WITH the Massachusetts compulsory automobile insurance act in full effect beginning Jan. 1, many indications have appeared on the horizon of prospective automobile activities that bills along very similar lines will be introduced into several State Legislatures this season. Whatever their ultimate result, they will at least offer opportunities for automobile oratory on both sides of the question, and such legislative hearings as may be held will doubtless be of considerable interest.

While there are strong opponents on both sides of the compulsory insurance act as a State function, the fact remains that the plan has never yet been thoroughly tried out. The leading advocates of the law in Massachusetts frankly admitted that it was an experiment, but they considered that it presented possibilities of good which were worth trying out.

From the present outlook it does not seem likely that very much, if any, legislation of this character will be actually adopted in 1927. The advocates and opponents of the measure in various States seem inclined to watch Massachusetts. They are interested in seeing how the law will work, and at the end of one year some definite factors will undoubtedly be involved which can be used as concrete arguments, instead of abstract views, either for or against such legislation.

A frank expression of the attitude of insurance companies, which, in the Massachusetts situation, have maintained a neutral policy, is made by James S. Kemper, President of the Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company of Chicago, in the current issue of Nation's Business.

“Publicly most automobile insurance companies take a neutral position,” he says. “They consider they are in the business to provide indemnity needed by the public under the laws for whose enactment the public is responsible, and that it is not for the insurance companies to take sides one way or another. But privately there are comparitively few automobile insurance executives that do not, from the standpoint of public interest, dislike compulsory automobile insurance. They see in it another attempt to cure by legislation a trouble, imperfectly diagnosed, which can be prevented better and more cheaply than it can be cured.”

In citing the argument often used by proponents of the measure that a high proportion of injured persons is unable to collect damages because automobilists are financially irresponsible and are without insurance, the following statement of a Chicago lawyer is quoted:

“When accidents happen in this State, in 90 per cent. of the cases it is impossible for the injured of their dependents to secure any compansation or other relief.”

Mr. Kemper says that a difficult situation was disclosed by a recent survey of deaths due to automobiles in the District of Columbia for the past several years. The survey indicated that judgments were not satisfied in but 7.4 per cent. of the cases where judgments were secured. If this figure can be accepted as repreenting the general situation, he adds, “it must be admitted that the problem of unsatisfied judgments is very much less important than is sometimes assumed.”

Of the limited world experience available, that of the Swiss is called the most comprehensive. In Switzerland, despite a compulsory insurance plan, the number of accidents has considerably increased.

“It is not to be presumed,” says Mr. Kemper, “that compulsory automobile insurance will tend to make drivers more careful; indeed, the reverse is highly probable. Compulsory automobile insurance will have no effect on accidents caused by pedestrians, and careful investigation has disclosed that pedestrians are responsible for nearly as many accidents as automobile drivers.”

Mr. Kemper admits that he and other insurance executives will watch the Massachusetts experiment with interest. Reference is made to the 20,000 persons killed in the United States last year by motor accidents, and although Mr. Kemper states that it is unwarranted to assume that compulsory automobile insurance would of itself improve this appalling situation, he concludes by adding, “Perhaps it might.”

The Massachusetts law does not provide compensation for every injury and death, regardless of who is at fault. It provides for security that, when the motorist is at fault, legal, valid claims within the specified limits will be paid. Under the new act the claimant must, as previously, prove that the motorist was at fault and that the claimant was faultless.

The act does not provide for security for property damage claims. It has no effect on accidents outside of Massachusetts nor upon private property nor upon private ways, such as filling stations, garages and the like. It has effect only on accidents upon the highways of Massachusetts.

The act makes no provision for indemnity for personal injuries sustained by an automobile owner himself, except as he may be a claimant on account of injuries inflicted on him by another automobile.

Mr. Kemper favors the general adoption of the uniform vehicle code, which he regards as the outstanding achievement of the National Conference on Street and Highway Safety, brought into being by Secretary Herber Hoover and commonly called the Hoover Safety Conferece.

“It can scarcely be doubted,” he says, “that the general enactment of this code with its wisely chosen provisions will force sharp reductions in our national automobile accident ratios by enabling tourists to know and to obey the law wherever they may be; by depriving incapable, reckless and criminal drivers of motor privileges; and by eliminating speeding.”

“Compulsory automobile insurance may through the operation of the insurance policy cancellation feature operate to deprive the careless and the reckless driver of the use of the highways. To that extent at least it will be helpful. Admittedly it will insure the payment of indemnity in some cases where under the present system no payments would be made.”

“It is a new experiment in legislation. By many it is felt to be an un-American and illogical way of meeting the problem. Time alone will determine its advantages and disadvantages.”