. The very infre­
quency of them is what leads us astray, and that is the thing it seems
to me we need to emphasize. I f we get together, like scientific men
ought to do, and get a tabulation of accidents, for example, in plant B
and plant C in the various industries, and determine certain hazards
o f particular plants, it does not matter whether we have accidents or
not—there are the dangers. It does not matter whether during Jan­
uary, February, and March you had three accidents and during April,
May, and June you did not have any. You were aware of, you knew
about, the danger. So all the figures you get are very useful, but
the most useful thing is to have imagination enough to picture dan­
ger where it has not been manifested, and that is working out in con­
nection with our efficiency tests on the railroad. We do not wait for
a collision or a derailment or a violation of the blue flag, or any­
thing of that sort, and we make thousands of checks a month on
every large railroad in the country. It seems to me—I am a statis­
tician, I have handled statistics for 15 years—what most of us are
trying to do is to become actuated by statistics when we ought to do
it by constructive imagination.
A little further illustration along that line will, it seems to me,
substantiate my position. We have shops on our railroad where we
used to average 40 to 50 injuries a month, but now they call me on
the phone and say, “ We got through the whole month without a
single injury” ; and Mr. De Blois spoke about a million man-hours
being made without a single injury. How in the name of common
sense are we ever going to get along if we do not have any more
injuries? Pretty soon we safety fellows won’t know what to do to
prevent them and there won’t be any job for us. That is one of the
stumblingblocks in the safety movement. We make a good record;
we do not have any accidents; nobody gets killed; there are no vio­
lations of the blue flag; nobody gets anything in their eyes from fail­
ing to wear goggles; and we let the thing down. I maintain that
the hardest job a safety man has is not to get his shop safe—that
seems to me to be the easiest thing of the whole proposition—but
when you do get your house in order to keep it there. What you
have to do is to take the statistics of the past and your constructive,
intelligent imagination and take action where accidents have not
Mr. De Buns. May I attempt to reply to two of the speakers at
the same time? To Mr. Carrow I would like to offer this thought.



As regards reporting, not near-injury accidents, but minor injuries
(which is obviously the place to begin), if there is a fixed numerical
relationship—mind you, I do not say that there is—between minor
injuries and major injuries, by ascertaining the frequency of the
former we ought to be able to learn as much from one day’s minor
injury experience as we now learn in a year. This is based on the
assumption that there exists some such relationship as 300 to 1, and
that this or some similar relationship maintains for each line of
industry. I am offering this thought because many of us do not
known precisely what our plants are really doing until a year’s
experience has been obtained.
In reference to the question brought up by Commissioner Jackson:
The 65per cent increase in efficiency was the experience of the Sim­
mons Co. at Kenosha on a battery of about 300 punch presses. I
want to emphasize the point that the accidents were eliminated
and production efficiency increased without the addition o f any
punch press guards; it was purely a matter of changing the type o f
feed and the method of removing the finished material from the
presses. Prevention by protection did not enter into the matter.
When the exposure of the hands between the dies o f the presses
was obviated, the efficiency increased and accidents to fingers were.
eliminated over a long period; I believe, four years. This was essen­
tially an instance of successful engineering revision.
The C h a i r m a n . After all, removing the cause is the real reason
and I think that the deductions of Mr. De Blois are well founded,
because a mere injury accident is just as serious from a production
standpoint as an actual casualty accident.
Any further discussion of this paper?
Mr. U p t o n , Pittsburgh Steel Co. A thought came to my mind
a moment ago in regard to the reporting of a minor accident. We
employ approximately 7,500 men, and one of the worst, or I might
say the most poisonous, things in our steel mill is a nail sliver. I f
any of yo'u are acquainted with the nail business you know what
I mean by a scratch from a nail sliver. About three weeks ago
our doctor called me to the hospital and showed me a case of a
boy 17 years old who had scratched his hand with a nail sliver.
The boy did not report it. He was off from work for a week
before he reported sick, and at the end of a week—probably, I
might say, 10 days—his mother brought him to the hospital, and
when I was called there they had just cut his hand. They had
split his hand from where tne fingers go on back to here [indi­
cating]. It was swollen to probably four times its natural size;
it was stuffed with gauze and stuck out like a slice of a watermelon.
Doctor Griffith told me that he would do the best he could to save
that boy’s hand but the chances were that he would have to take it
off; but, thank goodness, he saved it. It seems so now, at least;
but the thought came to my mind when the gentleman spoke of minor
injuries that here was a case where if the boy had at once reported
to the hospital—naturally, that hand will be crippled for the rest
of his life—it could all have been very easily prevented.
Mr. _C a r r o w . The case that he cites proves my contention, be­
cause in every first-class establishment in the United States to-day



they have a first-aid room and they are treating cases by the hun­
dreds. I f the United States Steel Corporation, or the Pennsylvania
Railroad, or the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, or any other big insti­
tution recorded all the cases that go to their first-aid room, there
would be 10 times as many reports as there are—actual reports of
The C hairm an . The next subject on the program is “ Our use of
accident statistics in Canada,” by R. B. Morley, and I take great
pleasure in introducing Mr. Morley.

In the first place, may I express to you gentlemen my sincere ap­
preciation for your courtesy in extending an invitation to be present
at this important conference and my thanks for the chance to tell
you something of the use we are making of the available statistics
m our work in Canada. It has always pleased me particularly to
find that safety work knows no boundaries and that safety men
have an international spirit.
For something over 12 years I have earned my daily bread through
accident-prevention work, so that anything I have to say regard­
ing statistics is based on the practical application of statistics, but
I am quite willing to admit at the outset that I have not the*statis­
tical mind.

In order to give you a proper understanding of our use of statis­
tics relating to accident prevention, it is necessary for me to paint
in a certain background and to state that reference is made chiefly
to the Province o f Ontario and its industries there.
Our compensation act divides industries into schedules 1 and 2
and Crown cases. The Crown cases are those of the Provincial or
Federal Governments. Schedule 2 covers the municipalities, steam
and electric railways, telegraph and telephone companies, school
boards, etc. These are self-insurers. Schedule 1 consists of the vari­
ous manufacturing plants under compensation and includes as well
lumbering and construction work. The classes in Schedule 1 have
been grouped together by the workmen’s compensation board for as­
sessment purposes, and each of these classes is in effect a mutual in­
surance company.
When the late Sir William Ralph Meredith, Chief Justice of Ontario> was preparing his report to the Government in 1914 on the
laws relating to the liability of employers, it was suggested by in­
dustry that there should be arrangements made for accident-pre­
vention work. Acting on this, the chief justice included a section in
the proposed act which authorized the industries in any of the
classes grouped together by the workmen’s compensaion board to
create accident-prevention organizations, which might be maintained
out of the accident fund of the compensation board. Under the
authority given in section 101 of our act, 18 out of the 24 classes


INDUSTRIAL a c c id e n t p r e v e n t io n c o n f e r e n c e

under compensation have set up such associations and these secure
their funds from the workmen’s compensation board.
Of the 18 classes organized for accident prevention, 15 federated
some years ago, for purposes of economy and better general direc­
tion of effort, in the Industrial Accident Prevention Associations.
The membership of the organization consists of nearly 7,500 indus­
tries and these industries have a total of slightly over two-thirds of
the pay roll of 24 classes under compensation. The directors of the
Industrial Accident Prevention Associations are elected each year
at the annual general meeting and represent not only the various
phases of industry included in our membership but also the Province
The work of the Associations is divided roughly into two headings:
(1) Engineering and inspection services in the individual plants;
and (2) Educational propaganda. There is, I take it, at a meeting
such as this no need to enlarge on either of these two phases other
than to state that the inspection force are trained for accident-prevention purposes. They do not go into plants to enforce rules and
regulations but for the purpose of cutting down accidents for the
benefit of employer and employee.

Under the Ontario act we have a seven-day waiting period. In
death cases the widow? if any, receives a payment of $40 a month
for life or until remarriage and there is an allowance of $10 a month
for each child under 16. In nonfatal cases the injured worker is
entitled to 66% per cent of his average earnings, any earnings in
excess of $2,000 per annum being discarded in making the calcula­
tion. Pensions are, of course, awarded for permanent disabilities,
and it is quite possible for the cost of a permanent total disability
under the Ontario act to run up to $24,000 or $25,000. It will be
seen from this that the benefits are unusually high and that this in
itself must tend to encourage effective accident-prevention work.
Rates of assessment in Ontario vary from 10 cents to $10 per $100
of pay roll.
I should add to this that the testing of flying machines is the
only industry that pays the $10 rate in Ontario. The average rate
of all in Ontario is $1.13 and hundreds of plants in our classes are
paying the 10-cent rate.

Every week we receive from the workmen’s compensation board
accident reports covering all cases involving the loss of seven days’
time, or more, in the classes included in our membership. This mate­
rial is extremely valuable and is the basis of the statistics on which
I particularly wish to speak to-day. The accident memo, as it is
termed, gives us the name and address of the employer; the name,
age, occupation, allegiance, etc., of the injured worker; the hour and
the date of the accident ; and a brief statement of the cause and the
nature of the injury. We receive from 12,000 to 15,000 of these
accident memos every year. The information contained is of the



greatest possible value in accident-prevention work. It shows us
where accidents are happening, how accidents are happening, and
gives the individual plant experience as well as the class experience
on a general frequency basis. Each industry on our lists has its own
separate card, and as the accident memos are received from the board
they are entered on the backs of these cards. The face of the card
contains information regarding the firm, the names of executive
officials, the class of business, and details of the inspector’s last visit,
including the number of employees and the attitude toward safety
Work. Each entry on a card calls for a check of the number of
accident memos received against this particular plant in the previous
12 months. A standard has been established, and cards are thrown
. out for check by our chief inspector when the frequency is above the
average. An individually typed letter is forwarded to each industry
that has high-accident frequency, pointing out to the employer that
assessments are determined directly by accident costs, and stating
that high-accident frequency and high money cost do not necessarily
go together but that nigh frequency is an indication of a condition
that should be corrected. A t the lime the letter is forwarded a
memorandum is sent to the inspector on whose list the plant appears,
advising him and instructing him that he check conditions, and we
get satisfaction.
At the outset I made the remark that I have not the statistical
mind, and here I want to say that I have no use for figures as such.
Calculations of any type are of no value in the work of industrial
accident prevention unless some practical use is made of them. The
compilation o f statistics and the publishing of these without an effort
being made to correct the conditions disclosed by the figures is, I
believe, an absolute waste of time.
I am glad to say to you that our investigations and correspondence
have proven well worth wEile, and also are an intensely practical
method of using accident statistics. You will notice also the effect
o f this statistical information on our field force. The inspector’s
value to the organization is determined by the condition of the plants
on his lists. The responsibility for plant conditions is laid partly
on his shoulders.
Our frequency letter has produced some most interesting corre­
spondence with executive officials. I remember, in one instance,
one day at luncheon meeting the general manager of a plant employ­
ing 300 workers to whom I had written regarding his high accident
frequency. He told me that he was interested in the letter but that
my figures were wrong. I suggested a further check and was asked
if I would call at his plant some time in the near future. About a
fortnight later, when I called, the first thing he said was, “ I was
wrong; I did not know what was happening in my own plant.” This
man became^converted to accident prevention and insisted on results
from that time on. I told him that, based on our analysis of his
accident reports, his trouble was lack of supervision^ and his reply
indicated that tne investigation which he had made m the previous
two weeks had already disclosed this fact for his own information.
We pay a great deal of attention to accident frequency, taking
frequency as the first test of plant conditions. For accident-preven-



tion purposes one severe accident in a plant does not provide the
same test of conditions as accident frequency.
Enough has been said about the accident memos to bring to your
attention the importance of information through this source. At
the beginning of each week, every inspector sends to the office a
statement as to where he will be the following week and the names
of the plants on which he intends calling. Before he calls at these
plants he has in his hands from our office a statement showing the
number of compensated accidents for the past 12 months in each
of the plants to be visited that week. This provides him with a
most valuable opening for any discussion with the executive officials
of the plant and at tne same time offers him a chance to go into the
question of records and to encourage employers who are not keeping
satisfactory records of accidents to do so.

The Ontario act provides for a system of merit rating. Under
this clause of the act merit rating is now calculated on a three-year
basis and it is possible for an employer to receive a refund of 30
per cent of his assessment for good experience or to be charged an
additional 25 per cent of his assessment for bad experience. At the
expiration of the last three-year period, the chairman of the work­
men’s compensation board supplied us with the figures for the 400
firms in our membership who had a bad money experience. They
say that money talks and I believe that it is so, because the subse­
quent correspondence with these firms who had had a bad money ex­
perience was intensely illuminating and resulted in greatly increased
interest in accident-prevention work. No president or general man­
ager likes to be told that his accident cost has been unusually high
and that his plant has been responsible for throwing a burden on
the other employers in the class, and it is worth while remarking
that the bulk of the replies that came in from these 400 firms were
signed by presidents or general managers.

You will gather from what has already been said that the work­
men’s compensation board is most generous in giving us informa­
tion. It has been considered part of our duty to convey certain
hases of this information to executive officials for the purpose of
eeping them keenly interested in accident-prevention work. Each
month we distribute to our entire membership a letter known as the
Monthly Memorandum for Industry and with that we put out
safety Bulletins, pay-envelope inserts, leaflets, etc. The monthly
memorandum contains information regarding accident records, sta­
tistics for the previous month, money costs, etc., and there are va­
rious ways of putting out this information that are calculated to
arouse interest. For instance, at the beginning of this year we made
the statement that 502,014 accidents had been reported to the Work­
men’s Compensation Board in Ontario in the past 11 years and that
these figures included 4,328 fatalities. Five hundred thousand odd
is a large figure and may or may not be grasped by the average




individual. On the other hand, when you say that there were
4,328 fatalities in 11 years and that in the same time there were
4,018 days, you have put your figures on a basis that anyone can
Another interesting piece of information that has come out of the
statistics compiled has been that something less than 1 per cent of
the accidents reported to the board are fatalities and that these
involve nearly 25 per cent of the total cost of compensation; that
about 4 per cent of the accidents reported are permanent disabili­
ties, either total or partial, and that these involve nearly 50 per cent
of the cost; or, to put it on; another basis, about 5 per cent of the
accidents reported are responsible for nearly 75 per cent of the cost
of compensation. You will all appreciate the value of these figures.
The average plant with us in Canada, as with you in the United
States, is the small unit. The question of directing accident pre­
vention in those units is a most important matter. You have many
different executives through which to work, but I believe that the
system adopted years ago m Ontario and since caiyied on so success­
fully has demonstrated fully that executives can be kept interested
in this work.
I believe that accident prevention is one of the most important
questions that industry can touch, and I take the liberty at this time
of congratulating the Hon. Mr. Davis on calling this conference in
Washington. You know and we know that accidents can be pre­
vented. We all know that statistics prove this and I want to cite
two of the outstanding examples we have in Ontario. The Canada
Cement Co., Port Colbourne, operating a cement mill and a quarry
with an average of 245 men, ran for 521 days without a single
loss-of-time accident and won the Portland Cement Trophy for
1925. The International Harvester Co., Chatham Works, with an
average of 115 men, operated for 908 days without a lost-time
We are preaching in our industries five things for accident pre­
vention: (1) Faith in the safety movement, (2) protection of
hazards, (3) supervision, (4) good housekeeping, and (5) safety
education; and we are getting results.
I say to you in all earnestness to-day that what we need to secure
industrial accident prevention is not more statistics, but more in­
tensive work in industry based on the statistics that are now avail­
(Meeting adjourned.)


Commissioner S t e w a b t . I want to introduce to you our chairman,
who is the commissioner of the Maryland Industrial Commission. I
want to say of Maryland that it is one of the States which has co­
operated with the Bureau of Labor Statistics in furnishing us the
background of man-hours as against the accidents in establishments.
We asked them to furnish that for us and it is the only State that
did all the work. We have to go out and get it ourselves from the
other States, although I think that condition is remedying itself
very rapidly. I introduce to you the chairman of the morning ses­
sion, Mr. Carr, of Maryland.
The C h a i r m a n . It is indeed a great pleasure to be here to-day
under an appointment from our worthy governor, Albert C . Ritchie,
in response to the invitation issued to him by the Secretary of Labor
and by Mr. Stewart. We also have here from Maryland representa­
tives of the State industrial accident commission, the-chairman o f
the Baltimore Safety Council, and the Safety Engineers’ Club, and
we have been much interested in the proceedings during the past two
days. We are here and willing to do what we have tried to do in
cooperation with the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Mr. Stewart,
who some time back outlined to us what he would like the State com­
mission to do in the way of preparing our statistics and in furnish­
ing to him information of the kind that would be useful in ac­
cident prevention.
During the last two days you have been, I am sure, much inter­
ested, and I think the third day promises at least to equal in interest
the proceedings of the two previous days. We have with us as the
first speaker Lew B. Palmer, of the Equitable Life Assurance Society,
who will address the conference on “ Statistical contributions to
accident prevention on American railways.”

With others working for the conservation of life, I am interested
in accident statistics only in so far as they may be developed, pre­
sented, and utilized in such a way as to serve as a definite agency of
prevention. It is apparent that one must know the facts to work out
any problem, and no one to-day denies that accident prevention is
a real problem.
Statistics (tabulated facts) have played a very important part
in railroad safety. It is most fortunate that there has been available,



through the records of the Interstate Commerce Commission, a fund
of information without parallel in any of the industries of this
country. The extent of coverage "(some four and one-half billion
man-hours for 1924) and the standardization of records have made
these accident statistics invaluable to the railroad safety men and
their superior officers. Dependable information has pointed to
definite causes in a wide field of exposure, serving as guide for the
application of preventive measures. The very fact of the enormous
loss due to this broad exposure has aided the preventionist in selling
his safety program to the executive, and in many cases the progres­
sive official has needed no urging to extend the support necessary
to make safety a definite part of railroad operation.
The Interstate Commerce Commission accident statistics as we
find them to-day are the result of healthy evolution—standardized
classification and tabulation by principal causes, nature of injury,
and occupations, with their attending frequencies, killed and in­
jured, according to adopted units of exposure.
For the year 1921 we find published m Interstate Commerce Com­
mission Accident Bulletin No. 82, Table 100, the adoption of the
million-passenger-mile as a unit of exposure for accidents to pas­
sengers (train and train-service) listed alphabetically by roads for
eastern, western, and southern districts, and summarized for all
Class I roads. However, the information available at that time was
apparently not sufficient from which to determine the rate killed, and
the rate injured was extended to include only one decimal place.
We also find in this table the adoption of the man-hour unit of ex­
posure in connection with employees on duty (train, train-service,
and nontrain accidents), with rates killed and injured per unit or
exposure carried to include only one decimal place. It is generally
conceded that million-passenger miles and million man-hours furnish
the truest exposure for these classes of accidents.
In Accident Bulletin No. 87, covering the calendar year 1922,
we-find Table 100 presented as in Bulletin No. 82 just referred to,
with additional information as regards rate of passengers killed per
million-passenger miles, carried three decimal places, and employees
on duty killed per million man-hours, also carried to three decimal
In Accident Bulletin No. 92, covering the calendar year 1923, Table
100 has been presented in the same manner as in Bulletin No. 87.
In Accident Bulletin No. 93, calendar year 1924, two separate
tables appear—Nos. 99 and 100—which contain information pre­
viously submitted in Table 100, as well as additional information.
Table 99 giving summary, by roads and by classes of occupation, o i
casualties to employees on duty in train, train-service, and nontrain
accidents, showing for Class I roads casualty rates per million manhours under the following groups of occupations:
Group I. Executives, officials- and staff assistants; and Group II.
Professional, clerical, and general;
Group III. Maintenance of way and structures:
Group IV. Maintenance of equipment and stores;
Group V. Transportation (other than train, engine, and yard):
Group Via. Transportation (yardmasters, switch tenders, and



Group.VIb. Transportation (train and engine).
This table 99, in conjunction with Table 55, supplies detailed in­
formation regarding killed and’injured by principal causes, covering
some 150 classes of occupations on Class I railroads. Against these
occupations, involving 4,472,049,000 man-hours, 122,315 casualties
were charged for the year 1924. Surely, this furnishes the railroad
safety men with positive evidence as to where and how accidents
happen on our American railways.
Following is a table of the six major occupational groups, com­
paring the year 1925 with the year 1924, and showing the result for
the two years combined. An analysis of this table reveals the risk
factors of the respective groups, indicating where the efforts of our
railroad safety men can best be applied in order to effect the greatest
saving in lives and limbs.
ties per
m illion


(m illion)

Groups I and n :



3,713 1,452,843


Group and year






Group H I:






53,057 1,933,995


Group IV :



52,446 1,318,639
45,822 1,292^754





98,268 2,611,393


Group V :
1926........................................................ .................









20,603 1,125,166


Group V I a:









Group V I b :









59,749 1,661,215


All groups:
122; 315 4,473,186
116,099 4,448,377





238,414 8,921,563


The table following indicates the varying number of train acci­
dents, year 1924 compared with the year 1920, charged against four
major causes, namely: Negligence of employees; defects in or failure
of equipment; defects in or improper maintenance of way and struc­



tures; miscellaneous causes. An analysis of these figures reveals the
fact that of a total of approximately 60,000 train accidents involving
over 13,000 casualties more than 50 per cent are chargeable to the
negligence of employees. Comparing the detailed percentages as
shown in the table, we note again that the human factor promises
the most fertile field for our preventive efforts.





Negligence of employees:

Total Per cent
o f train Killed Injured casual­ o f total
ties casualties


Class of accident







Defects in or failure of equipment:






Reduction.............................. ......................................






Defects in or improper maintenance of way and structures:






Reduction.......... .............- ................... ........................







Miscellaneous causes:
115 1,498
1 9 2 0 ................................................................................


Reduction______________________ *________________





1 27.89

1924................................................................... ...............






Reduction............................ r. . . .................................





i Increase.

Table 100, year 1924, includes a record, by roads, of casualties to
passengers per million passenger miles in train and train-service
These are but a few examples of the detailed information com­
piled and distributed by the Bureau of Statistics of the Interstate
Commerce Commission. An analysis of these statistics year by
year reveals facts that would seem to indicate that this information
is being utilized effectively by the various roads in their organized
safety work. Comparing Interstate Commerce Commission records
for 1917 (when the Interstate Commerce Commission records were
definitely placed on a calendar-year basis) with the records for sub­
sequent years, including 1924, we find during that period a cumula­
tive saving of 20,640 lives among persons under the direct control
and protection of our American railways (Bulletin No. 98, State­
ments 1 and 3, p. I l l ) , excluding grade crossing and trespasser fatali­
ties. A corresponding reduction in reportable injuries of 296,573
was effected during the same period.
Comparing the number of employees on duty killed in train,
train-service, and nontrain accidents, for the years 1920 and 1924
we find: Year 1920, 2,439; year 1924, 1,403; lives saved, 1,036.
One of the most remarkable achievements in accident prevention
is contained in our Interstate Commerce Commission records indi-


Total number of


























s f^



• j H-1•

3 H»















T otal. .





g*r*l '
$zz! o





This record indicates a reduction of 81 per cent in 17 years, or,
comparing 1907 with each subsequent year, a cumulative saving of
87,005 casualties for the period.
From the “ wastage” account for each of the years 1921. 1922,
1923, and 1924, as compared with the year 1920, we obtain tne fol­
lowing cumulative amount saved:
Collisions______________________________________ $13,495,711
Derailments____________________________________ 23,528,543
Personal Injury------------------------------------------------- 79,527,938
Totai______________________________________ 116,552,190

In a previous paper we took the liberty of removing the imper­
sonal, alphabetical “ bushel ” from the “ light ” of Interstate Com­
merce Commission railroad accident statistics by presenting them
on a numerical basis, the purpose being to establish among tne rail­
roads the same spirit of contest and friendly competition which had
proven so effective an agency for accident prevention in other indus­
tries. Kecognizing the fact that with large railroads, as with other
large industrial organizations, it is more difficult to control accident
frequency than within smaller organizations, several group contests
were outlined among Class I railroads in order to overcome this
handicap, the Interstate Commerce Commission records of 1923
being utilized. These were grouped more or less arbitrarily accord­
ing to size of road—that is, their respective man-hour (train, trainservice, and nontrain) exposure—as follows:
Group A.—100,000,000 or more man-hours.
Group B.—50,000,000 to 100,000,000 man-hours.
Group C.—20,000,000 to 50,000,000 man-hours.
Group D.—10,000,000 to 20,000,000 man-hours.
Group E.—5,000,000 to 10,000,000 man-hours.
Group F.—2,000,000 to 5,000,000 man-hours.
Group G.—Less than 2,000,000 man-hours.
Had all roads in each of these respective groups attained the rate
recorded by the “ rank 1 ” road in each group, there would have
been a total reduction of approximately 122,339 reportable injuries
for all seven groups.


Group A — . . . ______________________________________________ __
Group B _____ _________________________________________________
Group O .— . —______________________________________ __________
Group D ...... ............................................... ............................................
Group E ._ .„ ___________________________________________________
Group F ...................................................................................................
Groun G __

6819°—26----- 8

of roads

Total manhours

of injuries









As evidence of the fact that our Class I railroads are alive to the
value of the contest spirit, there was adopted at the Salt Lake City
meeting of the safety section, American Railway Association, the
following resolution:
Whereas, the records of the Interstate Commerce Commission as given in the
report of the committee on statistics indicate that casualties to persons on the
railroads of the United States can be reduced 35 per cent by the end of the year
1930 and that such a reduction should be adopted as a definite goal of the
safety section; be it, therefore,
Resolved, That the American Railway Association, safety section, in annual
convention assembled at Salt Lake City, Utah, June 24, 1924, hereby accept the
report of the committee on statistics and adopt for the safety section a goal
calling for a reduction in casualties to persons by the end of 1930 which will
be equivalent to 35 per cent.

For the past two years the game has been keenly contested by the
various Class I railroads, and in order to determine how the safety
score stands to date we again turn to the Interstate Commerce Com­
mission accident statistics for our official record.
Comparing the 1925 accident frequency rates we find that 101
roads out of a total of 176 included within the seven contest groups
have attained their two-year quota; that is, a 14 per cent reduction.
The record by groups stands as follows:

Group A - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Group B _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AfAtin n

Group D .__ _______________
Group E ___________________








Group F __________________ _
Group G ___________________






Of these 176 roads, the following 30 roads have in two years
attained their full 35 per cent five-year quota reduction according
to their 1925 Interstate Commerce Commission frequency records:

Group and railroad

Group A : Union Pacific System______________________ . . . . . . . . . . . __ . . . . . . . . .
Group B :
Union Pacific R . R . C o__ . . . . . __________________________ . . . . . __________
Southern Pacific Lines in Texas and Louisiana.................... ................. .........
Great N o r t h e r n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ______. . . . . . . . . . .
Group C :
Oregon Short Line___________________ . . . . . ........................ .........................
Wabash________ ______________________________________________________
Delaware & Hudson____ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _____________________________
Group D :
Chicago Great Western________________________________________________
Kansas C ity Southern........ ............................................ ............ ....................
jKazoo <£jyQ isii^ppi V alley................................................................................


Bessemer &*Lake’Erie........................................................................................
Chicago River& i Indiana............................................... —»,«**........................
Detroit, Toledo & Iroaion...................................................... .....««**»*.............
Fort W orth & Denver C ity..............................................................
Indiana Harbor Belt........................................................................ _.............. .1


Per cent of
in 2 years









26.69 •





Group and railroad

Group F :
Baltimore, Chesapeake & A tlantic.
Duluth & Iron Range______________
Grand Trunk Lines in New England
Gulf, M obile & Northern...................
Louisville, Henderson & St. L o u is...
Group G:
Grc&n Bay & Western.........................
Pittsburg & Shawmut_____________
W ichita Valley____________________
Fort6W orth & R io G -r^ d ef.IIIIIIIII
Mississippi Central.............................
St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas___
Bingham & Garfield_______________

Percent of
in 2 years





At the St. Louis conference of the safety section, American Rail­
way Association, held in April of this year, we presented a paper
analyzing casualties to employees on duty in train, train-service,
and nontrain accidents, Class I steam railroads, years 1923, 1924^
and 1925, and following is a table summarizing the performance or
the various Class I railroads by groups and by districts:
1924 AN D 1925



R an k1


Group *

Group C____ __
Group B _______
Group E _______
Group D _______
Group F _______
Group A _______
Group G_______

ber of Total
roads casual­

Cas­ Total
Man-hours u a lty casual­

533.092.000 29.47
18 15,710
20 41,176 1.457.676.000 28.25
170.769.000 31.95
23 12,377 368.432.000 33.59
126.761.000 29.07
14 92,450 2.986.241.000 30.96
55,225,000 29.73

tion in Bal­
cas­ ance of
Cas­ ualty
Man-hour# ualty
rate 1925 tion*

503.022.000 22.16
33,285 1.390.950.000 23.93
162.567.000 24.08
341.774.000 25.33
120.867.000 27.17
72,883 2.667.267.000 27.32
52,875,000 27.59



Rank i





Cas­ Total
Man-hours u alty casual­

tion in Bal­
cas­ ance of
Cas­ ualty
Man-hours ualty
rate 1925 tio n 1



860,751,000 22.47
36,979 1,632,665,000 22.65
59,783 1,954,961,000 30.58



A ll Class I rail­
roads................ 150,012 4,856,964,000 30.88 116,099 4,448,377,000 26.10



Southern....................... 23,616 863,959,000 27.33
Western........................ 50,659 1,813,460,000 27.93
Eastern........................ 75,737 2,179,545,000 34.75

1 Rank based on casualty rate for 1925.
* Groups consist of roads having specified man-hour exposure (see p. —) during 1925.
* Q uota-35 per cent reduction by end of 1930 (based on 1923 casualty rate).



BBDU CTION , 1924 AN D 1926— C ontinued





Total cas­


Total estimated accidents, 1924 and 1925___________________
Reported accidents, 1924 and 1925............................... ........................
Redaction from 2-year estimate___________________________




Estimated accidents for—
1924 at 1923 rates.............................................................................
1925 at 1923 rates.............................................................................





As announced by the American Museum of Safety, the E. H. Harriman Memorial Safety Award for the year 1925 will be very
largely determined on tne basis of rating of the respective roads as
indicated by official Interstate Commerce Commission statistical
In order to check up on the effectiveness of statistics let us analyze
the records of a railroad which has led all major railroads of this
country in the lowest accident frequency for the past five years ac­
cording to Interstate Commerce Commission records. The accom­
panying chart covers Interstate Commerce Commission reportable
casualties on this railroad for the years 1914 to 1924, inclusive, indi­
cating that on a frequency basis there has been effected a reduction
o f 90 per cent in 10 years, and on a cumulative basis, comparing
1914 with each subsequent year, a reduction in reportable casualties
o f 10,346 for this period.
According to Interstate Commerce Commission statistics^ the rail­
road referred to has shown a 77 per cent reduction in fatalities, 1924
as compared with 1920, and for the same period has effected a reduc­ personal-injury expense of more than $3,000,000. Further­
more, the system has shown a reduction in personal-injury expense,
1925, as against 1923, of $404,560—a 49 per cent reduction in expense
as compared with its accredited 35.20 per cent reduction in casualty
rate for the same period.
In the five years since 1920 this system has saved 192 lives among
employees on duty in train, train-service and nontrain accidents.
This railroad organization is known to utilize statistics as an aid in
its accident-prevention work. Contests have been developed among
units and major shops of the system and divisions within the various
units. As accident records are prepared month by month for the
Interstate Commerce Commission they are utilized in the current
monthly contest.
It has been stated that statistics are to a well-organized safety
department what the thermometer and temperature chart are to a
well-equipped hospital, and, while it is impossible definitely to allo­
cate the relative importance of statistics as regards other phases of
organized safety work, it has come to be generally recognized that,
like the batting average, they are absolutely essential to the game.

1914 TO 1924

number of




casualties per
100 employees









































^Fatalities and injuries resulting in three or more days* loss of time.

N ote .—T otal employees, 1915 to 1924, inclusive______________________________________________
Estimated casualties per 100 employees, 1915 to 1924, inclusive, at 1914 rate (8.13)_______
Actual casualties, 1915 to 1924, inclusive_____ ____ ___ __ ________________;____________
Reduction in casualties, 1915 to 1924, inclusive-.
90 per cent reduction in ten years.








The Interstate Commerce Commission is a very important and in­
fluential agency of our National Government. Its service, widely
extended, includes a multitude of departments, bureaus, and divi­
sions, but we need not hesitate to say that of all its sundry activities
none is more commendable than the splendid work of its division of
accident statistics, for, as has been stated, “ The purpose to save life
is the noblest of all purposes. It embodies the highest ideal of hu­
manity.” Those who have been associated with this worthy work
are known to but a few. However, in the words of Oliver Wendell
The noblest service comes from nameless hands;
And the best servant does his work unseen.

The C h airm an . We are certainly very much interested in the
paper read by Mr. Palmer. The discussion of that paper will now
be led by Mr. W. N. Doak of the Brotherhood of Kailroad Train­
Mr. D oak . Secretary of Labor Davis and Commissioner Stewart
are both contributing very largely to the advancement of humanity,
and I wish to add my appreciation to those who have already ex­
pressed themselves of their splendid efforts and to urge upon every­
one their hearty support.
The railroad trainmen are probably in a class by themselves when
it comes to making progress in changes of conditions in their em­
ployment. This is due m a large measure to the useful manner in
which statistics showing the real facts surrounding their employ­
ment have been handled. We therefore come to you with our un­
qualified indorsement of this movement, and sincerely hope it will
be the means of securing real accident statistics in industrial
It is scarcely necessary for me to attempt to add anything to the
contribution made by Mr. Palmer or even to comment thereon be­
cause he has so thoroughly covered the field of railway accidents
that there is little if anything left to say on the subject.
The effect of accident statistics of American railways upon acci­
dent prevention in that industry is the most interesting and illumi­
nating study in the realm of statistical data. One can not study
these effects without conceding at once that statistics play a most
important part in our economic and social affairs.
On February 13, 1871, during the third session of the Forty-first
Congress*, Senator Charles Sumner, of Massachusetts, introduced a
resolution providing for the investigation of accidents by the Senate
Commerce Committee, and for consideration by the committee
of the expediency of providing by law for regulation of the rail­
ways to prevent the loss of human life and to promote safety of
passengers. This resolution was adopted on the day it was pre­
sented, but no report was ever made by the Commerce Committee
to which it was referred. No further steps were taken in this di­
rection until two years afterwards, when Representative Andrew
King, of Missouri, in an effort to get some action, introduced a
safety appliance bill. Nothing resulted from this attempt to get



congressional action. For a period of 16 years thereafter numerous
bills and resolutions were introduced in Congress, but never re­
ceived any consideration by that body. Numerous resolutions and
memorials were adopted by legislatures and other bodies and socie­
ties petitioning Congress to act on safety legislation but without
On December 3, 1889, in his message to the Fifty-first Congress,
President Benjamin Harrison presented to Congress some statistics,
which, crude as they were, had telling effect. Railway safety be­
came an issue in Congress, and the people back home who are always
the best political barometers began activities in behalf of the rail­
way employees. The relative value of certain safety devices had
been the subject of bitter controversies, many people actually be­
lieving that such devices were only money making schemes of the
inventors and manufacturers, and of course the railways were re­
luctant to adopt safety devices to any extent at that time because no
standards had been fixed by law or by order of the commission.
But when President Harrison told Congress and the American
people that during the year ending June 30,1888, over 2,000 railway
employees had been killed and more than 20,000 had been injured,
the people understood that statement more than they had under­
stood anything that had been said before on the entire railroad
question. Bills to carry out the President’s suggestion for action to
relieve this terrible situation disclosed by him were loaded into the
legislative hopper at a rapid rate. Of course it took a little while
for the safety leaven to permeate the Nation and thoroughly to
arouse the political leaders, so during this session of Congress no
bills dealing with railway safety were passed. The President was
not content to let the matter rest, so he went back to Congress and in
his message of December 1, 1890, again quoted statistics he had
gathered and urged action to prevent the enormous loss of life and
injuries. Many Dills were introduced but none passed during this
session of Congress, and President Harrison again went to Congress,
in his message on December 9,1891, stating that for the year ending
June 30,1890, 369 brakemen had been killed and 7j841 maimed while
engaged in coupling cars. He also stated that during that year 2,451
railway employees had been killed and 22,390 had been injured. As
a result o f the determined stand taken by the President of the
United States^ fortified as he was by statistics and aided by public
sentiment, which was aroused through the presentation of the facts
disclosed by such statistics, the safety appliance laws were passed
in 1893, less than four years after President Harrison had taken the
safety question before Congress, whereas nothing had been accom­
plished in the nearly 20 years which had elapsed from the time
Senator Sumner started the safety movement but did not ha,ve the
statistics to back him in his fight in the education of the public.
The figures presented in the President’s message in 1891 showing
that 369 brakemen had been killed and 7,841 maimed while engaged
in coupling cars suggest a subject which has come up here during
this conference with regards to accidents in which the machinery
used by the employees was in good shape, particular attention being
called to railway accidents of this character. 1 presume the links



and pins used by the 8,210 brakemen who were either killed or
maimed in 1890 were perfectly conditioned; just the same these de­
vices killed 369 and injured 7,841. As to “ falling-off” accident
casualties among our men, I am willing to concede that in a great
many instances men fall from the tops of cars when, no doubt, the
equipment is in good shape, but do we ever consider that these men
are reauired to walk along the tops of swiftly moving box cars
when tne sleet or ice covers them, or that they are often on the top
of the rear of a 100-car train when the air hose parts. It is not a
question of the condition of machinery or equipment which counts
tne most in all instances, but the kind of tools and equipment or
machinery with which men must work. I therefore say to you that
with all of our modem equipment on the railways further steps
must be taken to accomplish the desired results—by keeping men
from the tops of trains as well as by providing other safety devices.
In 1892, tne year before the first saiety-appfiance law was passed,
there was one railway employee killed out of each 322 employed
and in 1925 one out of each 1,118 employed was killed—a record
for the safety laws and safey-first movements to be proud of.
Following the passage or the safety-appliance law and its en­
largements the boiler inspection law was passed, and other laws
and regulations followed, until to-day we have fairly covered the
field. Yet accidents occurred, many in fact, and these safety-first
men came on the scene and began their campaign of education by
getting facts and telling the employees these facts in plain every­
day language. Safety committees were organized, and men and
management not only talk safety but are living it in their every-day
lives. In these movements statistics have done the largest part of
the work.
My own organization was possibly the hardest hit by accidents—
we were paying millions or dollars out for insurance annually
though only in small sums per man. In fact we have paid $65,000,000
out for death and disability claims. We had to insure our men—no
insurance company wanted to do it—but to-day we have the cheap­
est insurance in America for our men. We sell insurance that pays
for death and total and permanent disability at $12.85 per tnousand and will permit one of our members to carry as much as
$5,000. The safety laws and safety-first campaigns are helping us
out very materially.
I shall not attempt to go into the figures to show what has been
accomplished by recent safety laws and safety-first movements on
the American railways because Mr. Palmer has fully covered that
subject, but I do want to pay my respects to the men who have been
responsible for making both of these movements a success.
Our old friendsj Edward A. Mosley, late secretary of the Interstate
Commerce Commission, and Father Coffin, who contributed the best
years of their lives to safety on the railways always will live in the
memories of grateful railway employees. Hiram W. Belnap, that
tireless worker for the enforcement of our safety laws and a great
booster for the safety-first movement, was an honored officer and a
highly respected member of my brotherhood and we all love and
cherish his memory. Our late brother in the safety-first movement,
Harry A. Adams, who startled the railroad world with his accom­



plishments on his own line of railway and in the general movement,
was also a member of the brotherhood of which I am an officer ana
member, and I pause to pay reverence to his memory.
To those men who have in the past and are now carrying on the
work of our safety bureaus and handling the safety-first work I
pay my highest tribute; they all deserve the highest praise for the
most splendid service performed. Each of these would quickly say
that accident statistics have been the greatest factor in getting safety
over to the employees and the public.
The brotherhood which I represent, together with the associated
labor organizations, are boosters for tne safety laws and safety-first
movements, and we can cheerfully testify that these movements have
been the greatest benefactors to the men who handle the commerce
of this country. Our own experience has taught us that reliable
statistics are of inestimable value in the accomplishment of desired
results and we are behind this movement. We therefore hope that
the leaders of men and management engaged in industrial pursuits
will accomplish even more and in a larger measure than we have been
able to do m the railway business in the collection and dissemination
of statistics of accidents for the different plants and shops.
We long ago stopped quibbling over mere details and went out
to find the number of deaths and injuries, and when we found this
information we then set about to eliminate these casualties in a
systematic manner. I f machinery was at fault, we remedied it; if
improper maintenance was the cause of accidents, we made proper
repairs; if it was the lack of interest or carelessness on the part of
employees, we sought to educate them along safety lines. As a re­
sult ox these efforts we are handling the largest trains, getting the
greatest amount of efficiency out of the men, and working under the
safest conditions of any class of men employed in a similar occupa­
tion in the world, considering the duties and responsibilities of each
We invite the men in industry to compete with us in our safety
campaigns and let us hope that all will cooperate with the State
bureaus and with the Department of Labor in an effort to give the
most accurate and valuable accident statistics.
The C h airm an . We are very much interested in the discussion
of this question by Mr. Doak, of the Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen. Is there any further discussion ?
Mr. C arrow. Mr. Doak’s paper was certainly illuminating. Mr.
Doak has appeared at many of our conventions, and he has the
faculty of touching the high spots in a most impressive manner.
There are two or three suggestions that I would like to make.
In the first place, the statistics of the Interstate Commerce Commis­
sion, as they are at present presented, represent the cooperative effort
of the commission and the American Kailway Association, and by
common consent are the best treatise on accident extant. As Mr.
Doak and the other railroad men know, the railroad men of the
country, the management, wanted to have the facts. They wanted
to get the information that would direct them to remedial measures.
The steam railroad section of the National Safety Council has had a
committee on statistics ever since its inception, and at every meeting



we have had graphic charts illustrating the progress and possibilities
in safety. We have had committees on bulletins, and in every other
direction we have had men working, analyzing, and trying to deter­
mine ways and means for accident prevention. In 1921 the safety
section of the American Railway Association was organized, and
this association is enthusiastically working to make the railroads as
safe as possible.
Mr. Palmer said the fund of information in the Interstate
Commerce Commission is without parallel, and we agree to that.
Every individual railroad is apprised of the fact, fully aware of
the fact, that accidents are not only costly but a very unsatis­
factory thing to have to confront in your business management.
I want to show you, Secretary Davis, that not only are we tabu­
lating these statistics, putting them in volumes, and broadcasting
them all over the country, but we are actually taking remedial
measures. There is nothing in accident-prevention history that cor­
responds to the results accomplished by the safety section of the
American Railway Association in the last four years. The first
thing we determined by analysis was that 5 per cent of all accidents
are attributable to physical conditions, that 10 per cent are attributable
to violations of rules and regulations, and that 85 per cent are attrib­
utable to carelessness, thoughtlessness, indifference, ignorance, and
misadventure. We determined that the remedial measures for the
first class was improved design, better maintenance, the removal of
litter, and better Housekeeping; for the second class, better training
and enforcement of discipline and the selection of men; and for
the third class, persuasion, cooperation, and working together to get
us in the habit of doing things in a safe way. We determined after
a most careful analysis at the Salt Lake meeting in 1924 that we
had reason to expect a 35 per cent reduction in accidents. We
figured that it could not be done overnight, so we spread it over a
period of seven years; we made a chart showing that if we made a
gradual progress, 5 per cent each year, we would get 35 per cent by
the end of 1930. That was the first step, and at the next meeting in
Chicago in 1925 we developed the skeleton outline^ of the most com­
prehensive monthly program of accident prevention that was ever
conceived by any body of men. Since that date every month, as
regularly as clockwork, we have selected a set of causes and distrib­
uted the list to the officers and the employees of the American rail­
roads, without any exception. These programs, bulletins, and anal­
yses have gone into the statistical committees, they have gone into the
safety committees, and the officers of the railroads have analyzed
them. So much for the program.
The next step in our orderly process was to hook the responsibility
upon the supervisory forces. It has been the opinion of safety men
since the ^movement was started that men in supervisory capacities
were responsible for introducing constructive measures along
accident-prevention lines. With that fact in mind, we introduced
four resolutions, directed to each of the heads oi the respective
departments of every division of every railroad in the country—the
division engineer, the master mechanic, the train master, and the
road foreman. We enumerated the number of men injured in those
respective departments. We told them the causes; we told them



the remedies; and we appealed to them to cooperate with us in
carrying on this campaign, to the end that we might make the 35
per cent reduction. Kow that has been broadcast. The latest re­
port of the Interstate Commerce Commission has been analyzed.
We have pointed out the occupations that are showing the increases;
we have pointed out the occupations and the causes that show the
decreases. We are still appealing to the men on the railroad along
that line; and we already have in mind the next step in this matter
for presentation at the coming annual meeting of the safety section.
In the evenings, after these sessions here, representatives of the
safety section nave been meeting together, talking, and trying to
work on these things. So I want to assure you, Mr. Secretary,
that the railroad managements, first, last, and all the time, recognize
that accidents on the American railroads are absolutely undesirable,
that they constitute a liability; and that out of sheer intelligence,
if not for humanitarian reasons, we would do our level best to make
the railroads as safe to work and travel upon as it is humanly pos­
sible; and I want you to remember that the development, the evolu­
tion, and the application of the statistical information in the railroad
business is a product of the railroad brain cooperating with the
Interstate Commerce Commission.
The C h airm an . We will pass on to the next subject on this morn­
ing’s program, and consider the question of “ Statistics for accident
prevention in American mines,” by Mr. W. W. Adams, of the United
States Bureau of Mines.

The chief object in the compilation of accident statistics is to aid
in the prevention of accidents. In and of themselves statistics have
no reason for being; and unless the use to be made of them is im>rtant the cost of compiling figures is likely to be unjustifiable,
n the other hand, when confronted by a problem that can not be
solved without the aid of statistics, it would in ordinary cases be
ridiculous not to obtain the information needed, and in situations
where human life is at stake it would be criminally negligent. It
may be said to the credit of the mining industry that it was among
the first, if not the very first, to compile accident records on an ex­
tensive scale and to use such records as an aid in the prevention of
As early as 1870—more than half a century ago—the State of
Pennsylvania began to keep records of accidents that occurred in the
anthracite mines of that State. Four years later Ohio began the
keeping of similar records. The next year accident records became
available for Maryland. In 1877 the Legislature of Pennsylvania
broadened the mine-inspection law to include the bituminous mines
in the central and western portions of the State. Iowa undertook the
work in 1880, Indiana in 1881, Illinois in 1882, Colorado and West
Virginia in 1883, and Kansas and Kentucky in 1884. Thus for more
than 40 years the production of the major portion of the Nation’s
annual coal supply has been accompanied by the keeping of accident




records and by the use of the information revealed by such records
in the task of lessening the danger under which mining operations
are conducted. In spite of all that has been done, accidents in mines
continue to occur in large numbers. Increasing production and de­
velopment of underground operations over larger areas to meet the
Nation’s need for coal create new hazards in the mines. Wider areas
of roof are exposed, haulage operations have increased in volume
and speed, mining machines for undercutting the coal have been rap­
idly installed, ana more explosives are being used. Hence the condi­
tions prevailing in the industry to-day are radically different from
those under which coal was mined in earlier years. To keep pace
with the development of the industry with its increasing hazards,
more detailed information regarding accidents has been found
The Federal Bureau of Mines was organized in 1910. Shortly
after its organization preparations were made to obtain statistics of
accidents for all branches of the mining industry. The first in­
quiries were for 1910 and related exclusively to coal mines, not only
because the coal industry could more readily furnish the information
but mainly because coal mining employs about three-fourths of all
mine workers in the country and suffers at least that proportion of
the accidents that occur each year. Schedules requesting accident
data for 1910 were mailed early in 1911 to all coal operators in the
United States. In the following year similar schedules were mailed
to coal mines, metal mines, and quarries. The bureau therefore now
possesses accident statistics of national scope for all mines and quar­
ries in the United States for a period extending over 15 years. The
data for metal mines and quarries relate to injuries as well as deaths.
The figures for coal mines relate to fatal accidents only. It was deemed
necessary in the early stages of the work to obtain statistics of coal­
mine accidents at more frequent intervals than once a year. Therefore
an arrangement was made with the coal-mine department of each
State to furnish the bureau with monthly reports of accidents in coal
mines. The monthly reports were restricted to fatal cases only, be­
cause it was impracticable to obtain at such frequent intervals satis­
factory figures on injuries which in many cases involved disability
over long periods of time. This arrangement brought the bureau in
close touch with the State mine inspectors but it had the effect of
sacrificing the work of collecting annual reports from operating
companies. Within the past two or three years the bureau has had
the cooperation of several hundred typical coal mining companies
in an intensive study of accidents, and the information from these
companies covers all lost-time accidents as well as fatalities. These
special returns are extremely valuable in the bureau’s statistical work
as they supplement in many ways the less complete reports that
relate to fatalities only.
From the bureau’s statistical studies we have found that the death
rates in coal mines vary considerably from State to State. To know
this bare fact would avail little if the statistics did not enable us to
go further and learn the particular classes of accidents in which the
differences in the rates existed. For example, during 1921 to 1924,
the latest four-year period for which complete figures are available,
the average death rate from all accidents in coal mines in the United



States was 1.88 per million man-hours of exposure. The rates
ranged from such low levels as 0.47 and 1.16 for Texas and Mis­
souri, respectively, to as high as 7.24 for New Mexico and 10.37 for
Utah. A further examination shows that the higher rates were
mainly due to large explosions in New Mexico and Utah during the
period covered by the figures; also, to a less extent, haulage accidents
and falls of roof and coal.
Again, the bureau’s statistical studies show that the average tem­
porary injury occasions a loss of between 14 and 15 days by the
injured employee, a period of time during which nearly 60 tons of
coal might have been produced, since the production of coal in the
United States is around 4 tons per day for each man employed.
From other statistical studies the bureau has found that the amount
of time lost by injured employees, or rather the length of their
disability measured in calendar days, is equivalent to between 8 and
10 per cent of the total man-days worked in coal mines and metal
mines, and between 5 and 6 per cent in the stone-quarrying industry.
This is a rather severe economic waste when it is remembered that
many of the accidents are preventable.. . .
In the keeping of acciclent records it is quite essential that the
records cover all of the accidents that occur. The importance of
complete reports is indicated by a statistical analysis of records
furnished to the bureau by several hundred metal mines and coal
mines. These statistics indicate that, unless accident studies are
based upon complete records, conclusions drawn from the records are
apt to be misleading. Moreover it is difficult, if not impossible, to
compare the accident experience of one mine or State with that
of another mine or State unless the same classes of accidents are
covered in both cases. It has been found, for example, that 40 per
cent of men injured in coal mines are disabled for one week or less.
In other words, if only accidents disabling an employee for more
than one week are included in our studies, we are ignoring about
40 per cent of the accidents which actually occur. Hence the accident
rate of one company may falsely appear to be better than that of
another company for no other reason than that the first company
bases its rate on something less than the whole number of injuries to
its men. In like manner it has been found that States or companies
keeping no records of accidents unless the injured employee loses
more than two weeks’ time are thus maintaining records that are
only 35 per cent complete. The lessons that might be learned from
the other 65 out of every 100 accidents are entirely lost. It is as if
an insurance company should ignore 65 per cent o f the cases of sick­
ness among its policyholders and base all of its research work on
reports covering only 35 per cent of the cases.
As previously stated, accidents cause a loss to the coal industry
which is equivalent to 8 or 10 per cent of the entire amount of time
which the industiy works. This means that the accident severity rate
for the industry is around 10, representing 10 days lost per 1,000 manhours of exposure. This loss represents the average for the industry.
It emphatically does not indicate the best that can be done by indi­
vidual companies. Again we are indebted to statistics for our knowl­
edge that in 1925 certain coal mines had severity rates considerably



below 10. The bureau’s records show that one anthracite mine in
Pennsylvania, for example, had a severity rate of only 0.27. A
bituminous mine in West Virginia had a rate of only 0.32. A zinc
mine in Oklahoma had a severity rate of 0.23, as compared with an
average rate of 9.07 for the group of metal mines under considera­
tion. The average rate for tne quarry group was 7.60, yet several
quarry plants went through the entire year without any employee
losing a single day from personal injury. The group of mines pro­
ducing nonmetalhc minerals by underground mining methods nad
an average rate of 7.34, yet one company in the group had a rate of
only 0.004.
These are typical cases of what can be done by accident-preven­
tion effort and what can be revealed by statistical studies. Each
mine referred to by these records employed a minimum of 50 men
underground; one mine employed as many as 400 men. Each quarry
employed at least 25 men inside the pit. The accident rates quoted
have reference to strictly mining and quarrying operations and
include only such surface operations as are directly connected with
mining and quarrying. The figures do not cover milling and smelting
nor do they cover the manufacture o f lime or cement.
The element of competition is one of much importance in accidentprevention work. Since the causes of accidents are about 25 per
cent mechanical and 75 per cent human, it is manifest that the great­
est progress in reducing the accident rate is dependent on the suc­
cess met with in dealing with the human factor. The desire for
leadership in accident-prevention work by miners and mining com­
panies is quite as natural as in other lines of effort, as in sports,
studies, science, and finance. Statistical records make it possible
to utilize a natural sporting and competitive spirit in the laudable
effort to prevent industrial accidents. A safety contest to establish
the lowest individual accident rate can be conducted only by placing
the data for all industries on a correct and uniform basis. Thus the
competitive spirit in such a contest may be utilized in bringing about
uniformity in accident reporting. Under present conditions, hardly
any two States compile their accident statistics in the same way.
Not only do the States differ in their methods of compiling statistics,
but they also differ widely as to the classes of accidents that must
be reported to State officials and as to the classes of accidents covered
by their statistical reports. It is conceded that individual States
may find it necessary to make special compilations for local needs,
but a wide field exists where uniformity is desirable in the interest
of safety work in all industries in all States.
The humanitarian point of view in the prevention of personal
injury in the American industry should in itself prompt everyone to
action. In addition, however, there is also the financial appeal. It
may be assumed that industry at large is paying sufficient money
in the form of insurance premiums to meet the cost of compensation
for the accidents that occur. Yet there is not the same assurance
that any specific industry is being charged insurance premiums
in keeping with its hazard as compared with the hazards of other
industries. It is quite probable that certain industries are paying
higher premiums than their relative hazards would justify, and that
uniform statistics in all industries would reveal the fact and bring



about more equitable insurance rates. The fact that compensation
for accidents is based on pay-roll exposure, a very unstable factor,
instead of being based primarily on man-hour exposure, is likely
to obscure the relative hazards of different industries. It is here
that statistics offer a means for correctly comparing the hazards
of one industry with those of another. Unless the element of com­
parability is present, compilations of figures do not constitute statis­
tics of the kind needed in accident-prevention work. Some present
compilations having to do with accidents and compensation for acci­
dents in various States, for example, may be considered to be statis­
tics only within State boundaries. As soon as the figures cross the
boundary of the State to which they relate, they cease to be statistics
and become merely compilations of figures which can not be com­
pared with figures for adjoining States. A different language
spoken in the 48 States would perhaps cause but little more con­
fusion in matters in general than we now have in statistical matters
when we try to reconcile or compare the accident records of one
State with those of another State. I refer to statistics needed to
compare the frequency and severity rates in different States and in
different industries. One of the greatest contributions that could
he made to industrial safety would be the adoption of a universal
statistical language in all States.
It is to be hoped that this conference called by the Secretary of
Labor will result in an early agreement as to what shall be con­
sidered a reportable accident and what shall be the basis for calculat­
ing frequency and severity rates. A further development to be
hoped for is the determination by every agency represented here, as
well as industrial concerns throughout the country, to place their
accident records on a uniform basis so that the lessons to be learned
therefrom may be available to all. It is* strongly urged that the
mining industry take the lead in this improvement in accident statis­
tical records as it took the lead more than 50 years ago in inaugurat­
ing this important work.
The C hairm an . I am sure we are all indebted to Mr. Adams for
this very excellent paper he has read and the lessons to be learned
from it I am sure will be of benefit to all of us. Seeking to do what
he points out is so important, and that is to do everything we can
toward cooperating with the Federal department in trying to fa­
cilitate the compilation of the statistics that will be comparable one
with the other, we will thereby aid in accomplishing the work
of accident prevention in an effective manner.
I acknowledge the compliment given to qne of the industries in
our State, and say that we deeply appreciate the compliment. I
do not know whether we deserve it or not, but at least we hope
to give the fullest measure of cooperation, to the end that we may
bring about uniform statistics and that we may keep up with the
progress being made in the other States in accident prevention.
The further discussion of this subject is to be led by Joseph J.
Walsh, secretary of mines of the State of Pennsylvania,



Mr. W a l s h . I have been asked to prepare a brief statement deal­
ing with the value of statistics in the coal industry. I therefore
propose to enumerate just a few of the advantages.
In a general way statistics show the number and kind of accidents,
where they occur, and under what conditions. With this information
at hand intelligent and practical rules of safety can be formulated.
A more detailed analysis of the causes of accidents makes clearer
the remedy that should be applied. For instance, an analysis of
mine-car accidents shows that quite a number of accidents result
from pushing mine cars by an electric motor instead of pulling them.
Cars are more likely to leave the track when pushed than when
pulled. They should always be pulled on main roads at least.
Again, when robbing pillars several methods are practiced and in
analyzing the reports of fatalities resulting from roof falls in
robbing sections it is found that where the back of the pillar is shot
off the fatality rate is higher than where the pillar is cut through and
removed advancing.
Mine cars sometimes become charged with electricity. Statistics
show that this happens when electric haulage is employed and the
rails are heavily sanded. Under such conditions blasting powder
has at times been ignited with fatal results.
Insulated cars should be used for transporting powder.
Statistics show that out of 94 fatalities from explosions of gas
during the years 1924 and 1925 open lights caused 20 per cent;
striking matches, 16 per cent; electricity, 12 per cent. The remedy
is clear—safety lamps or closed lights.
Statistics indicate that 45 per cent of the accidents in the anthra­
cite and bituminous regions occur between 8 a. m. and 12 o’clock
noon, and that the most dangerous period during the day is between
10 and 11 o’clock in the morning. This clearly indicates when super­
vision is most required.
During the night shift 21 per cent of the fatalities take place
when far less than 21 per cent of the employees are at work.
It is also learned from statistics that 21 per cent of those killed in
the anthracite mines and 17 per cent of those killed in the bitu­
minous mines had less than a year’s experience in the occupation
they were engaged in when injured.
After a workman has finished his first year his chances of escap­
ing accident during the next four years at the same job are con­
siderably improved.
This seems to indicate that a new worker should be more fully
instructed in his duties.
Many dangerous practices have been revealed by statistics. Some
of them are the use of storage batteries for blasting purposes, the use
of electric lamps in gaseous mines without the accompaniment of
testing lamps, unguarded machinery, and the ventilation of gaseous
chambers by the use of compressed air.
I f we continue to do the same thing in the same way year after
year, we can not hope to reduce the number of accidents.
Statistics show very clearly the mistakes that are being made,
and it should be the purpose of all persons interested in mining to
seek and apply the proper remedy.



The C h airm an . The next subject we have for discussion is “Acci­
dent prevention in steel, iron, and nonferrous foundries,” by T. F.
Jennings, of the Utah Copper Co.

It is indeed a privilege to be permitted to address this conference
of crusaders consecrated to the conquest of the preventable. There
is, there can be, no greater, grander, nobler aim than that of alleviat­
ing, and so far as humanly possible preventing, the pain, sorrow, and
misery o f life incident to industrial activity. In the short space of
20 years the movement to prevent industrial accidents has Tbecome
almost universal in its influence, and is a recognized integral part
of every modern up-to-date industrial organization. This is true of
the Utah Copper Co., with which I am connected, and which com­
pany operates at Bingham Canyon, the largest open-cut copper mine
in the United States, and operates at Magna and Garfield reduction
and concentrating mills, having a capacity of 40,000 tons a day. In
order not to trespass unduly upon your time and patience, I shall
limit my discussion to my experience as superintendent of the
foundry of that company, and endeavor to point out how and why
accidents in that department of that company have been reduced to
a commendable minimum.
The safety work begins at the time the man is employed. He is
required to take a physical examination. The purpose of that exami­
nation is not to reject applicants who are physically imperfect, but
rather to prevent their employment in particular kinds of work for
which they are physically disqualified. Specific impairments may
render the applicant unfit for specific work and yet permit of his
being properly employed at other work. In this way an applicant
having a defect which would subject him and his fellow employees
to undue risk in a given line of the work is kept away from that risk
and placed where his defect will not so obviously jeopardize him.
Thus an effort is made to put the right kind of men at the right kind
o f work.
The next step in accident prevention is education. Recognizing
that mechanical appliances play but a comparatively small part in
accident prevention, and that the greater proportion of accidents is
attributable to the human factor, an effort is made to arouse tfce
interest of the worker in the safety of himself and his coemployees.
The individual worker is taught that his safety depends largely
upon himself,, and that the safety of others depends upon himselr,
and that the safety of the men comparatively is but a massing of the
units of the individual. He has impressed upon him the necessity
for constant vigilance and every effort is made to teach him the
catechism of carefulness. This is done through the distribution of
safety articles, posters, calendars, etc., which describe and depict the
causes and consequences of accidents, and carry messages of caution.
There is a general safety council, consisting of the management
and the superintendents of the mine and plants. Immediately under
6819°—26----- 9



that general council is the safety council of the individual mine or
plant, composed of the heads of all departments in the respective
plants. This committee meets monthly and discusses the accidents
occurring during the month, and a means of avoiding those accidents.
The next link m the chain is the departmental safety committee,
consisting of all foremen in the given department,, and one workman
for each gang or group in that department. The departmental
safety committee meets twice monthly to discuss current accidents
and methods of avoiding them. Each departmental safety com­
mittee appoints a safety man, whose primary duty, at all times, is
to be watchful for unsafe or dangerous practices, appliances, places,
or conditions, and to receive reports concerning the same from the
workmen. This safety man wears a large button to identify him.
The minutes of the meetings of all the committees are taken down
in writing and distributed to the members of all other committees
engaged in the safety work. This enables each department to keep
in touch with every other department in this activity. The work of
these committees is supplemented and facilitated by the plant em­
ployment director, who gives every man, at the time of his initial
employment, a short talk on safety and the aims and practices of
the company in its endeavor to prevent accidents, and instructs him
how to report anything which he observes and considers might be
unsafe. Similar instructions are given the employee by his foreman
on being first put to work. All accidents are carefully investigated
and reported by the employment director, and analyzed with the
view to preventing a recurrence of a similar accident.
As a part of the so-called educational feature of the program, I, as
superintendent of that foundry, personally talk to each man as he
is put to work there, and impress upon him the necessity of his
being careful and cautious. Furthermore, I emphasize the rule of the
company, requiring each man immediately to report to the plant
doctor every injury however trivial it may appear to be; pointing
out that experience has demonstrated that many injuries of ap­
parently inconsequential nature, unless promptly and properly cared
for, may result in serious and extended disability, thus the results of
accidents are minimized. I also require every man meeting with a
minor accident in that foundry personally to appear before the
department safety committee of the foundry and explain how,
why, and under what circumstances that accident occurred, to the
end that the same thing should not happen again if avoidable.
Whenever the departmental safety committee finds that an acci­
dent has been caused by any mechanical defect, or danger incident
to any place of employment m the foundry, that committee forthwith
so reports to me, as superintendent of the foundry, and I immedi­
ately take steps to have the situation rectified. The work of the
departmental safety committee is augmented by that of a special
foundry equipment inspection committee, composed o f experienced
foundry men, appointed by me on that committee in recognition
of their qualification and competency to pass upon the safety of the
various machines, appliances, and tools involved in the foundry
Whenever in that foundry a heavy object has to be elevated above
.the floor level, and men work under such elevated object, they are



specifically required to place beneath each end of the object blocks
up to such height that if the object should drop it would strike and
rest on the blocks rather than crush or injure the men under it.
When large flasks are lifted by cranes, with a view to turning
the flask over, the use of square-headed trunnions is dangerous, be­
cause the crane sling is liable to slip off the neck of the trunnion
onto the head, and when the employee goes to turn the flask, the
sling, being insecure, may slip off tne trunnion entirely and drop
the flask on the employee. We avoid that danger by having our
trunnion heads tapered to an edge. When such a tapered trunnion
is used, if the crane sling slips it must either remain on the neck of
the trunnion or slip entirely off and thus drop the flask before
the employee has occasion to pass under it or around it. In other
words, with a tapered trunnion the sling must automatically not
operate at all or else operate safely. This practice in itself removes
the hazard of some of the most serious accidents incident to foundry
The departmental inspection committee pays special attention to
ladles, cradles, casts, and other receptacles wherein are handled the
molten metal, and by care in this respect the danger from this source
is almost practically eliminated.
The danger of flying particles from the grinding machines is
decreased by the position of a thick glass screen between the operator
and the machine. It may be thought by some that the existence of
that glass screen increases the danger where the wheel itself breaks
when the machine gets choked. This contingent danger is minimized
by the use of an adjustable platform, which platform can be ad­
justed so that the edge thereof will be in proper relation to the wheel
and thus prevent the occurrence of spaces into which the metal might
otherwise drop and choke the wheel. At the same time the use of
this platform relieves the lifting or holding strain on the operator
and thereby lessens fatigue.
All hand tools are regularly and frequently inspected, and care is
exercised to avoid the use of weak, cross-grained, or splintered han­
dles. When a head becomes mushroomed, chipped, or cracked, it is
promptly laid aside and not used again until it has been ground
down or forged into proper shape. Similarly, chisels and other
small tools are sharpened frequently and the burrs kept ground off.
All steel hand tools that are liable to be struck by hammers or sledges
have the upper part of their shanks tapered from the top downward
before they are used at all. Experience has proven that a tapered
head, smaller than the body of the tool itself, will not mushroom as
quickly as a flat head equal in surface to that of the body o f the tool.
Safety shoes are required to be worn in the foundry work. These
shoes have smooth uppers, without any objectionable lacing or button
opening to admit molten metal. Tne shoes fit snugly around the
ankle. They are what are commonly known as standard foundry
shoes. These shoes can be jerked off quickly when emergency de­
mands. In many foundries the use of such shoes is limited to the
men who handle molten metal. We make it a practice for the core­
makers, grinders, helpers, arid all others who are at all liable to
receive foot bums in passing through the foundry, or working in it,
to wear such shoes.



No employe© is allowed to pour molten metal without wearing
standard safety goggles. All chippers and furnace men likewise
use them. The rules requiring the employment of such goggles are
strictly enforced.
A specially assigned crane expert inspects the limit switches on the
cranes every morning, and the departmental inspection committee
also devotes special attention to the chains and other equipment on
the cranes. Each craneman is furnished with, and is required to
comply with, a code of rules governing the operation of the crane,
which code has been worked out by myself and associates from long
In that foundry is the largest chill machine in any foundry of
which I know. It is 122 feet long, and we cast 72,000 pounds
of metal every day. It can readily be appreciated that if that
machine is cold, or damp, the danger in its use would be immeas­
urable. That machine is carefully inspected daily, and is preheated
and dried, and by the use of these precautions that machine has been
operated ior two years without a single lost-time accident.
The real efficiency of all these safety precautions revolves around
the point of promptness in remedying conditions as they arise, in­
stead of deferring action until some accident forces relief.
In conclusion it is gratifying for me to be able to state (and I trust
you will absolve me from immodesty) that in that foundry we em­
ploy from 120 to 250 men, and cast from 40 to 50 tons of molten
metal per day, and yet for a period of eight months past have op­
erated without a single lost-time accident.
Mr. B yn u m . I do not know but there was something mentioned
by the speaker with reference to the ages of men. I want to be set
right if I am wrong, but it seems to me the tendency of to-day is to
employ young men, what I would call boys. Personally, I think
that men, mature men, are the persons who are most capable. I
might refer to Judge Anderson, Mr. Secretary, who said that in
effect a man had no sense until he was 50 years old. I want to know
the sense of this meeting in regard to the ages of men. In the year
and a half I have been on the Industrial Board of Indianaj most of
the men who have come before me are voung men. We make no
distinction as to men in Indiana. I understand that the railroads
are fixing a limit of employment at 45 vears, and I want this meeting
to understand that I do not approve oi that for the State of Indiana.
I wish that someone who has been engaged in gainful employment
and who has had supervision over men would tell me as to whether
accidents happen to men over 50 or whether they happen to young
men. That is what I came here for.
Mr. W ollner. I am a railroad man, and I would like to explain
to the questioner why the railroads of the country fix the maximum
age of employment at 45. There are a great many reasons. First,
railroading is rapidly becoming a profession. Men must start as
boys, learn the business, and reach their full value to themselves and
their employers in their maturity. The age of employment has no
reference to the frequency of accidents nor—well, I was going to



say severity, but that is not entirely true because a recent survey
that I had made shows that men past the age of 40 suffer more
severely from injury than do younger men. Their recovery is
Some of the reasons other than the one I mentioned why railroads
fix the maximum age of employment for inexperienced workers at
35 and for experienced workers at 45 are: First, the railroads main­
tain pension systems to which the employees do not contribute, and
under most of these pension systems men in the train and engine
service are pensioned at 65 years of age and employees in other
services at 70. The roads must secure a certain amount of service
from a man in order to justify paying him an old-age pension. You
can see that from 45 to 65 represents 20 years’ service, and it would
possibly be unwise for an employer to grant an employee with less
than 20 years’ service an old-age pension.
‘A second reason is that an undesirable condition in the railroad
business^ and one which management and employees’ organizations
are rapidly overcoming, is the floater. Due to train and engine
service, and a good many occupations that go with it, being seasonal,
men have been forced into seeking and leaving employment with
individual companies. The roads and the men’s organizations are
attempting to do away with this by fostering all-year-round employ­
ment. Now if you did not have a maximum age limit you would
have—I might preface that by saying that the men who move around
most are the men in the train and engine service. The so-called
boomers are largely switchmen and men of that type. As these men
become older, they become less agile and less adaptable to the work
upon which they are called to perform.
I might Say that in addition to being a safety officer I have been
an employment officer of railroads for 24 years plus. I have passed
upon the qualifications of a good many thousand railroad workers. I
agree with the last speaker that—take as an instance the maintenanceoi-way work. The man who has reached the age of 40 andpast is a
more desirable worker. He has gotten into the grind. He is be­
ginning to look into the possibility of the future and stays with his
job better and is less troublesome on the job.
As to the more professional classifications of railroading, such as
trainmen, enginemen, telegraphers, station agents, etc., they must
learn the business. It is not an easy business to learn. Those who
can not learn it professionally must learn it by absorption, and they
must start in as young men, becoming more mature as they grow
older, but by the time they have reached the age of 45 they must
have found their place in tne railroad world and must depend upon
their efficiency in that place for future advancement, rather than
moving around from company to company.
The C hairm an . The paper read by Mr. Jennings was rather sur­
prising in its conclusion. While he was discussing his subject and
telling us of the methods and practices----Mr. J ennings. I would like to say a word, as this discussion has
brought it up, about the age limit of men. There is nobody within
the sound of my voice but needs to make an apology for any industry
not wishing to employ men over 35 or 45 years of age. There are
a great number, and it is a deplorable thing to know—not thinking



it, but knowing it; there is a great deal of difference between knowing
and thinking. A man looks forward to the time beyond Doctor
Osier’s limit of 45, Doctor Osier being accused of stating that every
man when he becomes 45 ought to be chloroformed. The industries
of this Nation would be in a bad shape if that was to occur. I have
had that particular thing to contend with in many sections of this
country. I know of many in the West that make that limit, but
did you ever notice that a railroad, we will say—I am not aiming at
that particularly—when a peak season was coming, or any other time
when there was an emergency, and it wanted to speed up freight or
traffic, adhered strictly to the rule of 35 or 45 years? Not by a long
shot. I f a man who was 65 said he was 35, that was all right at that
special time.
The Utah company that I have been employed with for the last
14 years has had no age limit. There are perhaps 4,000 men on the
pay roll, and I feel confident in stating here that, comparing effi­
ciency in the operation of its mines and plants, it would compare
favorably with any in the West, and it mates no age limit; 70 years
is not a limit.
Mr. B yn u m . In making my inquiry I cast no reflection upon the
railroads or the institutions of Utah, but I want to say this: Possibly
I am a reactionary, but I want men who look backward rather than
forward. I want men who look back upon the institutions of this
country and its traditions; I want men of proper ages who can do
that, not half-baked boys. That is the position I take.
The C hairm an . I was just about to remark when the chair recog­
nized Mr. Jennings again, that no doubt after going over the various
methods and practices in force in the Utah Copper Co.’s mines, he
would tell us at the conclusion what he had to say with reference to
the value of statistics for accident prevention. He reached his
climax at the conclusion of his remarks, when he practically states
that he has a perfect record. It seems to me that that statement
carries with it a strong and convincing argument why statistics
properly kept according to a uniform method would be most valuable
for comparison in the other similar industries.
Our next subject for discussion is “ Improved lighting as a factor
in accident prevention,” by W. H. Rademacher, of the Edison Lamp

That lighting is a vital factor in the promotion of industrial safety
is not by any means a new idea. A very great number of highly
commendable treatments of the relationship of light and safety
have appeared and continue to appear in various technical journals
and no doubt have come to the attention of practically everyone in­
terested in accident prevention. A survey of past writings and
an analysis of present thought indicate that the early ideas on this
subject are still sustained, the recognized hazards are unchanged,
and remedial suggestions are basically as heretofore. I therefore
feel it in order to point out that this presentation can not perforce
represent entirely new or original thought.



I believe that the treatment of this subject which will best serve
the interests of this conference will be a review of past progress,
a brief analysis of prevalent lighting faults which constitute ac­
cident hazards, a statement of the remedies which can be applied,
and, where practical, physical demonstrations.
Some years ago—about 1913, I believe—E. E. Simpson, of the
Travelers Insurance Co., presented before the Illuminating En­
gineering Society a paper which summarized the results of a study
of 91,000 industrial accidents. His investigations indicated that
23.8 per cent of these accidents could be traced either directly or
indirectly to improper lighting. Since that time various interested
organizations, such as the Illuminating Engineering Society, the
Eyesight Conservation Council of America, the departments of
labor of a number of States, and a number of insurance companies
and manufacturers of lighting products, have carried on extensive
educational activities with a view toward acquainting industry with
the value of light as a means of accident prevention. The splendid
work of these bodies has resulted in greatly improved industrial
lighting conditions, but an alarming number of accidents which may
be attributed to faulty lighting continue to occur.
In a comparatively recent address Mr. Simpson stated that u im­
proper illumination is to-day a major factor in one out of every
eight accidents.” This, to be sure, represents a very substantial
reduction from the 1913 figure, but there is absolutely no doubt
that it can be very greatly reduced by the universal adoption of
proper lighting practice.
Of interest m this connection is a recent report prepared by the
industrial lighting committee of the National Electric Light Associa­
tion, summarizing the results of a survey of the prevalent artificial
lighting conditions in 390 typical American industrial establishments*
This indicated that only 15 per cent of the plants investigated were
well lighted, only 29 per cent were fairly lighted, and the surprising
number of 56 per cent were poorly lighted. Other statisticians have
presented figures showing mat substantially more accidents occur
m industry during the winter or few-daynght-hour months than
during the summer, or months of greater daylight hours, and that
there are a far greater number of accidents during the hours of
darkness than during the hours of daylight.
For a recent example we may refer to figures presented by Maj.
John S. Spicer, chief of the accident investigation section of the
Department of Labor and Industry of the Commonwealth of Penn­
sylvania. in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science. These indicate that of over 650,000 industrial ac­
cidents reported to the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and In­
dustry for the years 1921 to 1924, inclusive, 24,000 more occurred
during the winter months than during the summer months. Four
hundred more fatal accidents occurred during the former period.
From such evidence we can not but conclude that industry as a whole
has not been made to appreciate, or has not fully understood, the
important relationship which exists between improved lighting and
accident prevention.
No one would think much of an unguided blind man’s chances of
avoiding accident in the average factory, yet we find that the order
of prevailing illumination in many plants is such that operators



have but little better chance for safety. Sight is the first essential
to safety. Danger must be seen before it can be avoided. Light,
however, is indispensable to sight. In darkness we see nothing—
with increasing quantities of properly applied light, vision is ac­
celerated and clarified. Authorities state that approximately 70 per
cent of our ‘muscular activities are a result of stimulation received
through the sensation of sight. In the last analysis, then, the safety
of the worker is dependent almost entirely upon the ability of his
eye to see quietly and clearly at all times, so that warning messages
will be sent to his brain rapidly enough to insure prompt physical
response to danger. Therefore, the provision of adeauate and proper
illumination, natural or artificial, is in reality the first step toward
the prevention of accidents in industry.
Illumination in industry may be unsatisfactory from the safety
viewpoint because of inadequate quantity or unsatisfactory quality.
As to inadequate quantity, it is not unusual to find plants in which
many areas and active working positions are dark and gloomy or in
harsh shadow due to the use of light sources which are too small or
improperly applied. Under such conditions objects can not be
clearly or quickly seen and workmen are likely to stumble and fall
over unseen obstacles, run into projecting equipment or stock, and
misjudge the location of dangerous moving machine parts. These
are not hypothetical possibilities, but are situations which have been
found to be the cause of numerous accidents.
An. inadequate quantity of light is never justifiable, particularly
in view of the fact that a low intensity, as it is called, is not only
dangerous, but is also economically intolerable because of the slug­
gish vision, slow physical response, and holding back of production
which it causes. Extended studies have proven conclusively that
there are certain minimum quantities of light which are essential to
safety and efficient production. These figures are available from
numerous sources, and in the case of those States having lighting
codes are published in the code.
The following table is extracted from the Code of Lighting for
Factories, Mills, and Other Work Places published by the Depart­
ment of Labor of the State of New Jersey:
Intensity Required.—The desirable illumination to be provided
and the minimum to be maintained are given in the following table:
Foot-candles i at the

Roadways and yard thoroughfares________________________________________ 0.05-0.25
Storage spaces_____________________________________ _____________________
Stairways, passageways, aisles____________________________________ _______
Rough manufacturing, such as rough machining, rough assembling, rough
bench work..........................................................................................................
Rough manufacturing involving closcr discrimination of detail______________ 3.00-6.00
Fine manufacturing, such as fine lathe work, pattern and tool making, light
colored textiles________________________________________________________
Special cases of fine work, such as fine watch making, engraving, drafting, dark
colored textiles______________________ _____ ____________________________ 10.00-15.00
Office work, such as accounting, typewriting, etc................................................ 4.00- 8.00


i The foot-candle, the common unit of illumination, is the lighting effect produced upon an object b y a
standard candle at a distance of 1 foot; at 2 feet the effect would be not one-half foot-candle but one-fourth
foot-candle, etc. A lamp which would give off 16 candlepower uniformly in all directions would produce
a uniform illumination of 1 foot-candle at a distance of 4 feet in any direction.



A demonstration of these code values presents an interesting study.
[Demonstration of code values.] The quantity of light existing at
any point may be readily checked by a light-measuring instrument
known as a foot-candle meter. [Demonstration of meter.]
It is interesting to note that the quantities of illumination found
necessary for safety are far less than those which are necessary for
clear sustained vision and efficient production. In other words, the
plant manager who does not provide at least the quantity of light
required for safety, in addition to the accident hazard, is faced by
a serious economic loss in the productive efficiency of his employees.
Certainly no one can justly claim that requiring compliance with the
prevailing lighting code inflicts a hardship on the user of the light.
Analysis of such accidents as are sometimes classified under the
heads: Fall of persons, fall of material, running or striking against
objects, stepping on sharp objects, handling tools or objects, etc., can
very frequently be traced to inadequate illumination.
Unsatisfactory quality of illumination is the second great cause
of industrial accidents and is usually manifested by what is known
as glare. I f one looks at an exposed lamp the sensation of glare,
which is temporary blindness, is experienced. Everyone has no
doubt demonstrated this while driving along the highways at night
upon meeting a car with improperly adjusted headlights. A sus­
tained condition of this kind is likely to result in permanently
impaired vision.
Bare, improperly placed, or improperly shaded lamps used in
industrial plants may and do create this same effect. It is not diffi­
cult for anyone to realize the accident hazard such lighting consti­
tutes. Picture a workman at a machine with a bare, glaring lamp
hanging in front of him. His eye attempts to accommodate itself
to this glaring brilliancy by contracting the iris and excluding the
excess light. Perhaps he must turn away for another piece of work,
and in so doing must look to an area which is not lighted to any­
where near the brilliancy he has just left. The iris of his eye is
greatly contracted and can not immediately readapt or open up to
admit enough light for clear vision. As a consequence the worker
is temporarily blinded. While in this condition he is a ready vic­
tim to accident. He may run into projecting material, fall on a
sharp tool, place his fingers in moving gears or belting. These and
many other serious accidents have been known to occur under such
There are five recognized causes of glare, all of which may be
found in varying degrees in many industrial plants. These are:
1. Excessive brightness of light source or reflected image.
2. Excessive volume of light directed toward the eye.
3. Position of light source.
4. Too great a contrast between light source and background.
5. Excessive time of exposure of eye to light source in field of
These may be best explained by simple demonstration. [Dem­
The provision of correct illumination, i. e., an adequate intensity
without objectionable shadows and an absence of glare, is a simple
and relatively inexpensive matter. Guesswork in placing a light­



ing installation is unnecessary for tlie science of illuminating en­
gineering has progressed to a point where the results which will be
obtained from a given system of illumination may be readily pre­
determined with a fair degree of accuracy.
Briefly, proper lighting may be obtained by adhering to the
1. The proper size and type of lamp.—This insures having suf­
ficient light (raw material) to cover adequately the areas where
vision is necessary. When lamps at low mounting heights are likely
to be visible, they should be o f the diffusing bulb type. Experience
indicates that the following foot-candle intensities are desirable
both from a safety and economic standpoint for best results for the
classes of work listed. The size of lamp which should be used under
average conditions may be readily determined by multiplying the
floor area to be lighted from each lamp by the watts per square foot
corresponding to the desired intensity.

Class of work

AverftgA _______


__ _

__ _________________________________________

watts per
footfoot of
4- 6


2. An efficient reflector of proper design.—The bare lamp gives
off light in all directions. To obtain illumination where it will be
most useful, the light rays must be controlled. The bare lamp, as
previously demonstrated, is glaring and a properly designed reflector
shields the eye.
S. A proper placement of light sources.—Too wide a spacing of
lighting units may result in nonuniform or spotty light distribution
and harsh shadows. Too low a mounting position may result in
glare. Best results may be obtained by using a spacing between units
which does not exceed their mounting height above the floor. It
is usually desirable to mount the lighting units as high as possible
without interfering with belting, etc.
4,. The proper color of walls and ceilings.—Excessive contrast be­
tween surrounding areas and light sources may cause glare. Also
dark surroundings absorb light, causing inefficient illumination.
S. A regular system of cleaning and maintenance.—I f lighting
units are allowed to become excessively dirty, or are not promptly
replaced when burned out, inadequate lighting results. A schedule
of cleaning every four to six weeks and the immediate replacement
of burned-out or badly blackened lamps is advisable in the average
Time does not permit of a thorough discussion of the economic
advantages which accrue from proper lighting. It is well to recall,
however, that compensation insurance premiums are usually based
on pay roll, accident experience in a given industry, and experience
of the plant under consideration. The reduction in premiums which
would result from accident prevention by virtue of the installation



of correct lighting would in itself in many plants more than pay for
the finest illumination. Furthermore, the costs of lighting equip­
ment are relatively nominal, particularly when viewed in the light
of the production increases which modern illumination has been
found to make possible. Production increases ranging from 6 to 30
per cent, at costs for operating and maintaining lift in g ranging
from 1 to 5 per cent of wages over the same period, are not uncom­
In concluding this discussion, the remarks of Andrew F. McBride.
M. D., commissioner of the Department of Labor of the State or
New Jersey, appearing in a paper presented before the Illuminating
Engineering Society in 1926, are worthy of mention. He stated that
a number ot large manufacturers in New Jersey have presented testi­
mony to the effect that accidents have been reduced from 50 to 75
per cent as the result of lighting their premises in accordance with
modern practice. Certainly this is proof positive of the vital im­
portance of carefully considering modern lighting in any program
of accident prevention.
The C hairm an . We are certainly indebted to Mr. Rademacher, of
the Edison Lamp Works, for this very interesting illustration of
one of the means of accident prevention. The discussion on that
paper will be led by R. E. Simpson, of the Travelers Insurance Co.
Mr. S impson . We are not likely to make as much progress as we
would desire in the prevention of industrial accidents through good
illumination unless we give some attention to another phase o f the
subject. It will be helpful in this connection if we consider light—
that is, adequate and proper illumination—as raw material and the
eye, optic nerve, and a certain part of the brain as the mechanism
by which the raw material is translated into the finished product—
our sense of sight. We can no more expect to have perfect vision
without good eyes and proper illumination than we can expect a
perfect article ox commerce lacking first-class raw material and proper
tools and workmanship to fashion it. Eyes free of visual defects
comprise a vital factor in the problem.
Mr. Rademacher has presented to you a clear picture of illumina­
tion conditions in our industries, including the evils, the remedies,
and the means of applying the remedies. But what of the human
element ? Assuming that all the lighting ills of industry were cured,
are the workers in a condition to reap the full benefit?
Go back with me to the babyhood of one of these workers. For
the first few months he wakes up every night crying with hunger.
His parents turn on a light while they provide him with nourish­
ment. His eyes, however, invariably seek out and remain fixed on
the light source. As he grows older he is subjected to the two prin­
cipal faults of illumination, inadequate light and glaring light, for
it is the rule rather than the exception to find these two faults in
workmen’s homes. Thus at a tender age a strain is placed on his
eyes considerably beyond that which nature intended. It is, there­
fore, not at all surprising that a certain percentage of the children
entering our kindergarten grade have defective vision.



Our elementary educational system is predicated on the use of the
eye. The printed word, the illustration, and the drawing all require
the sense of sight. Lectures and other forms of oral instruction
comprise a minor part of the system. In many of our schools one
pupil will have more than 2,000 per cent more natural light than
another pupil in the same room, while in practically all our schools
there will be a variation of 10 to 1. There is still room for great
improvement in the artificial lighting, particularly in the older
school buildings. These conditions, coupled with the improper illu­
mination in the home and lack of supervision of the manner in
which our children use their eyes, place a constant strain on the
visual apparatus during their school years. The result is that one
out of every three pupils has defective vision at the end of his ele­
mentary education. Not only does the number of pupils having
defective vision increase but the degree or seriousness or the defect
also increases as they go up from grade to grade.
What of the future of these pupils? A small proportion enter
institutions of higher education, but the majority of them take up
some form of gainful occupation. They are the rookies of indus­
try, subject to all its vicissitudes and hazards. They take the place
or those who have passed on and of those who have become inca­
pacitated through old age and infirmities. They are inexperienced
in the ways of industry and its dangers, and this in itself is serious
enough. But when some of them are further handicapped by de­
fective vision their difficulties are measurably increased. They are,
in effect, human seconds turned out to make their own way in the
struggle for a livelihood, lacking a perfect equipment in the most
important factor affecting their success and safety.
You have had shown to you the value of increased illumination
as an aid in speed of vision or quickness of perception. The appli­
cation in the field of accident prevention lies in the fact that a
workman having normal eyes and proper illumination can get a
snapshot view of a dangerous situation and act immediately. An­
other worker lacking either one or both of these essentials must take
a longer time to grasp the situation, will be a little slower in re­
sponding, and thus may just fail to escape the danger zone. Poweractuated machines have no volition o f their own. They can not
change their cycle of operation or accommodate their schedule to
that of a workman who because of poor light or poor eyes must
take a time exposure of an emergency. In this manner and other
similar ways is the stage set for many industrial accidents.
You have been told of the faults of industrial illumination and
the cure. Light sources, reflectors, shades, and modifying devices
are all available. There are hundreds ox illuminating engineers
who can produce artificial light in form, color, quantity, quality,
direction, diffusion, and distribution to meet any conceivable numan
need. Neither the illuminating engineers nor anyone else can alter
the human eye. Once the eye becomes defective in operation there
is little or no chance that treatment will restore it to normal con­
dition. The best that can be done is to provide correcting devices
in the form of glasses.
It would seem, then, unnecessary to cite individual cases or to
quote statistics to enlist your support of the statement that the con­



dition of the eyes o f the workers has a direct and important bearing
on the subject. There is no need to labor with further argument the
contention that the vision of our workers is largely influenced by
improper lighting conditions in the home and the school. There is
a crying need of greater appreciation and recognition of the situa­
tion, and with that recognition an application of the known and
proven remedial measures to the. end that we may shortly stop sup­
plying industry with young workers 30 per cent of whom have im­
paired vision. We will not show much progress along this line
until our educational authorities permit science and technique to
influence their decisions on the Hgnting equipment of our schools;
and until the parents and guardians of our school children will spend
much more time and study on the selection of the home lighting
units and their accessories than they now spend upon the selection
of the fabric and the form of window and door draperies. The
latter appeal only to our sense of the esthetic, while the former
assist us to enjoy the comforts of a home and at the same time act
as a conservator of our most precious natural gift—our sense of
(Meeting adjourned.)


Commissioner S t e w a r t . I want to introduce to you the chairman
of the afternoon, Mr. Urick, of Iowa. Iowa has done for us the
very best it could; that is all we can ask of anybody.
The C h airm an . As said by the commissioner, Iowa has done the
best it could. We are a State new in lines of industry, and naturally
the same interest is not paid to these things that there is by the
large producing States, although we are carrying on safety work.
By way of illustration I might say that we have one railroad shop
in Iowa that employs slightly over 1,400 employees, which got
through 74 days without a reportable accident, meaning by that an
accident that lasted more than 48 horn’s. Accidents are required to
be reported within 48 hours. We have another plant, a gypsum
plant, employing slightly over 600 people, that got through the month
of May without any lost-time accidents. So you can see that we are
The program thus far has been taken up largely with what is being
done and what can be done by the various industries in accident pre­
vention. The program this afternoon is on the perfecting of those
statistics, on what the States may do to cooperate with the United
States Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is generally accredited as
being the proper body for the compilation and analysis of the acci­
dent statistics. So the program this afternoon varies a little from
the former programs in that it will relate mostly to State coopera­
tion. I have the pleasure at this time to introduce the first speaker:
“ What State departments can contribute to national accident-pre­
vention statistics, by R. H. Lansburgh, secretary of labor and indus­
try of Pennsylvania.

Accident statistics form the groundwork of safety measures. This
is incontrovertible. The history of the organized safety movement
has proved it. Given accurate and detailed statistics of the causes of
accidents, safety measures which can be directed toward the out­
standing accident causes can follow. Statistics both arouse interest
in and give direction to efforts toward accident reduction.
Statistics of accidents have in some industries and in some juris­
dictions been fairly adequate for some time. In others they are to­
tally inadequate. The great progress in accident reduction which
has been accomplished in the steel industry during the last 15 years
in large measure can be traced to the collection and analysis of acci134



dent records in that industry by the industry itself, as well as to the
special attention which has been given to the accident experience of
that industry by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Par­
ticular groups collect railroad statistics; other groups collect mining
accident statistics; still other groups collect statistics with reference
to a certain cross-section of industry, as, for instance, the insurance
companies which collect the records^ of their insured, though the
records of the insurance companies in Pennsylvania, for example,
do not cover the largest corporations in that State because most of
them are self-insured.
But in many States and in many industries adequate records of ac­
cidents are not available. By adequate records must be meant neces­
sarily records which are sufficiently specific as to causes to permit
safety engineers in industry and in IState inspection forces to use
them as the basis of intelligent safety measures.
State labor departments are in the ideal position to collect, ana­
lyze, and distribute accident statistics. Compensation laws every­
where require the reporting of industrial accidents. These accident
reports contain the only complete data of accidents and their causes
to be found anywhere. Employers everywhere should recognize
this and give full information on the accident reports required in
order that resultant statistics be accurate and complete.
In that connection may I call your attention to the proportion of
the accidents which occur in the various branches of in­
dustry in a great industrial State. In Pennsylvania, for
instance, we find that 40 per cent of the nonfatal accidents and
only 23 per cent of the fatal accidents come from the manufac­
turing industry—and much that has been said here in the last few
days has related to the safety work which has been carried
on in the manufacturing industry. It is interesting to find that in
a great manufacturing State, such as Pennsylvania, the figures of
the total number of accidents in manufacturing are so small.
The mining industry of Pennsylvania which of course still pro­
duces more coal than any other State, gives us 25 per cent of our non­
fatal accidents and 39 per cent of our fatal accidents. The building
and contracting industry gives us about 12 per cent of both our
fatal and nonfatal accidents. The transportation industry gives
us 12 per cent of our nonfatal accidents and 15 per cent of our fatal
accidents, that leaves about 10 per cent of both our fatal and non­
fatal accidents occurring in groups which represent neither manu­
facturing, mining, building, nor transportation, but miscellaneous
groups, such as trading, and, in the municipal service, policemen and
firemen killed while on duty. We do not ordinarily think of casual­
ties of policemen and firemen as coming under the heading of in­
dustrial accidents, but all of the industrial accident statistics of
practically all of the States include them, and they help to build up
the tremendous total which has been referred to frequently in these
It is the job of a State labor department, or similar department
which deals with accident-prevention work, to be thinking in terms
of all of these various groups, and if there is something being done
in the mining group which could be of benefit to the manufacturing
group in the same State, or vice versa, it is the task and the duty of



the State department to endeavor to bring that matter to the atten­
tion of the other group.
I f statistically analyzed on approximately a uniform basis, State
by State, these accident reports will give to the industries of each
State the information needed by them in developing their safety
efforts. The steel industry and other industries organized for safety
have some of this information available. But other great and
hazardous industries, such as the construction industry, have taken
no steps within the industry to collect the necessary data, and, I wish
to emphasize what has been said several times in this conference,
that the great problem in accident prevention in the United States
to-day is in the building and construction industry, for the reason
that that is the one industry where accidents are still running wild
with very little attempt within the industry to control them. It is
through the collection of detailed data that very real service can be
rendered to the industries of a State by a State labor department.
Even those industries organized for accident prevention and with
their own developed statistics profit bv this. For instance, some 40
representatives of the steel industry or Pennsylvania met with us at
Harrisburg last January, exchanged experience, compared accident
records, checked their own record by specific accident cause against
that of other companies within the State, and formulated an acci­
dent-prevention program for 1926 based on comparative accident
records by cause that we had assembled for them in 1925.
The State inspection forces, guided by detailed statistics of acci­
dent cause in particular industries, will come as nearly completely
fulfilling their mission in prevention work as is possible. Intelli­
gently directed inspection, with detailed cause o f accident, by in­
dustry, carefully arranged and drilled into the individual inspector
by his superior will stop misdirected effort. It will result in a
utilization of the inspector’s time more nearly in proportion to the
predominating causes of accidents in his territory. It will equip
him with information which will cause him to be welcomed in the
lant which is organized for safety and will give him the necessary
ata to interest the plant which has not as yet seriously considered
the accident problem. He will be able to look at the accident records
of the individual companies that he visits, check these, by cause,
against the accident for that industry and be in a real position not
only intelligently to direct his own efforts but to be of maximum
assistance to the plant.
Educational work is recognized as the hope of safety. Educational
safety work based on accurate statistics will succeed, be it carried on
by a State inspection service or by industry. Educational work
based on mere inspirational appeal will fail, however it be carried
on, because it has no bull’s-eye at which to shoot. Furthermore, edu­
cational work that is carried on without a statistical base is likely
to strike at the cause of the spectacular single accident. It should
rather be directed toward the accidents caused by everyday conditions
that have existed so long as to be considered inherent in the business.
I f statistics in the various States are developed on detailed and
approximately uniform plans, it will be seen at once that through
the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics these may be consoli­
dated and codified so that the experience of one State may be com­




pared at once with another. Those in charge of accident-prevention
work in the States thus may have an opportunity of comparing the
current accident record of their State, in any particular, with similar
records elsewhere. Though it will be some years before a man-hour
or other accurate base can be worked out for exact comparison be­
tween jurisdictions, neverthless approximate trend comparisons o f
one State with another will give valuable direction to effort.
It seems obvious, therefore, that State collection of accident
statistics and detailed presentation of them is the keystone in the arch
of safety effort. There are, however, certain necessary features of
any sucn statistical compilations without which they are almost
valueless in accomplishing their end. These are:
1. The presentation by industries must be so subdivided as to
group only similar hazards. Thus, though machine shops and blast
furnaces are both metal industries, statistics for the two must be
separated because the hazards are different. The same is true of
building construction and of general contracting. They can not be
lumped under the general head of construction. I f you use these
statistics in actual accident-prevention work on a state-wide basis,
you have‘to get them down to some kind of a common denominator
that the individual can apply to his own particular problems.
2. The accident cause classifications must be so developed as to
permit specific prevention work to be applied after the determina­
tion of exact causes. Thus in building construction, “ fall of per­
sons ” is not a sufficiently definite record of accident cause to permit
the statistics to be used for prevention work. But “ falls from
scaffolds,” “ falls through floor openings,” “ falls from tripping,”
are definite and give usable statistics.
3. Some method of determining the exposure to which the accident
statistics apply must be found. Although it is at present a hope­
less task to determine accurately man-hours worked throughout a
whole State, this does not preclude the finding of a usable percent­
age figure. Fairly accurate indexes of employment are available
or can be developed, and if these are carefully related to the accident
record by industry, usable data will result.
I want to give you three illustrations that have come to my atten­
tion in the last two weeks, which are typical, as the reason why
I think we are not going to get in the next few years anything that
approaches accuracy in man-hour exposure on which you can base
your accident rate. At the Sesquicentennial Exposition grounds in
Philadelphia week before last a man was killed from falling from
what was termed a scaffold about 20 feet up in the air. That acci­
dent will appear on our records as a fatal accident in that industry
for the year 1926. That man had come from the State of New
York, and was employed by a contractor who had one particular
job to do at the Sesqui. His total work while he was in the State
of Pennsylvania was to be of only three hours’ duration, and it was
while he was engaged in that job that he was killed. I f he had not
been killed we would never have heard of that three-hour exposure,
regardless of what the law is on the books or how accurately we
had endeavored to get exposure in that industry. There are thou­
sands of such cases every day in a State the size of Pennsylvania,
6819°—26----- 10



and a percentage of them are likely to be just the cases where
accidents occur. They are just the type of cases, for instance, where
we have the greatest trouble in getting compensation insurance
coverage, because either the man ishurt or tne job is completed
before we hear that there is such a job, and meanwhile there is no
compensation coverage.
A circus train was coming into Pennsylvania from Maryland over
the line from Baltimore to York. The circus was to show in York
on a certain afternoon, and as the train pulled into the station one
of the employees of the circus, in his hurry to start unloading,
jumped out of one of the cars and fell under the wheels and was
killed. Carnivals, and circuses, and attractions o f that kind have
given State compensation commissions trouble for years in the mat­
ter of insurance coverage, and in trying to get man-hour exposure
from them you just multiply your troubles. In fact, it is difficult,
if not impossible, to get it, and yet the accidents which they have
when reported contribute to the total. We try to get such accidents
reported, but we know there are many accidents which are not
In the city of Harrisburg within the last several weeks a man who
had never before been a contractor, having always been a carpenter,
decided to go into the contracting game. He got a subcontract from
a general contractor for certain construction work on a certain
church. He went out into the streets and recruited, among others,
a certain man as a laborer on the iob. That man, within two days
of the time that he was on the job, was killed by tripping over a
board and falling into a five-foot ditch, breaking his neck, and our
attention, of course, was centered on that accident.
It is my opinion that in the case of that particular contractor, and
in thousands of other cases just like his in Pennsylvania, the mat­
ter of getting man-hour exposure would be very difficult until a
sentiment was built up throughout the State that that was one of
the things necessary in order to do business in Pennsylvania. We
have been 10 years developing the sentiment about carrying com­
pensation insurance. Every year we find thousands of people not
carrying compensation insurance and we have to go out and hunt
them and prosecute them, and everything else, in order to get them
to take compensation insurance and the situation as to man-hour
exposure would be worse. The illustrations I have given are, of
course, not typical of the great steel plant nor of the great cement
plant, nor of the large mine, but they are typical of the smaller
type of business which exists'everywhere and from which you do
get accidents reported but from which it would be very difficult to
get man-hours reported. So let us not be discouraged if we find
it is imposible to get accurate man-hour exposure in the first few
years, but let us start building up an index which we can use until
such time as accurate man-hour exposure does become available.
4. Basically all accident statistics must be developed first with
the thought of how they are to be used in accident prevention. To
collect and publish statistics for their own sake is a waste of money
and the acid test of usability should be applied to every column and
every item.



With these features applied and used, the statistics compiled by
State departments properly become the basis of much of the indus­
trial accident-prevention work of the Nation.
The C h airm an . The paper is now open for discussion. The dis­
cussion was to be led by Thomas P. Kearns of the division of safety
and hygiene, department of industrial relations of Ohio. Mr.
Kearns could not come himself, but he sent his discussion, which
will be read by his representative, A. L. Bose of his department.
Mr. K earns. I am in general accord with the viewpoint and con­
clusions outlined in Mr. Lansburgh’s very valuable paper. The be­
lief of the responsible officials of the State of Ohio in the value and
importance o f statistics as the prime essential in intelligently direct­
ing accident-prevention work is fully attested by the ample provi­
sion made for a thoroughly adequate accident-analysis laboratory in
connection with the division of safety and hygiene, which was
recently created by statute and placed under the supervision of the
industrial commission, for the purpose of making a scientific study
into the causes of industrial accidents and diseases, and to carry on
measures for their prevention. With this bureau in operation, the
State of Ohio will not only be in a position to, but will gladly co­
operate with the Federal Government in its efforts to secure adequate
national accident figures.
To-day is an age of specialization. Therefore, in order to secure
the maximum results we must specialize in safety. To attempt to
carry on accident-prevention work without statistics is like a doctor
attempting to treat a sick person without a diagnosis, using the socalled shotgun prescription, loaded with several remedies, in the
hope that one will reach the vital spot—certainly an unscientific
method of procedure; yet often the remedies suggested for the cure
of accident-sick industries are of this sort.
I f we concede, as we must, that State statistics are valuable in
accident-prevention work, then I believe it can be clearly shown that
statistics based on nation-wide experience are also valuable to those
engaged in accident-prevention efforts. Assuming that accident
statistics based on nation-wide exposure are valuable, it may not be
amiss to call attention to some difficulties in the way or securing State
records from which reliable and comparable figures can be drawn.
As I view the problem, there are several serious difficulties in the way.
In the first place, different States have different requirements as
to which accidents shall be reported and to whom they shall be
reported; second, cause classifications in different States differ
widely; third, man-hour exposure is generally lacking; fourth, type
of labor, plant equipment, and methods of operation vary greatly
from State to State.
The above factors are mentioned, not to discourage efforts being
made to assemble national statistics, but to bring into clear relief
some of the obstacles which must be overcome in order that steps
may be taken to eliminate them in so far as it is possible.
Obviously? differences in type of labor, equipments, and operating
procedure will always exist as between various States. In the course


i n d u s t r i a l a c c id e n t p r e v e n t io n c o n f e r e n c e

o f time these differences may prove to be negligible, but should, I
believe, be borne in mind when the State records of industries are
Whether a law requiring simply the reporting o f all accidents
would have the desired effect of securing reports on all accidents is
open to question^ Experience along this line prior to the advent o f
the compensation laws indicates that it would not. I believe that
under a noncompetitive compensation law such as we have in Ohio,
a more nearly complete record of accidents is secured than where
optional insurance is permitted and therefore our accident frequency
rate would be liable to appear at a disadvantage in comparison witn
some other States. This, of course, would only affect tne use of the
statistics for comparative purposes. Their use to gain insight into
accident causes would not be seriously impaired thereby. It would
appear, therefore, that the more nearly uniform compensation laws
are, the more nearly will accident reporting also be uniform.
Inasmuch as the cause classifications adopted by the International
Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions is more
nearly followed by the States at present than any other, it would
seem that efforts might properly be directed to securing their general
adoption; or, as there is evidently some objection thereto, a revision
of the classifications might be undertaken by those concerned so that
the classification of accident causes would be uniform.
Mr. Lansburgh has spoken of the need of a measure of determin­
ing exposure to which accident statistics apply. I realize, as he does,
the difficulty of securing man-hour exposure at the present time and
feel that, as this is a very important factor in accident statistics, this
conference might properly take steps to suggest ways and means by
which these figures may be procured.
It is my opinion based on the experience of our field men, who
in making their surveys always attempt to secure these figures, that
it will be quite a long while before we shall be able to secure exact
man-hours worked from all establishments and for all branches
of industry. Therefore, I fully agree with the suggestion to use
available material and from this develop man-hour exposure figures
that will probably be adequate for practical purposes. We shall,
and I think all of us should, continue our efforts to secure exact
man-hours and we may find that they can be obtained with less diffi­
culty than now appears.^
I am also in accord with Mr. Lansburgh’s position relative to the
necessity o f more elaborate subdivisions o f industries and cause
groups in any classification adopted; and I feel that too much stress
can not be laid on the importance of developing cause classifications
to the point where they will be truly indicative of the exact cause
o f accidents in order to enable the States, or individual plants, to
make effective use of these statistics in their prevention work. As
stated by Mr. Lansburgh falls of persons is not a sufficiently definite
cause. Falls from scaffolds, falls though floor openings, falls from
tripping give a much clearer conception of the cause of the accident;
but I think we must go even further. For example, I think that
falls from scaffolds should be subdivided to show whether the fall
was due to failure of a structural member, breaking of ropes or
cables, or due to the absence of guard rails. I realize, of course, that



there is a limit at which causes can. be broken down and that there is
some danger, as Doctor Chaney has pointed out, of pushing analysis
to a point where the items lose their coherence. This must, of course,
be guarded against; but in order to get the full benefit of statistics
they must be in sufficient detail to point out the real cause of the
While the basic value of accident statistics lies in their usability
by the States, I think the dissemination of statistics is in itself of
value in selling employers, employees, and the public generally, the
need for greater safety effort, particularly if the fact that they are
preventable is constantly reiterated and stressed when new casualty
lists are published. This has been our experience at least. While
our statistical department has been in operation only since the
first of the present year and only six monthly reports have been
issued, we have found quite a lively interest being manifested in
these reports, not only by the industrial plants and safety engineers,
but by labor and civic organizations, including the chambers of com­
merce and last, but not least, by many of the newspapers of the
State. In other words, it is a means of awakening the public mind.
In this connection I might say that in my opinion, in so far as in­
dividual plants or plant safety engineers are concerned, they should
not rely on either State or national statistics for primary direction
of their safety efforts, but should develop their own figures and
simply seek supplementary information as to accident sources from
State and national statistics.
There can be no disputing the fact that statistics and educational
effort are all very necessary as a means to the end in accident-prevention work. Yet these will be of little avail without a background
of legal requirements, safety codes, adequate penalties, and deter­
mined, and systematic enforcement. Therefore, while I am in com­
plete agreement as to the necessity of more nearly complete and more
accurate accident statistics and feel that this work ought to be
pushed with the utmost vigor, I think the outstanding need to-day
is an effort to apply well-known preventive measures to equally wellknown hazards with a far greater measure of energy than is being
done. To do this a way must be found to stir employers to a
full realization of the enormous preventable loss of life, limb, and
dollars which is occurring in American industry; for then, and only
then will known safety measures be adequately applied, the interest
of workers be enlisted, and our accidents be reduced to a level that
an enlightened moral sense can justify.
The C h airm an . I s there anyone else who desires to discuss the
paper for a few minutes?
Mr. L ewis. In the paper by Mr. Lansburgh and also the reply by
Mr. Kearns, it seems that there is a misunderstanding as to how
far the cause classification in industry codes has been advanced.
Mr. Hatch, to my knowledge, has been connected with the details
of coding for years. I first met Mr. Hatch in Columbus in 1915
when he was working on the cause code. Bulletin No. 276 of the
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics contains the result of
that work. On page 36 of that bulletin you will find all about falls
of persons, slipping, power machinery, and everything. All o f those
groups are analyzed in sufficient detail for anyone*



I have waited for two days to say a few things, because I thought
my remarks might be understood better after you had heard these
papers. In order to acquaint you with my interest in the matter,
I might state that I have been doing cause and industry coding for
II years, and have trained quite a number of people to do this
work. I know the details of the work of a statistician and what
he has to contend with in trying to teach girls, who are not naturally
interested in machinery, etc., intelligently to classify accidents. It
takes, to my best knowledge, one year to train a girl to do efficient
cause and industry coding when the chief statistician is within
calling distance; I do not know how long it would take to train her
so that the statistician could go away and stay for a week. In
Columbus I had boys for coders in classifying accidents and they got
along very well; in New York they were almost all girls and they
had great difficulty. The classification of accidents requires an
intimate working knowledge of factory operations, and I can not
imagine how a statistician’s office can be operated successfully unless
the workers are familiar with the machines, nor how they can do
accurate work from which we can prepare the kind of information
the commissioner wants unless they can visualize the operation.
For several years I have been in correspondence with a great
number of State commissioners and with statisticians, finding out
how they do their work, and I am afraid that in some cases it is
very, very poor.
I want to pay due credit to Ohio for being, I think, to-day in the
most fortunate position of any State in the United States for gather­
ing statistics.
In Ohio every insuree is numbered and you can classify your acci­
dents by insurees. To show how this works, the malleable iron indus­
try was going to have its premium rate raised, and one of the largest
malleable iron plants in the State objected seriously. It said, “ We
are not causing these accidents. It is not our fault; we have a safety
department. We are not causing these accidents at all; it is the little
fellows who are doing it.” I was working in Ohio then and was
privileged to make a survey of the conditions, and because the cards
carried the numbers of the insurees by which you could separate the
experience of each company carrying insurance, I could place the
accidents exactly where they belonged. The result showed that this
large company was responsible for about 60 per cent of the outgo of
money on accidents, and in consequence the little feUows were paying
for some of the accidents in the large plants.
That was found inside of 24 hours, and in another 24 hours the
rest of the study had been worked out, the plant had been inspected,
and for about $4.75 correction of the hazard was made, which
reduced the accidents tremendously. We found that a great many of
the accidents of the big companies were tabulated under our cause code
classification “ Hot metals—tapping out furnaces,” and on inspection
found that where the men were tapping the iron out of the furnace
and going out on the floor and pouring it, the gangway was too nar­
row, and the men who stepped up on one side would catch the line of
men coming along the other side; they were constantly bumping their
arms, and if any of them happened to get a little patch of metal the
size of a dime on his foot it disrupted the whole operation. There



was not a step between the two gangs. Before the afternoon was
over we moved back a wooden partition 3 feet and put a pipe
rail across. As a result the company’s record was reduced to 30 per
cent, and just because of that one little thing.
The C hairm an . Mr. Patton is listed to discuss the paper by
Doctor Lansburgh. We will hear from Mi*. Patton for a few
Mr. P atton . From Mr. Lansburgh’s paper it is evident that he ap­
preciates and brought out the manner and the extent to which a
State department of labor could help towards the formation of
national accident statistics. All of us, of course, appreciate that
a proper statistical groundwork is absolutely essential for an in­
telligent direction of safety and prevention work, and in further­
ance of the contention that a State is in the proper position to
render that service, I merely want to add, by way o f emphasis, that
the State occupies a strategic position for securing the information
indispensable for providing such a groundwork. Any State which
provides accident information that is comprehensive, detailed as to
essentials, and reasonably prompt in appearance, wins for itself
credit which can be obtained in no other way, and conversely any
State which fails to provide such information places a stigma on
itself which nothing but the performance of that task can remove.
This is so utterly obvious that it certainly needs no argument here
to prove it, but as I say, by way of emphasis, I think we ought to
keep in mind that a State department of labor, State industrial ac­
cident board, or whatever name it is called, is in the position, and
it alone is in the position, to provide the base of operations from
which intelligently directed attacks against the enemy common to
all industry, namely, accidents, may be directed.
To me it is equally obvious that since the State is logically, as
well as by compulsion of law, the only organization to secure this
information continuously from all industries and in comparable
form, it becomes the bounden duty of the State to perform that
service, and, more than that, I would say that it is the duty of such
a State organization to bring every legitimate form of pressure avail­
able to put itself in a position to render that service.
In saying this I do not mean that the State should annually make
an appeal to the legislative body for more appropriations—not that
merely. In most cases such appeal falls on deaf ears, and rightly
does it fall on deaf ears unless the State organization can demon­
strate beyond any question that it has intelligently used such re­
sources as are already open to it.
One of the ways by which the State can better bring about this
desirable condition is—and I want to emphasize the point—to
cooperate with other agencies. The accident report, by whatever
name it is called, is the basic document on which we have to work.
I think it is true in most States that it is the insurance carrier and
not the employer who files the accident report, but whoever it may
be that furnishes the accident report whether employer, carrier,
or other person, we ought to do our utmost to secure his cooperaation, so that the information presented on that accident report shall
be given in such a clear, definite, precise fashion that the results
which we desire from it may be secured.



Some one may say, “ Very well, since the law itself specifies the
form of the accident report, or at least gives to the State depart­
ment the power to prescribe that form, what more do you need?’’
Just this: Anybody who has had any experience in the actual tabu­
lation of compensation reports knows that there is a very great
difference between an accident report which is sufficient to settle *a
compensation claim and an accident report which is satisfactory for
statistical purposes. The compensation bureau, or the division of
the State department that is engaged in the settlement of claims,
is constantly overborne by the rush and burden of the work. Its
prime object is to dispose of claims; to get this man’s case settled;
to pay him his money and make way for the next man. The sta­
tistical element is necessarily, in most cases, obscured from its view;
it is not thinking primarily of what the statistics will produce. I
would like to make this earnest appeal that all of us try to impress
upon and instill into the minds o f the makers of accident reports,
whether insurance carriers or employers, the importance of giving
clear information as to the causes of the accident, the precise manner
of occurrence, and the results of the injury.
Obviously it is a very much easier matter to win the cooperation
of a relatively small group of insurance carriers in that respect than
it is of the multitude of employers. Still I think that an educational
campaign should be pressed in season and out of season to convince
the employer that the State department of labor, which tabulates
those reports, will be able to give him information which he can
intelligently use in accident prevention only to the extent that the
reports made to it are complete.
I feel I must say a word, too, by way of indorsement of the move­
ment which Commissioner Stewart is so zealous in, and others as
well, that of educating all of us—employers, insurance carriers, and
State departments—as to the importance of providing some satis­
factory uniform base for tabulating accident rates, whether fre­
quency or severity. It seems to me beyond all question that it has
been demonstrated that wherever possible and to whatever extent
possible we can actually get the man-hour exposure, that is far
superior to any other single bit of data. While I am not optimistic
enough to believe that we can secure that in anything like 100
per cent fashion within six months or a year, I am optimistic
enough to believe that if we set ourselves wholeheartedly to the
task, we can start in with what has already been achieved and build
up perhaps more rapidly than we now think possible the belief that
it is worth while to go to the extra trouble to furnish that precise
information. To whatever extent it is possible for me to aid in
that direction I shall certainly be glad to do it.
The C hairm an . I am sure we have all been interested in the
expression of the needs for coordination of the States with the
Federal department.
We are now about to be entertained with another subject, “ Dust
explosion hazards in industrial plants, with special reference to the
need of proper reporting methods,” by David J. Price, Bureau of
Chemistry, United States Department of Agriculture.







When it is realized that at least 28,000 industrial establishments in
the United States are subject to the hazard of dust explosions and
dust fires, the importance of prevention can be more fully appre­
ciated. These plants employ approximately 1,324,300 persons and
manufacture products of an annual value in excess of $10,000,000,000.
At least 281 explosions of this character have been reported to the
Department of Agriculture. In 70 of these explosions 459 persons
have been killed (an average of 8) and in 92 oi them 760 have been
injured (an average of over 8). The property loss in 144 cases
amounted to more than $33,529,350, an average of nearly $240,000
for each explosion. These statistics of losses do not, of course, take
into consideration the interruption to production, loss of time, and
general disturbance of manufacturing operations as a result of
explosions and fires of this character.

It is now generally recognized that practically all types of dusts
created during manufacturing operations are explosive and when
mixed with air in proper proportions can be readily ignited by vari­
ous external sources. The only exceptions would seem to be the
inert dusts, such as shale, limestone, gypsum, and the like.
Attention has been directed to this problem in recent years and
considerable experimental work has been done to determine the cir­
cumstances under which these dust explosions and fires can originate
and to develop effective control and prevention measures. As a
result of this special research work we nave been enabled to under­
stand a little more dearly what takes place when a large manufac­
turing plant is destroyed by an explosion, resulting in extensive loss
of life and property and destruction of large quantities of food
Although the early explosions occurred in grain handling and mill­
ing plants, costly experience has shown that these dust explosions
are not confined entirely to what might be termed the grain industry.
In addition to grain plants, dust explosions have occurred in starch
factories, chocolate manufacturing plants, oilcloth factories, cork
plants, cotton mills, fertilizer plants, powdered-milk factories, paper
mills, woodworking plants, phonograph factories, sulphur-grinding
plants, tanneries, and spice mills. Explosions of aluminum dust,
magnesium dust, zinc dust, and similar types of metallic dusts have
also been reported.

In order to determine definitely what measures can be adopted to
control and prevent dust explosions in our manufacturing establish­
ments, it is necessary to devise proper reporting methods. A uni­



form system of reporting accidents of this character would accom­
plish at least three important and necessary results:
1. It would make possible? thorough investigation of the explosion,
the circumstances under which it originated and the need of preven­
tion measures.
2. The extent of life losses and injuries could be more definitely
3. The classification of losses by industries could be ascertained,
indicating in a more definite manner the type of industry in which
the dust-explosion hazard exists.
In referring to the need of proper reporting methods, it is not
the intention to call attention to the need of a system of this kind
only for the compilation of statistics to indicate the losses as a result
of these explosions in certain types of industries. It is important
of course that some provision of this nature be made, but it is
equally important that the matter of time of reporting and method
pursued also be given attention.
In dealing with what might be termed a relatively new industrial
problem of this character, it is very essential that accidents of this
type be promptly reported or at least brought to the attention of the
investigating agencies as soon as possible after the explosion takes
place. This makes possible the assignment of trained investigators,
which results in a more definite procedure in so far as securing
information regarding the circumstances under which the explosion
occurred is concerned.
Although the Department of Agriculture promptly receives re­
ports of dust explosions in industrial plants in which there are exten­
sive losses of life and property and as a rule personally investigates
these cases, it is quite evident that many occurrences of this character,
on account of the minor losses, are not properly reported. In some
instances delayed reports reach the department through indirect
sources and after contacts have been made with State officials,
insurance organizations, operating companies, and other agencies
directly concerned, investigation has indicated that the accident was
the result of a dust explosion and fire which had not been considered
as such by the reporting agency,

The success that accompanies the development of methods of pre­
vention of industrial plant dust explosions is to a large extent de­
pendent on the development of a plan for properly reporting this
type of industrial accident. The following plan is proposed for
1. Special attention to be given by State officials, insurance com­
missions, safety organizations, and other interested agencies to dust
explosions and dust fires in manufacturing plants, with a view to
providing for prompT; direct investigation to determine cause and
circumstances under which the explosion occurred.
2. Prompt reporting to Department of Agriculture (by wire if
necessary) of accident, if preliminary investigation indicates that
explosive dust was the contributing factor, in Order to provide for
any assistance necessary in the determination of the probable cause
of the explosion.



3. Classification of dust explosion and dust fire losses by respective
industries to determine existence of any particularly hazardous
4. Application of control measures already developed together
with essential precautionary measures for dust control and removal.

This has been the first opportunity for the consideration of this
subject in a conference called primarily for the purpose of consider­
ing industrial-accident prevention. No effort has been made to dis­
cuss the technical aspects of the problem, assuming that the hazard
of dust explosions is now generally recognized. It is hoped that
as a result of this conference some constructive steps can be taken
that will result in the development of a method for uniformly re­
porting dust-explosion accidents in the manufacturing establish­
ments in this country. It is believed a uniform system of this
nature will eventually result in the reduction of the extensive losses
of life and property as a result of this type of industrial accident.
(George E. Lynch, consulting engineer, Los Angeles, Calif., was
not able to be present at the conference, but sent the following dis­
cussion of Mr. Price’s paper:)
Mr. L yn ch . Of all classes of industrial hazards, that of dust is
perhaps the most common and the least excusable. Proper statis­
tics, covering all forms of injury suffered from dust, are impos­
sible. Of course, injuries due to explosions, to foreign matter in
the eves, and even to infection of wounds in dirty conditions, can
readily be classified and reported. But the slow, cumulative effect
of continual breathing of a dusty atmosphere, with the gradual re­
duction of efficiency and the increased susceptibility to other diseases,
not directly due to dust, can not readily be reported, nor can any
definite statistics be kept up which would have any value in indicat­
ing the extent of the trouble.
Our difficulties in this respect are complicated by the reluctance
of the men to believe in the danger present in dust, their refusal to
wear respirators except under compulsion, and their usual indiffer­
ence to keeping up any dust system, unless it is designed especially
to avoid every possible need of adjustment and even the slightest
interference with their work on the various machines. Fortunately,
employers are now awaking to their responsibilities in this regard,
and they no longer feel that the health of their men is of no im­
portance, so long as an adequate supply of new labor is always
Dust conditions in the large crushing plants of the mines of the
Southwest have always been bad, even when these operations were
much smaller than at present. With the immense quantities of ore
now handled, the dust became intolerable, especially in those mills
which crush from 3,000 to 6,000 tons of dry rock per shift. Labor
turnover was high, and efficiency of men and machines greatly im­
paired* However, in justice to the larger copper compames, it must



be stated that the primary idea in eliminating the dust was to obtain
better working conditions for the men and to reduce the hazard of
tuberculosis and other lung troubles as much as possible, rather than
to increase the profits of the mills.
The Phelps-Dodge Corporation was the first large company to
undertake control of the dust in an adequate and effective manner.
This was due, principally, to the influence of P. G. Beckett, the gen­
eral manager. All of its plants are now either equipped with proper
dust-control systems or have such systems under construction, to be
completed this summer. The following list of their plants, with
approximate costs and capacities, shows the extent to which they
have gone into the dust problem:
Montezuma Copper Co., Nacozari, Sonora, Mexico: 3,000 tons ore daUy;
cost, dust plant, $0,000; installed March, 1923; operating cost, $3.50 per day;
dust collected datty, 8 to 10 tons, 6.8 per cent average copper content.
Copper Queen Mill, Warren, Ariz. (double-unit plant): 4,000 tons ore per
shift (500 tons per hour); cost, double-unit dust plant, $12,500; operating cost,
$4 per day; dust collected daily, 18 to 24 tons, 2.8 per cent copper content.
Old Dominion Co., Globe, Ariz.: 3,000 tons daUy; dust plant under con­
struction, estimated cost $7,500.
Morenci Branch, Morenci, Ariz.: Dust plant installed in 1918 being rebuUt
and brought up to date.
Copper Queen Smelter, Douglas, Ariz.: Dust and fume plant over reverberatory furnaces; cost $3,000.

The following plants have been installed by the other large copper
Ray ConsoUdated Copper Co., Ray, Ariz.: 6,000 tons per shift; cost, dust
plant, $6,000; operating cost, $3.50 per day; dust coUected, 16 to 20 tons daUy,
1.8 per cent copper content.
United Verde Copper Co., Clarkdale, Ariz.: 4,000 to 6,000 tons daily, smelter
ore; dust plant under construction.
Allenby Copper Co., Allenby, British Columbia: 2,500 tons daily; cost, dust
plant, $7,000; operating cost, $3 daily; dust collected, 8 to 12 tons daily, 2.7
per cent copper.
New Cornelia Copper Co., Calumet & Arizona, Ajo, Ariz.: 4,000 tons daUy;
no data available as to cost or collection.

In addition to these a plant was recently completed at the Supe­
rior Portland Cement (Inc.) at Concrete, Wash. This plant not
only handles the dust, but also cools the clinker to a point suitable
for grinding.
At the Granite Rock Co., Watsonville, Calif., a double plant is
now being installed to eliminate the fine dust produced in crushing
some 3,000 yards of granite per shift.
A dust and fume plant was installed at the large plant of the
California Cyanide Co., near Los Angeles, two years ago. This
lant eliminates certain fumes evolved in the Metzger process of
xation of atmospheric nitrogen. These escaped into the air and
caused some damage to vegetation, as well as imperiling the health
of the workmen.
An interesting feature of all these plants so far installed is that
they pay, not only all costs of operation, but also a very good profit
on the investment from the direct savings in valuable material sal­
vaged. The indirect profits in increased comfort and health of the
men and reduction o f wear on machinery are difficult to estimate,
but one can readily believe them to be considerable*




Prices of plants and operating costs are given here purposely to
make it clear that dust control is not very expensive. Of course, it
must be understood that all these plants have been designed as sepa­
rate engineering problems, the usual forms of exhausters and light
steel piping being used, but in such arrangement and proportion as
experience has proved to be best adapted to each special condition.
It is very clear from this work that the manufacture of a complete
standard design of dust system, which can be made up at the fac­
tory and sent out on any job, is entirely out of the question. Also,
it is essential to note that all these plants are designed not to collect,
but to control the dust, retaining it in the chutes and conveyors in­
tended for carrying solids, and merely preventing it from escaping
into the air of the mill. This is all that is necessary in the great
majority of problems, and the same methods may be applied by any
engineer and to any form of dust met with in industry. With explo­
sive dusts it is necessary, of course, to avoid mixtures which can be
exploded, keeping them either too rich or too attenuated for explo­
sion at all times when a spark might be possible.
Since it has been made clear by actual experience in very difficult
conditions that dust is unnecessary, and that its elimination is nei­
ther expensive nor inconvenient, one is forced to conclude that
a dusty condition in any industry means either ignorance or indif­
ference on the part of those responsible, and it would appear that
restrictions and regulations can be made much more severe than at
present without entailing unnecessary hardship upon the manufac­
turer or employer.
The C hairm an . The next paper of the afternoon will be “ The
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics and the accident-prevention program,” by Ethelbert Stewart, United States Commissioner
of Labor Statistics. I am sure we will all be glad to hear from
Commissioner Stewart.

I had prepared a paper, or at least I had outlined a paper, but
just what I imagined would happen has happened, that practically
everything that we had in mind has been touched upon to such an
extent that it is only necessary, in a few words, to recall them.
What the Bureau of Labor Statistics wants to do is to be a clear­
ing house for the statistics that the States are gathering. We do
not want to do anything that the States will do. We do want to
bring together the statistics of the iron and steel corporations with
the State bureaus, and if possible gather the outside information that
is not being gathered by anybody.
Mr. Stokes, of the Constructors’ Association of the District of
Columbia, sent me word that a man was killed in the building trades
here yesterday and another one killed to-day. Nobody is required
to report any accidents to anybody in the District of Columbia. No­
body is required to report any accidents to anybody in the State
of Florida, and there are a number of other States in which this
is true. There is no use to go into details. There are some places
that none of you reach. We want to gather together all the data



we can get from all possible sources, augment that as much as pos­
sible, and give you a national accident rate in industry, and we want
you to help us to do it. We want you to accept a uniform system
of reporting by causes, by severity rates, and so on. It has just been
called to my attention that there is nothing about dust being an ele­
ment in the cause. It need not be the whole cause, but it might
be an element in the cause. Our code does not show whether or not
the place was well lighted. I see clearly that our Bulletin 276 needs
revision, and I have asked a committee of all of the interests here
to join with us in bringing that code down to date, if necessary.
Fundamentally it is the code of the International Association of
Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions—I call it the alpha­
betical association down at the bureau—printed by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, and which the bureau is trying to get everybody
to adopt as a uniform method of reporting so that when it gets
these reports they will all mean the same thing.
Now, basically we must have exposure in some form. What the
bureau is trying to do now and has been trying to do for two years
past is this: In our volume of employment index we have some­
thing like 10,000 establishments reporting to us the number of
people on their pay rolls on the 15th day of each month. We have
divided them by industries, and then have gone to the States which
have compensation insurance and said, “ Give us the accident record
for these firms ” for which we have the days of exposure. That is
as far as we have been able so far to get, and what we want now is
for the States to do a little bit more toward combining the actual
accidents and to get a few more concerns to report the number o f
their employees, so that we can get a man-day or a man-hour rate.
I do not Deueve that accident statistics will ever be as useful and as
helpful as they ought to be until you get on a man-hour basis. I
do not expect you to do it to-morrow; I do not expect you to do it
in a year; but I would like to have you start doing it. We have had
such an arrangement with about eight States—I am not sure of that
number—for two years. We have not gotten that data satisfac­
torily from all of them yet; we have gotten it very well from a num­
ber, but we want to expand the number of States with which we
The National Safety Council is composed of a lot of indus­
tries, some of which are doing safety work and making excellent
safety reports. For instance, the National Cement Co. has just
issued a bulletin in which it reports on 120 companies; last year it
reported on 110. It gives the million man-hours in each plant, the
accidents, and all of the necessary details, so far as the industry
as a whole is concerned, and I was told by Mr. Cameron that it has
them by departments. That is what we want; we want to know
exactly where the accident is happening. The only purpose of
statistics, the only good that statistics can do, is to point the finger
to the place where the accidents are occurring. It is up to the in­
dustry then to see whether they are going to continue to occur.
Statistics are not going to prevent accidents, but they are to
be the textbook for you who are in the safety work to study, to
concentrate on, to focalize your effort, so as not to spill your money
over the whole plant.



The associations are furnishing us those figures so far as they
are getting them along our line, and we are asking only that more
do it. For instance, the cement people, who last year had data for
110 plants, this year have data for 120 plants, while the census
shows 133 plants making cement. That is pretty good. On the
other hand, some of your associations have data for less than 5 per
cent of the concerns engaged in the industry. I grant you that your
5 per cent employ probably 60 or 65 per cent of the number of
workers in the industry. I grant you that there is no real relation
between your membership and the total number of establishments,
and the employees of your membership and the total employees, but
if 92 per cent of the establishments in the United States employ
less than 100 people and you have a mere skimming of the plants
that employ 100 employees, or less, then it is up to somebody to reach
these nonassociation manufacturers, to get the accident-prevention
statistics into the hands of the nonassociation members, and I sub­
mit to you that it is up to the State bureaus to do that. Then it is
up to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics or the Depart­
ment of Labor to pool those statistics and give you a national picture,
but we can not do it without your assistance.
We are not going into the field, into the factories. We have not
got the men nor the money. It is simply unthinkable. We want to
do it as far as we can, but the States must realize what the statistical
side of accident prevention means.
The Secretary sent a letter to the governors to send the State
officials here; then we went to the associations, as far as we could get
a line on them, to send representatives here. Then we sent to the in­
surance companies to send representatives here, and then to the
larger labor organizations that were interested in safety in manu­
facturing. So far as I know, this is the first effort to bring all
of the elements together at once. You have your own associations
and your own conventions, and you stand off and look at yourself
and pat yourself on the shoulder or condemn yourself, as the case
may he, but what we want to do is to bring the whole thing into the
picture. I feared that July was a bad time to call people together
in Washington? but I believe this conference has done much to
emphasize the importance of statistics as a guide in accident pre­
vention. It has brought us together, and I think we have convinced
ourselves that there must be cooperation to pour the final material
into one hopper where it can be thoroughly analyzed, made com­
parable, and then spread.
For instance, take the American Engineering Standards Commit­
tee. The only connection which the Department of Labor has with
that is that it is one of the members. I am on the correlating com­
mittee, on the main committee, and on the executive committee.
That is all the interest the Bureau of Labor Statistics has in that com­
mittee, but we are working to get safety codes for each and every
industry, as far as we can. When those codes are worked out inside
of the industry and accepted by the association as standards, all the
Bureau of Labor Statistics does is to print them and send them out
to the States and ask them either if they will not adopt them if they



have the power, or try to get the legislatures to make these codes
standard lor the State,
I received a letter from the commissioner of labor of Wyoming
the other day, saying “ The law of Wyoming permits the commis­
sioner of labor to tell what the factory inspection standard shall be
and how the establishments shall guard and safeguard their work.”
He said, “ Send on your bulletins, I can make them law.” All the
States are not in that category, but we have printed and distributed
some 15 or 20 of these codes and 24 out of 48 States have signified
their intention of putting these codes into effect or of getting the
legislature to enact them into law.
We send these codes to all the labor organizations in the State;
we send them to all the representatives in the State; we furnish the
National Safety Council with enough copies to put them in the
hands of every manufacturer in the States, if it wants to; we simply
broadcast and urge the acceptance of what the American Engineer­
ing Standards Committee says is a good code.
What we want to do is to have a chance to unify the accident
statistics of this country to the point where we can broadcast to an
industry what the industry total is; what the subdivision is—for
instance, iron and steel does not mean anything unless you separate
the blast furnaces and the open hearths and show where the accidents
are really occurring. The finer you get the classification the better
it is.
Take the cement people; they have just issued a bulletin, and I
want to call your attention to one little paragraph in that. They
say that there were 61 deaths in the cement industry in the last year.
Then they go on to say, “ I f we said this and nothing more there
would be 61 deaths in the industry next year and the next year and
the next year. The mere statement of this fact wouldn’t Tmake any
difference in the number of deaths in the cement industry.” Then
they say, and I think it is one of the cleverest pieces of work that I
have seen: “ Industry as well as the Nation owes something to its
dead.” It owes it to its dead to analyze the causes of their deaths;
it owes it to the crippled worker as much as the Nation owes it to
the wounded soldier to analyze the causes of the deaths, so that the
number of fatalities in the cement industry shall not remain 61.
It owes it to the injured to know why he was injured and to see to it
that the next fellow under the same circumstances shall not, if
possible, be injured.
The cement people have 120 out of 133 plants reporting; I want to
find out where the other 13 are, send these facts to them, and do
what I can. using all the sources of ^formation possible. I do not
want to ent~r into any of your nelds: all I ask is that the statistics be
athered al mg uniform lines. If they are not, they are of no use.Te can not compare the State that" has a 2-day waiting period
with a State that nas a 7-day or a 14-day waiting period. We have
got to have all the data on the same basis.
I want to thank you for coming here; I want to thank the
governors for sending you here and I want to ask Secretary Davis to
thank you for coming here.




The C hairm an . Secretary Davis.
Secretary D avis. I do not know that I can add anything to what
the Commissioner of Labor Statistics has said, other than to say to
you that I am sure we have accomplished much good here during
the last three days.
I am very touch interested in statistics. One could not spend his
life in an industrial community with the workers and working among
them without becoming interested. One could not help but become
interested in statistics after one has seen the hundreds of injured
men and women who have been carried to their homes, ana has
seen the resulting neglect of their dependents. One could not be
at the head of a great organization that has cared for something
like 2,500 children in the last 10 years without becoming interested
in statistics. I want to indorse what the commissioner has already
said, that the Department of Labor does not want to supersede
the State. It does not want to supersede anyone; it only wants
to be the central agency for combining what you give us and
sending it out, because I am sure that if you just point out the
situation to the American people, to the American business men,
they will correct it. I have great faith in American business men.
I have come much in contact with them during the past five or six
years, and if you asked me to point out to you one American busi­
ness man who is not interested in making his factory and his place
of business an interesting place for his men and a safe place for them
to work, I could not do it. I believe at heart we are all trying to
do what is right.
I want to thank you for coming here and, as the commissioner
said, thank the governors for sending you here. I am going to write
to the governors and tell them what an interesting program we have
had and what I think we have accomplished, and I am sure they
will be glad of the part you have played in this work.
I can go out now and talk statistics. I have absorbed enough infor­
mation here in the two days I have been with you to make a real
genuine, red-hot speech on accident prevention. I shall write the
President and tell him of the conclusions we have reached and the
good I think we have done in this conference.
I f at any time the Department of Labor can serve you in
any way I am sure it will Ibe glad to do it. I want to thank you
also on behalf of the President of the United States for coming
The C h airm an . I desire at this time to call upon the publicity
committee, the chairman of which is A. C. Carruthers, for its report.
Commissioner S tewart. The chairman of the publicity committee
informs me, naturally, that he has no report to make. He has been
making his report for the last three days.
The C h airm an . We will then proceed to the report of the com­
mittee on resolutions. The chairman J. H. Crawford, has been
called away, so Commissioner John Hopkins Hall will make the
6819°—26----- 11



No. 1. Whereas the conference on industrial accident prevention caUed by
the Hon. James J. Davis, Secretary of Labcr, has been most beneficial and wiU
undoubtedly result in great improvements in industrial wastage of men and
money to the ultimate good of all: Therefore be it
Resolved\ That the high appreciation and thanks of the delegates here as­
sembled be extended the Hon. James J. Davis, Secretary of Labor, and his
most able assistant, the Hon. Etlielbert Stewart, Commissioner of Labor
Statistics, for their constructive and humane contribution to the welfare, prog­
ress, and prosperity of America’s greatest assets, her productive units both
human and material; be it further
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be presented the Hon. James J.
Davis, the Hon. Ethelbert Stewart, and a copy be furnished the press.
No. 2. Whereas statistics are an indispensable aid to most effective accident
prevention, and national accident statistics are of fundamental importance
for most dependable comparisons of experience; and
Whereas it is necessary for State governments to collect accident statistics
in the several States in connection with their own accident-prevention work
and administration of compensation laws, and duplicate reporting of data by
employers to State and Federal authorities should be avoided so far as pos­
sible; and
Whereas it is entirely feasible for State departments of labor to collect the
original data from employers and furnish copies to the Federal Department
of Labor as needed for statistics on a national scale: Therefore be it
Resolved, That this conference recommends that a system of national acci­
dent statistics should be developed as rapidly as possible by the following plan:
1. Standard and uniform data to be prepared in each State by the depart­
ment of State government dealing with such matters and copies thereof to
be furnished to the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, which bureau shall
promptly transmit such records and information to the other governmental
agencies interested.
2. The data in general to be standardized and made uniform in the several
States by compilation so far as possible in accordance with the definition,
classification, and table forms adapted by the International Association of In­
dustrial Accident Boards and Commissions.
No. 3. Whereas dependable accident rates showing accident occurrence in re­
lation to amount of employment or exposure are indispensable as a guide
to accident prevention; and
Whereas such accident rates on a national scale are dependent upon de­
velopment in the first instance of the necessary data in the several States;
Whereas the States generally recognize by laws requiring accident re­
cording and reporting the necessity of securing one part of the data for ac­
cident rates, namely, the occurrence of accidents; and
Whereas the recording and reporting of exposure in terms of amount of em­
ployment is equally necessary for accident rates: Therefore be it
Resolved, That this conference recommends that the States should put this
entire matter where it belongs as a matter of necessary information for the
guidance of safety work, both public and private, by supplementing present ac­
cident reporting laws so as to provide specifically, in case such laws do not
already provide for it, that employers shall furnish such information con­
cerning number of employees and amount of employment as may be neces­
sary for the purpose of compiling accident frequency and severity rates by in­
(The foUowing was reported to the conference for such action as it might
desire but without the recommendation of the committee:)
Whereas the importance of the subjects which have come before this con­
ference and their bearing upon the securing of more complete statistics, and
also the prevention of industrial accidents in many cases, calls for informa­
tion and experience not available now, but which could be developed at
future conferences of this nature; and



Whereas to accomplish the results which this conference aims to achieve
can only be secured through further educational efforts and experience, this
committee believes it is desirable that the Secretary of Labor call an annual
conference at Washington for the continuance of the constructive work in
connection with industrial accident statistics and industrial accident preven­
tion which has originated in this conference.
(Referred to the Secretary of Labor.)

(The following discussion was had on resolution No. 2 in its orig­
inal form, which contained a clause relative to transmitting the
statistics gathered to the Bureau of Mines:)
Commissioner S tewart. I agree with all that resolution except
where the inference is made that we should gather mining statistics
and report them to the Bureau of Mines. Now it is just the other
way. The Bureau of Mines is more closely in touch with the coal
interests than we are or ever could be. The Bureau of Mines should
collect the statistics on the same scope, along the same lines, as all
other industries, and when they get them they will give them to us.
Mr. H all. That matter was discussed and it was not the idea of
the committee that the Bureau of Mines should discontinue its
present statistical information or the gathering or collecting thereof.
The idea was that additional information might come to the Bureau
of Labor Statistics in which the Bureau of Mines might be interested,
and which could be transmitted to it. In other words, to continue
the present practice, but if additional data came in that might interest
the Bureau of Mines or the Census Bureau, or any other bureau, it
should be transmitted promptly to the interested bureau. I think
perhaps Mr. Adams, a member of the committee, can explain it.
Mr. A dams. That is the idea the committee had, I think, in framing
this resolution. It has been suggested that this information coming
from the States to the Federal Government at Washington will come
in the form of a very brief compilation, and such part of that brief
statement as relates to mines which we in the Bureau of Mines do
not already have we would like to receive. It would be very much
more convenient for the State office to prepare its statistics on one
statement, one type of list, and send it to one place in Washington,
and that place the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which could then
promptly transmit a portion of it to the Bureau of Mines.
Mr. H all. I think your objection could be obviated by striking
out the reference to the Bureau of Mines and saying 64other govern­
mental agencies interested.” I f there is no objection from the rest
of the committee we will so report it.
(The following discussion was had as to the resolution calling for
an annual conference:)
Mr. H all. There were several other resolutions presented to the
committee which the committee did not deem germane to the subject
of this conference. One was relative to calling an annual meeting
of this conference. It was presented rather late in the meetings or
the committee, but the committee did not feel that it was up to this
conference to suggest calling an annual conference. We all have
conferences of various kinds. However, the author of this resolution .
is present, and the committee thought that it would report that to this
body and you could take such action as you desire but it did not
desire that the resolution be reported out.



The C h airm an . What is the pleasure of the conference?
Mr. B yn u m . I move that a national meeting be held at Washing­
ton, D. C., during the period between July 1 and September 1.
The C h airm an . That it is the sense of this meeting that there
be a request for such a conference ; is that the----Mr. B y n u m . That is the sense.
C hairm an . I s there a second to the motion ?
Commissioner S tewart. I appreciate the thought behind the reso­
lution. I think it is a compliment to ourselves and to the success
of the conference. It is a subject that I have not had time to
take up with the Secretary, in fact it never occurred to me that thi^
might be a continuing affair. In my judgment all of the purposes of
the resolution would be served if the resolution were referred to the
Secretary of Labor for his consideration, without committing him
without his,consent, since the matter would have to be left to his
judgment anyhow. I think the reference of the resolution by this
conference to him would serve all purposes. That is the way I feel
about it.
The C hairm an . I would suggest that the chairman of the com­
mittee read the resolution and then we can----Mr. H all. I want to say in defense of the committee that the
committee was in thorough accord as to the value of this conference
and as to the possible value of future conferences. However, there
are many agencies, State and National, that are serving the same
purposes as this conference. Unfortunately, Indiana has not been
represented at those meetings—the Association of Governmental
Labor Officials, the National Safety Council, the International As­
sociation of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, and
various other conventions. This is not a convention, but it involves
an expense to the various States. It would not be expensive to
those of us who are in States adjoining Washington to come to an
annual conference, and probably would not be objectionable from
that viewpoint, but it would be for people to come across the con­
tinent annually. In any event, we considered that it was within the
province of the Secretary to call a meeting when he deemed it ad­
visable to do so, and that was the only reason the committee felt it
inadvisable to recommend the adoption of this resolution. How­
ever, I have no objection to reading it if the chairman desires it
The C hairm an . Let me suggest that the feasibility of the calling
of a convention be left to the option of the Secretary.
Mr. K aufm ann . I believe we should record ourselves in favor of
a gathering of this description from year to year, even though Mr.
Hall indicates that there are many conventions calling together some
of the folks in this gathering. I do not think other gatherings have
the same complexion as this one has. There are labor men here who
may not appear at the different conferences that Mr. Hall indi­
cates, and I believe that all the big interests^-4abor is one of the
big interests—in this country ought to be in joint session with the
different industrial organizations and get into closer cooperation.
I believe the Secretary has done a magnificent work in just the



gathering together of the folks, although labor has not taken very
much part in the conference this time.
Mr. B yn u m . I am willing to accept the amendment of Mr. Hall,
of Virginia, as to the calling of the convention, or conference rather,
by the Secretary of Labor.
The C h airm an . The next committee report is that of the com­
mittee on classification of industries, L. W. Hatch, New York De­
partment of Labor, chairman.
Mr. H atch . The committee on classification of industries has
done a little less and a little more than you apparently referred to
it for consideration. We assumed that the committee on classifica­
tion of industries had as its task, as originally conceived, to take
the standard classification of industries of the International As­
sociation of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, and ex­
amine it to see whether it ought to be revised as a part of the basic
plan for uniform State statistics and combined State statistics in
national accident statistics.
Now the classification of industries in that standard plan is a
fairly long classification. We sat down and spent a couple of hours
to see if we could arrive at anything in the way of a revision in that
one classification in the time available in this convention. When I
tell you that that classification and the other classifications topk
about three to five years’ work by a committee on statistics that
met once or twice and sometimes three times a year and did a lot
of other work in between before it arrived at those classifications,
you can understand that it was utterly out of the question to under­
take any revision of a classification in the time available here. So
the committee set out to consider two questions: Assuming from what
has already been indorsed here by the passing of two of the resolu­
tions from the resolutions committee that we are to proceed to build
up national statistics by the use of the standard plan in the various
States, does not that plan now require some revision? While we are
building up national statistics we ought to take thought of whether
we are building on the best possible foundation.
It is some 10 years ago that that plan was adopted. After con­
sideration the committee felt that there was a pretty general opinion
that some revision, not only of the industry classification but quite
possibly of some of the other classifications or codes, ought to be
Having gone that far the question was, What is the best way to
bring about such a revision? A suggestion was made to the com­
mittee—which it very carefully considered and which it finally
decided indicated the best course to pursue—that there is in exist­
ence to-day exceptionally efficient machinery for just this kind of
standardization work, and that is the American Engineering Stand­
ards Committee. That committee, as you know, is working very
successfully. Commissioner Stewart referred to the fact that it
has been very successful in working out standard industrial safety
code rules for the prevention of accidents.
Accident statistics, as we have been told a great many times in
the last three days, are simply a tool of the accident-prevention man.
When we want that tool standardized, why not utilize the same ma­



chinery that has worked so well in connection with the practical ap­
plication of some of the information we get by statistics in the form
of code rules?
The present standard plan for uniform statistics was developed
under the auspices of the International Association of Industrial
Accident Boards and Commissions. The American Engineering
Standards Committee is a technical agency, as I understand it, which
takes up the working out of standards on any matter it is willing
to take up, doing the technical work, when the project itself is
sponsored by some responsible organization; so if this idea of re­
vision, or study of whether we should revise and how and in what
way we may revise, be taken up by that committee, the proposition
should be taken up with that committee through the industrial acci­
dent boards and commissions organization. That would seem to be
the appropriate and logical agency to take the matter up.
However, everything has to be started by some one, and we are
here attempting to start something. That is exactly the word, as
I see it. This conference wants to start something, or at least
make something go faster that has been started heretofore, toward
national statistics. The committee wanted to put in its report, as a
part of its recommendation, that we should proceed to push and
extend the use of the present standard accident plan. That, how­
ever, you have already considered and passed on. That section of
our report, then, is adopted.
Coming to our part of the report, we propose that this committee
on classification of industries should be continued temporarily to
take up the question of revision with the International Association
pf Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, asking it to act
as sponsor for such revision, and with the American Engineering
Standards Committee.
That is the. way we discussed the matter and the conclusions at
which we arrived.
In order to give you something a little more definite and specific
we offer the following report:
The committee finds—
(1) That some revision of the exisiting plan for standard and uniform
accident statistics of the International Association of Industrial Accident
Boards and Commissions seems desirable;
(2) That such a revision is a matter requiring study and time;
(3) That pending such a revision the use of the existing plan is urged;
(4) That the most promising means of revision would be utilization of the
machinery of the American Engineering Standards Committee, as it is being
employed for development of standard industrial safety code rules;
(5) That the logical and appropriate agency to sponsor revision by this
means would be the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards
and Commissions under whose auspices the existing plan was developed.
The committee therefore recommends—
That this committee be temporarily continued and authorized to take up
negotiations with the International Association of Industrial Accidents Boards
and Commissions and the American Engineering Standards Committee looking
to revision of the standard plan by this means.

[It was moved and seconded that the report of the committee on
classification of industries be approved.]

discu ssion


Mr. B yntjm. I wish to speak on the resolution. The International
Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions will
meet at Hartford, Conn., about the middle of September. I do not
know a chairman of any of the accident boards who is here except
myself. I am against that resolution for the reason that it should
be submitted to the boards or the delegates of the boards. There­
fore I oppose the resolution as proposed.
Mr. L ansburgh. Representing the Department of Labor and In­
dustry of Pennsylvania, which is a member of the International
Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, I feel
that I have a right to speak for that membership of that association.
I would direct attention to the fact that it has a standing committee
on statistics, of which Mr. Hatch is the chairman, and therefore it
seems to me that Mr. Hatch is in a sense already authorized to
speak for that association, at least to the extent of saying that he will
bring to the attention of the association in its next meeting in Hart­
ford in September the fact that it is the sense of this meeting that
what is in this resolution be carried out. I see no reason, from the
standpoint of the association in question, why this meeting should
not adopt Mr. Hatch’s resolution.
Mr. H atch . I would like to say just a word. Far be it from me
to assume any authority, although I am chairman of one of its
standing committees, to speak for the International Association of
Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions. I have no such
authority. I can say this, however, that the committee on classifica­
tion of industries of this conference, which considered this matter
had four members who happen also to be members of the standing
committee on statistics of the International Association of Industrial
Accident Boards and Commissions, so that we have looked at this
thing from the point of view of the interests of the International
Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, as well
as of this conference here.
Just let me emphasize the wording of this resolution. We are not
proposing to start any revision whatever. Some one, as I said a
moment ago, will have to start something. This conference has been
devoting its attention for three days to standard accident statistics,
and all the discussion that I have heard about whether the standard
plan is still as good as it might be is to the effect that some very use­
ful revisions could be made. The question is how to start those
revisions. All this resolution proposes is that as long as you have
this committee, which is purely a temporary affair, you just con­
tinue this committee long enough so that we can put the matter as
it looks to this conference before the International Association of
Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions. Then it will be en­
tirely up to that association to decide whether or not it cares to
sponsor any revision by the American Engineering Standards Com­
mittee. Frankly, I do not mind telling you that if you decide that
this is a good thing to do, it was my purpose, as chairman of the com­
mittee on statistics of the International Association of Industrial
Accident Boards and Commissions to report the action here to the
Hartford convention on the 14th of September. A tentative pro­
gram is already out, and the chairman o f the committee on statistics
has to make a report to the convention, anyway on other matters.



It did not seem to be at all out of the way to inquire, at least
before we put this proposal up to that association, whether that
association could get the Engineering Standards Committee to do
anything of the kind. It is a little bit different from the things
it has done so far, a little new in some of its aspects. So the whole
proposition is purely informal, purely in the nature of getting some­
thing under way for consideration by the International Association
of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, and in order to get
something under way we are proposing this specific method of doing
the business. The effectiveness of the method and the way it is
worked out with industrial safety code rules proves well enough
that it is a very reasonable method to suggest to that association.
In other words, we are not starting anything that the international
association can not turn down or refuse even to consider. We are
simply proposing to report to it the sense of this meeting in this
Commissioner S tewart. I am a little bit befuddled about this
thing. I do not quite see the point of view. I am secretary-treasurer of that association, and I want to say that a great many of
its members are compensation commissioners purely. Some States
have nothing to do with accident reporting at all; that belongs to
another division of the State which is not a member of that associa­
tion. Its members do not always listen to accident stuff with the
kind of enthusiasm that we sometimes wish they would, and it seems
to me that it would be very helpful to me in approaching the execu­
tive committee to know whether we want to revise the classifications—
in other words, Bulletin 276—and if so, whether we want to do it
ourselves or to bring in the American Engineering Standards Com­
mittee to help in the matter. I do not quite see what harm this
report is going to do, and I do see where it would help a good deal in
the Hartford convention to have something done, one way or the
I think we all agree that those standards, 10 years old, need re­
vision. There are 150,000 men employed in the radio business.
There was no radio business in those days. There are now something
like 260,000 engaged in making victrolas and that sort of thing.
There were not enough employed 10 years ago for us to pay any at­
tention to that industry. The question of lighting has come up, and
there are dozens of place where the classification is weak because
it does not mention these things. I do not think it is vitally wrong
as it stands but it does not cover enough ground, and it seems to me
that this report will be exceedingly helpful. It will enable me to
say, “Well, the conference in Washington appointed a committee of
five and continued it and they are after me to get this thing done.”
I f there is any real objection," why, that is something else again, but
I do not see it—it seems to me to be helpful.
The C hairm an . I would like to ask Mr. Hatch a question as to
whether the proposed changes are confined solely to the matter of
classification, or whether they happen to be other features of that
Mr. H atch . We are not recommending any changes in the plan at
all. It would take too long to do that. We can not revise that



standard plan in three days. I was a member of the committee that
worked five years to evolve that plan. It is a matter that takes a lot
of technical study and work, if you are going to make any revision
of it at all, and the whole idea of the committee was that it is a
common opinion—Commissioner Stewart just voiced it—that after
10 years there ought to be a revision. What is the best way to get the
best revision? This is a suggestion which we think offers the most
promise, and all we want to do is to get the proposal considered where
it should be considered.
Mr. M arshall. I would like to add one word, if I may. I am not
opposed to this resolution at all. I believe there ought to be a re­
vision, as is necessary in all such laws or codes, or anything that
has such detail, but I want to point out one thing. I hope the matter
of revision will not be entirely given to some other different organiza­
tion, which did not have the work and care of getting it out orig­
inally, with the possible result of a general revision and destruction
of whatever material we have already prepared.
Mr. B yn u m . I want to say this for the industrial accident boards,
we have various duties to perform. I have free employment, factory
inspection, boiler inspection, etc. I can not grasp all of this work;
I do not attempt to. I have the utmost faith in Mr. Hatch and in
Mr. Lansburgh, of Pennsylvania. I do not think that this meeting
should attempt to tell the boards or to suggest to the boards what
they should do except by presentation to the boards themselves, or
to that meeting of their organization. I know Mr. Hatch will be
there, and probably I will support his motion when there, but I do
not want it presented here where there are no industrial boards rep­
resented, except, possibly, myself.
Mr. D avie. I rise to have Mr. Hatch read again the recommenda­
tion of his committee. It appears to me that it is perfectly clear
that it is a tentative plan that will be presented before the very board
that the gentleman from Indiana seems to object to having it pre­
sented to, and if Mr. Hatch would be kind enough to read it again I
think it will clear the atmosphere sufficiently so that we can adopt
the recommendation of this committee. That is what I am going to
(Mr. Hatch read the recommendation of the committee.)
Mr. H atch . I think the committee on classification of industries
would be willing to reword that so as to make it entirely safe, but
what we have in mind is simply that something ought to be done;
a revision should be inaugurated and sponsored, and it will have to
be by some organization. The International Association of Indus­
trial Accident Boards and Commissions is the logical and appropri­
ate body to propose any revision of its own standard plan. We sim­
ply suggest that this conference might continue this committee to
negotiate with it to consider the matter, and, if it so desires, to ap­
proach the Engineering Standards Committee with some practical
proposal. We can not go to the Engineering Standards Committee
and say, “ Here now, we want a revision”—nothing of that kind.
All we can do is simply to inquire, “ If the International Association



of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions wanted it, would
you undertake it ? ” I f it said, “ No,” that would end it.
(The recommendation of the committee was adopted.)
The C h airm an . We now have the report of the committee on de­
termination of exposure, chairman, L. W. Chaney, United States
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Doctor C han ey . The ground covered by this committee seemed
to be also covered fully by the committee on resolutions, and there­
fore our report was turned over to the committee on resolutions and
is embodied in that report, which has already been acted upon.
The C h airm an . That concludes, then, the program of the confer­
ence. What is your pleasure?
Mr. G ram . Before we adjourn I want to say that I have appreci­
ated this meeting very much. I have learned a whole lot from the
various papers that have been read, and I want to thank Secretary
of Labor Davis for calling this conference. I notice, however, that
Oregon is about the only far Western State represented here.
Mr. W ollner. No, California is represented.
Mr. G ram . The thought occurred to me that if the Secretary con­
templates calling some future meeting similar to this, would it not be
advisable to call two meetings—one for the West and one for the
East. I f we go to the manufacturers with a certain thing they say,
“ Why should I be required to do this? I am operating also in
Idaho, Montana, and California, and I am not required to do it
there.” That may be all an excuse; nevertheless, it is closely allied
out there. It seems to me that it might be profitable, if a conference
is held, to hold one for the Coast States and one here. I want to
leave that suggestion with the Secretary to take under consideration.
(Meeting adjourned.)

D. C„ JULY 14, 15, AND 16, 1926

Owen L. Thomas, Argentine manager Munson Steamship Line, Buenos Aires.

W. A. Booth, director safety and first aid, Canadian National Railways, Mon­
W. H. Jones, assistant director safety and first aid, Canadian National Rail­
ways, Montreal.
R. B. Morley, general manager Industrial Accident Prevention Associations,

J. B. Monahan, general supervisor of safety Southern Pacific Lines, San Fran­
William S. Wollner, general safety agent Northwestern Pacific R. R. Co., also
Society of Safety Engineers, San Francisco.
Edward R. Dejon, chairman industrial committee, Chamber of Commerce,
New Haven.
James W. Hook, president and treasurer Geometric Tool Co., New Haven.
Frederick J. Kingsbury, chairman and treasurer Bridgeport Brass Co., Bridge­
F. W. Mitchell, director of personnel New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R.,
New Haven.
Henry J. Potter, superintendent Engineering and Inspection department,
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., Hartford.
R. E. Simpson, engineer Travelers Insurance Co., Hartford.
John L. Thompson, superintendent Travelers Insurance Co., Hartford.
David Van Schaack, director bureau of inspection and accident prevention,
Aetna Life Insurance Co., Hartford.
Harry Walsh, industrial engineer New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R.
Co., New Haven.
J. Hay Barnholt, safety engineer E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Wilmington.
R. T. Doherty, supervisor of safety The Pullman Co., Wilmington.
Charles H. Grantland, secretary Industrial Accident Board* Dover.
N. S. Greensfelder, editor The Explosives Engineer, Wilmington.
John B. Grier, employment and safety manager American Car & Foundry Co.,
Joseph M. McVey, safety engineer Hercules Powder Co., Wilmington.
Theodore Marvin, managing editor The Explosives Engineer, Wilmington (also
Hercules Powder Co.).
Donald R. Morton, Delaware Safety Council, Wilmington.
Walter Dent Smith* manager Delaware Safety Council, Wilmington.
Winthrop B. Wood, chief engineer Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co., Wilmington.




District of Columbia
W. W. Adams, statistician United States Bureau of Mines; also representative
of American Statistical Association.
O. P. Alford, American Engineering Council.
George H. Bailey, counsel American Mining Congress.
Charles E. Baldwin, assistant commissioner United States Bureau of Labor
J. D. Battle, traffic manager National Coal Association.
D. H. Beatty, superintendent safety and sanitation, Southern Bailway System.
E. B. Berry, superintendent of insurance Southern Railway System; also
Railway Fire Protection Association, Richmond, Va.
Robert S. Billups, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
J. Chester Bowen, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Frank P. Cartwright, technical representative National Lumber Manufacturers
Lucian W. Chaney, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Ward P. Christie, engineer Associated General Contractors of America.
Lindley D. Clark, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Miss E. R. Coombes, American Mining Congress.
Edward Crane, Bureau of Statistics, Interstate Commerce Commission.
James J. Davis, United Stated Secretary of Labor.
W.tN. Doak, vice president Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
Fayette B. Dow, counsel American Petroleum Institute; also representative of
National Petroleum Association.
James P. Dowd, superintendent Postal Telegraph Co.
Fred A. Emery, United States Daily.
Paul B. Fenlon, Washington sales manager Worthington Pump & Machinery
Harry L. Gandy, executive secretary National Coal Association.
Hugh S. Hanna, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
J. E. Hannum, director of safety and production study American Engineering
M. H. Hedges, research director International Brotherhood of Electrical
Horace H. Herr, representative American Contractor.

George Herring, interpreter.
R. J. Hoage, chief statistician United States Employees Compensation Com­
Paul E. Holden, American Engineering Council.
B. F. Linz, manager Technical News Service.
M. G. Lloyd, chief section of safety engineering, Bureau of Standards.
R. A. McGowan, assistant director social action department, National Catholic
Welfare Conference.
Leifur Magnusson, American representative International Labor Office.
M. M. Mahoney, Department of External Affairs of Canada, British Embassy.
E. N. Matthews, United States Children’s Bureau.
Paul L. Messersmith, inspector Travelers Insurance Co.
Frank Morrison, secretary American Federation of Labor.
W. P. Neville, secretary-treasurer Labor.
William A. Noel, dust explosion engineer United States Bureau of Chemistry.
A. C. Oliphant, assistant secretary American Engineering Council.
Stewart J. Owen, jr., engineer United States Bureau of Standards.
David J. Price, engineer in charge United States Bureau of Chemistry.
Ruth Sanders, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Dr. R. R. Sayers, chief surgeon United States Bureau of Mines.
L. W. Searles, chairman Highway Safety Association.
Joseph Stansfleld, Interstate Commerce Commission.
Ethelbert Stewart, United States Commissioner of Labor Statistics.
Earl F. Stokes, executive secretary National Association of Builders’ Exchanges.
E. N. Suarles, Western Electric Co.
Laura A. Thompson, librarian United States Department of Labor.
J. L. Vandergrift, Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.
Anice L. Whitney, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Nathan B. Williams, National Association of Manufacturers.
Dr. Robert M. Woodbury, Institute of Economics.
F. B. Wright, manager Western Electric Co.




W. E. Christie, assistant commissioner Department of Commerce and Labor,
L. J. Kilburn, Industrial Commissioner, Atlanta.
W. H. Cameron, managing director National Safety Council, Chicago.
H. C. Evans, manager Alton Box Board & Paper Co., Alton; also representative
of La Fayette Box Board & Paper Co., La Fayette.
J. F. Green, safety and protection engineer Western Cartridge Co., East Alton.
George H. Hawes, assistant director of safety the Pullman Co., Chicago.
Arthur M. Huddell, president International Union of Steam and Operating
Engineers, Chicago.
Frank A. Lauerman, safety engineer Interstate Iron & Steel Co., Chicago.
L. F. Shedd, superintendent of safety Chicago, Bock Island & Pacific Railway
and Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway, Chicago.
W. A. Titus, assistant superintendent Western Electric Co., Chicago.
J. H. Walker, president Illinois Federation of Labor, Springfield.
J. D. White, superintendent of safety Illinois Central Railroad Co., Chicago.
Dixson H. Bynum, chairman industrial board, Indianapolis.
Thomas K. Lewis, statistician International Typographical Union, Indianapolis.
A. L. Urick, commissioner of labor, Des Moines.
John H. Crawford, director of labor of Kansas, Topeka.
Isaiah Hale, safety superintendent system, Santa Fe Railway, Topeka.
L. T. Hussey, chairman public service commission, Topeka.
O. H. Wilcox, executive secretary Employees’ Mutual Benefit Association of
West Kentucky Coal Co., Sturgis.
W. H. Jennings, safety engineer Great Southern Lumber Co.; also repre­
sentative Bogalusa Paper Co., Bogalusa.
Charles O. Beals, commissioner of labor, Augusta.
Rollin S. Bailey, National Safety Appliance Corporation, Baltimore.
A. E. Brown, secretary State industrial accident commission, Baltimore.
Robert H. Carr, chairman State industrial accident commission, Baltimore.
George Louis Eppler, State industrial accident commission, Baltimore.
James E. Green, jr., superintendent State accident fund, Baltimore.
Walter A. Hearn, president National Safety Appliance Corporation, Baltimore.
George W. Knapp, jr., chairman safety division, Baltimore Safety Council,
Holger Jensen, manager Maryland Casualty Co., Baltimore.
Bertha C. Joseph, statistician State industrial accident commission, Baltimore.
C. J. Raider, superintendent United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., Baltimore.
J. H. Rixse, safety engineer Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., Baltimore.
John P. Rostmeyer, assistant director Baltimore Safety Council, Baltimore.
O. A. Shipley, safety engineer United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., Baltimore.
John H. Truett, director Baltimore Safety Council, Baltimore.



W. A. Dearborn, chief engineer Federal Mutual Liability Insurance Co.,
Frank E. Morris, assistant chief engineer Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.,
0. E. Pettibone, American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., Boston.
J. E. Walters, General Electric Co., West Lynn, Mass.
L. E. Averill, safety engineer Packard Motor Car Co.; also representative of
operating board, Industrial Safety Council, Detroit.
Henry McColl, commissioner industrial commission, St. Paul.
C. F. Larson, superintendent, safety, Missouri Pacific Kailroad Co., St. Louis,
D. G. Phillips, superintendent, safety, Wabash Railway Co., St. Louis.
New Hampshire
John S. B. Davie, commissioner of labor, Concord.
New Jersey
H. U. Dambmann, safety engineer, New Jersey Zinc Co., Franklin.
Dudley Farrand, president, Newark Safety Council, Newark.
Thomas E. Hicks, director first-aid department, Johnson & Johnson, New Bruns­
Andrew F. 'McBride, M. D., commissioner of labor, Trenton.
W. H. Rademacher, illuminating engineer Edison Lamp Works, Harrison; also
representing Illuminating Engineering Society.
Fred M. Rosseland, secretary-manager Newark Safety Council, Newark.
A. J. Van Brunt, director safety education Public Service Corporation, Newark;
also representing American Gas Association.
Charles H. Weeks, deputy commissioner of labor, Trenton.
New Mexico
JTames J. Heaney, yardmaster Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad, Albu­
New York
P. G. Agnew, secretary American Engineering Standards Committee, New York.
J. A. Allen, Fominte-Childs Co., Utica.
Thomas P. Brennan, supervisor of safety Long Island Railroad Co., New York.
Stuart H. Brown, assistant secretary Union Bag & Paper Corporation, New
Thomas J. Cahill, president New York State Bricklayers, New York.
Arthur C. Carruthers, president and editor Safety Engineering, New York.
J. C. Caviston, secretary safety section, American Railway Association, New
C. L. Close, manager bureau of safety, United States Steel Corporation, New
York; also representative of American Iron and Steel Institute.
W. Graham Cole, safety engineer Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., New York.
A. E. Davidson, Patent Scaffolding Co., New York.
Lewis A. DeBlois, National Bureau of Casualty and Surety Underwriters, New
York; also representing National Safety Council.
Martin Dodge, manager industrial bureau, Merchants Association of New York,
' N.Y.
Seymour W. Doran, personnel superintendent, Pratt & Letchworth Co., Buffalo.
James P. Eaton, chairman safety committee. General Electric Co., Schenectady.



J. B. Gibson, safety and health director, Western Electric Co., New York.
L. L. Hall, National Council on Compensation Insurance, New York.
Janies A. Hamilton, industrial commissioner, New York.
L; W. Hatch, director bureau of statistics and information, department of labor,
New York.
Charles E. Hill, general safety agent New York Central Lines, New York;
also representing Michigan Central Railroad Co.
J. C. Hubbard, general supervisor of lines Western Union Telegraph Co.,
New York.
John Price Jackson, manager of personnel New York Edison Co.; also repre­
senting American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
E. Kaufmann, general organizer United Garment Workers, New York.
J. E. Long, superintendent of safety Delaware & Hudson Co., Albany.
Daniel T. Meany, traveling safety supervisor International Paper Co., New
H. W. Mowery, American Abrasive Metals Co., New York.
A. J. Mundt, engineer Western Union Telegraph Co., New York.
Otto Nicols, general organizer United Garment Workers, New York.
W. H. Olschewsky, supervisor Western Union Telegraph Co., New York.
G. A. Orth, chief safety and claim departments American Car & Foundry Co.,
New York.
Lew R. Palmer, conservation engineer Equitable Life Assurance Society, New
Eugene B. Patton, chief statistician department of labor, Albany.
C. L. Peake, director industrial relations American Radiator Co., Buffalo.
R. J. Peterson, supervisor of safety the Pullman Co., New York.
Louis Resnick, assistant to the president American Museum of Safety; also
representing New York Edison Co., New York.
H. A. Rowe, claims attorney Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co.,
New York.
E. S. Shartzer, manager bureau of safety, Utica Mutual Insurance Co., Utica.
Isidor Silverman, secretary Brotherhood of Painters, New York.
Clarence E. Spayd, safety engineer Brooklyn Edison Co., also representing
Brooklyn Safety Council, Brooklyn.
Edward R. Stettinius, jr., industrial relations staff General Motors Corpora­
tion, New York.
Arthur M. Tode, superintendent technical division the Texas Co., New York;
also representing National Safety Council.
Charlotte Todes, organizer Workers’ Health Bureau of America, New York.
R. S. Turner, safety supervisor West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., Mechaniesville.
R. M. Urquhart, president Amdyco Corporation, New York.
Frederick Wahlert, president Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corporation,
T. A. Walsh, safety engineer American Optical Co., New York; also represent­
ing National Safety Council.
Charles A. Whitney, engineer Amdyco Corporation, New York.
North Carolina
Frank D. Grist, commissioner of labor, Raleigh.
L. M. Grist, Raleigh.
M. O. Howie, safety engineer Carolina Powfer & Light Co., Raleigh.
E. A. Muse, Hamlet.
W. L. Pate, Raleigh.
Stewart Robertson, North Carolina State CoUege, Raleigh.
V. M. Townsend, Raleigh.
Ernest Augustus, safety director and editor Employes Magazine, Mead Pulp
and Paper Co., Chillicothe.
F. E. Barr, medical director National Cash Register Co., Dayton.
Carl C. Beasor, chief statistician industrial commission, Columbus.
F. G. Bennett, director of safety Buckeye Steel Castings Co., Columbus.
Harry H. Graef, manager service department Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.,
D. C. Hunter, safety director National Cash Register Co., Dayton.
George L. Markland, Jr., Philadelphia Gear Works, md American Gear Manu­
facturers Association, Cleveland.



W. B. Pettibone, works manager Williard Storage Battery Co., Cleveland.
K. E. Rolf, personnel director Willard Storage Battery Co., Cleveland.
A. L. Rose, assistant superintendent division of safety and hygiene, industrial
commission, Columbus.
James M. Woltz, safety director Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., Youngstown.
Richard V. Ageton, safety engineer Tri-State Zinc & Lead Ore Products Asso­
ciation, Miami.

D. A. Elkins, commissioner State industrial accident commission, Salem.
C. H. Gram, commissioner of labor, Salem.
William A. Marshall, commissioner State industrial accident commission, Salem.

C. B. Auel, manager employees service department, Westinghouse Electric &
Manufacturing Co., East Pittsburgh; also representing American Gas Asso­
George R. Beehler, engineer Glen Alden Coal Co., Scranton; also Anthracite
Operators Conference.
Thomas J. Bell, W. T. W. of A., Philadelphia.
Fred C. Benfield, investigator Lehigh VaUey Coal Co., Wilkes-Barre; also An­
thracite Operators Conference.
E. F. Blank, safety director Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh.
Charles H. Bowditch, park engineer National Association of Amusement Parks,
L. J. Bowker, district representative Mine Safety Appliance Co., Philadelphia.
F. C. Caldwell, general superintendent Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.,
Thomas H. Carrow, chairman safety section American Railway Association,
and superintendent safety Pennsylvania R. R., Philadelphia.
John T. Cartwright, general superintendent Scranton Coal Co., Scranton.

G. E. Clarkson, secretary-manager Western Pennsylvania Safety Council,
J. E. Culliney, safety engineer Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Bethlehem.
James B. Douglas, manager insurance department United Gas Improvement
Co., Philadelphia.
Francis Feehan, mine safety commissioner, United States Bureau of Mines,
Philip G. Fenlon, superintendent safety and welfare, Carnegie Steel Co.,
J. J. Forbes, mining engineer, United States Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh.
Williard H. Fray, compensation agent Scranton Coal Co., Scranton.
Walter A. Gleason, safety engineer Hammermill Paper Co.; also representa­
tive of Erie Safety Council, Erie.
A. R. Gray, general superintendent The Peoples Natural Gas Co., Pittsburgh.
Edward Griffith, assistant general manager, Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co.,
Wilkes-Barre; also representative of Anthracite Operators Conference.
W. E. Hannah, chief engineer The Peoples Natural Gas Co., Pittsburgh.
Morris Harrison, director of personnel Hammermill Paper Co., Erie.
E. I. Humphrey, general superintendent, Hazle Brook Coal Co., Philadelphia;
also representative of Anthracite Operators Conference.
Harry Jenkins, secretary Glass Bottle Blowers Association, Philadelphia.
Richard H. Lansburgh, secretary of labor and industry, Harrisburg.
J. M. Larkin, assistant to president, Bethlehem Steel Co., Bethlehem.
F. Lauterwasser, international union of Textile Workers of America, Phila­
J. M. Lewis, manager industrial department Mine Safety Appliances Co., Pitts­
William J. Maguire, director bureau of statistics, department of labor and
industry, Harrisburg.
W. E. Megraw, safety engineer H. H. Robertson Co., Pittsburgh.
John A. Oartel, safety director Carnegie Steel Co., Pittsburgh; also president of
Western Pennsylvania Safety Council.
Mahlon D. Scott, branch manager Consolidated Expanded Metal Companies,



H. M. Smyth, superintendent St Clair Coal Co., St. Clair; also representative
of Anthracite Operators Conference.
Thomas S. Strobhar, vice president Wagner-Taylor Co., Philadelphia.
W. J. Thompson, secretary Anthracite Coal Operators Association, Philadel­
Fred J. Upton, safety director Pittsburgh Steel Co., Monessen.
Joseph J. Walsh, secretary department of mines, Harrisburg.
Rhode Island
Christopher M. Dunn, deputy commissioner of labor, Providence.
M. F. Nicholson, chief inspector department of labor, Nashville.
Howard I. Young, American Mining Congress, Mascot.
J. L. Walsh, superintendent safety Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad., Dallas.
T. F. Jennings, superintendent of foundries Utah Copper Co., Garfield; also
representative of American Foundrymen’s Association.
John S. Buttles, commissioner of industries, Montpelier.
N. B. Atkins, Virginia Bridge & Iron Co., Roanoke.
D. M. Blankenship, supervisor industrial rehabilitation, Richmond.
William Boncer, mine inspector bureau of labor and industry, Richmond.
E. D. Booth, machinist, Richmond.
E. R. Cole, district wire chief Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., Richmond.
W. C. Creekmore, chairman legislative committee, Virginia Federation of
Labor, Norfolk.
John Gribben, chief factory inspector bureau of labor and industry, Newport
A. I. Griffin, F. S. Royster Guard Co., Norfolk.
John Hopkins Hall, jr., commissioner of labor and industry, Richmond; also
representative of Association of Governmental Labor Officials of the United
States and Canada.
F. E. Harr, industrial claim agent Clinchfield Coal Corporation, Dante,
J W. Hatch, president Virginia Federation of Labor, Clifton Forge.
C. G. Kizer, industrial commissioner, Richmond.
Louis J. Lynn, secretary safety committee Newport News* Ship & Dry Dock
Co., Newport News.
O. G. Pippin, mine inspector, Clinchfield Coal Corporation, Dante.
W. F. Robinson, business agent International Association of Machinists, Rich­
D. E. Satterfield, safety inspector Chesapeake & Ohio Ry., Richmond.
E. J. Shave, secretary-treasurer Virginia Federation of Labor, Hampton.
L. Gordon Shean, vice president Safety Council, Richmond.
West Virginia
Mrs. Mary D. Emory, inspector women and children bureau of labor, Charleston.
A. W. Matlack, manager compensation department Wheeling Steel Corporation,
John T. Moore, chief clerk State compensation department, Charleston.
Lee Ott, State compensation commissioner, Charleston.
Earl E. Sang, safety engineer American Car & Foundry Co., Huntington.
F. W. Braun, chief engineer Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co.,
6819°—26----- 12

The following is a list of all bulletins of the Bureau of Labor Statistics published since
July, 1912, except that in the case of bulletins giving the results of routine surveys of the
bureau, only the latest bulletin on any one subject is here listed.
A complete list of the reports and bulletins issued prior to July, 1912, as well as the bul­
letins published since that date, will be furnished on application. Bulletins marked thus
(*) are out of print.
W h olesale Prices*

No, 284. Index numbers of wholesale prices in the United States and foreign
countries. [1921.]
No. 415. Wholesale prices, 1890 to 1925. (In press.)
R etail Prices and Cost o f L ivin g.

♦No. 121.
*No. 130.
♦No. 164.
No. 170.
No. 357.
No. 369.
No. 418.

Sugar prices, from refiner to consumer. [1913.]
Wheat and flour prices, from farmer to consumer. [1913.]
Butter prices, from producer to consumer. [1914.]
Foreign food prices as affected by the war. [1915.)
Cost of living in the United States. [1924.]
The use of cost-of-living figures in wage adjustments. [1925.]
Retail prices, 1890 to 1925. (In press.)

W ages and H onrs o f Labor*

♦No. 146. Wages and regularity of employment and standardization of piece rates
in the dress and waist industry of New York City. [1914.]
♦No. 147. Wages and regularity of employment in the cloak, suit, and skirt in­
dustry. [1914.]
No. 161. Wages and hours of labor in the clothing and cigar industries, 1911 to
No. 163. Wages and hours of labor in the building and repairing of steam rail­
road cars, 1907 to 1913.
♦No. 190. Wages and hours of labor in the cotton, woolen, and silk industries, 1907
to 1914.
No. 204. Street railway employment in the United States. [1917.]
No. 225. Wages and hours of labor in the lumber, millwork, and furniture in­
dustries, 1915.
No. 265. Industrial survey in selected industries in the United States, 1919.
No. 297. Wages and hours of labor in the petroleum industry, 1920.
No. 348. Wages and hours of labor in the automobile industry, 1922.
No. 356. Productivity costs in the common-brick industry. [1924.]
No. 358. Wages and hours of labor in the automobile-tire industry, 1923.
No. 360. Time and labor costs in manufacturing 100 pairs of shoes. [1924.]
No. 365. Wages and hours of labor in the paper and pulp industry, 1923.
No. 371. Wages and hours of labor in cotton-goods manufacturing, 1924.
No. 374. Wages and hours of labor in the boot and shoe industry, 1907 to 1924.
No. 376. Wages and hours of labor in the hosiery and underwear industry, 1907 to
No. 377. Wages and hours of labor in woolen and worsted goods manufacturing,
No. 381. Wages and hours of labor in the iron and steel industry, 1907 to 1924.
No. 387. Wages and hours of labor in the men’s clothing industry, 1911 to 1924.
No. 394. Wages and hours of labor in metalliferous mines, 1924.
No. 404. Union scale of wages and hours of labor, May 15, 1925.
No. 407. Wages and hours, and labor cost of production, in the paper box-board
industry, 1925. (In press.)
No. 412. Wages, hours, and productivity in the pottery industry, 1925. (In press.)
No. 413. Wages and hours of labor in the lumber industry in the United States,^