mittee did not hesitate to use the best available aid. Through expert help, the device of depriving the employer of certain of his defences, permitting him to accept certain terms by which he agreed to give compensation, was inaugurated. This was a powerful constitutional device, more powerful than it seems at first. The employer may, if he wishes, run his establishment under the employers' liability plan and take the risk of a suit for damages in the courts or elect to come under the law by which his common law defences are practically all taken from him. The point is, he is not compelled to accept the compensation plan unless he so chooses but it is obviously to his advantage to do so. New York had taken the other step and enacted a direct law for compensation which was declared unconstitutional by the courts because of its compulsory features, involving the taking of property without due process of law. Is it possible under the constitutions of the states or the United States to impose upon an employer the duty of paying to an employee so much for an arm or so much for an eye without having the case come to trial in the courts?
The Wisconsin men saw that it was not only a question of the constitutionality but also a question of the prevention of litigation. The question whether the direct or the indirect method will prove most effective in America has not yet been decided, but nine states at
