=Gas Used by all Arms.= As before stated, we cannot confine the use of gas to any one arm. We may then ask why, if it is applicable to all arms, it should need special gas troops. Special gas troops are for the purpose of putting off great quantities of chemical warfare materials by special methods that are not applicable to any other branch now organized or that any other branch has the time to master. Long-range firing of gas by the artillery can be done just as well by the artillery as by gas troops. Why? Because in the mechanics of firing chemical ammunition there is no difference whatever from the mechanics of firing high explosives or shrapnel. The same will be true of gas rifle grenades and smoke candles in use by the Infantry. The same will be true of the dropping of gas bombs and the sprinkling of gas by the aeroplanes. In this connection just remember that all of the army is trained in first aid, but in addition we have our ambulance companies, our hospitals, and our trained medical personnel. =Arguments Against Use of Gas.= It has been many times suggested since the Armistice that the use of poisonous gas in war may be done away with by agreement among nations. The arguments against the use of gas are that it is inhumane and that it might be used against non-combatants, especially women and children. The inhumanity of it is absolutely disproven by the results of its use in the World War. The death rate from gas alone was less than one-twelfth that from bullets, high explosives and other methods of warfare. The disability rate for gas patients discharged was only about one-fourth that for the wounded discharged for other causes. The permanently injured is likewise apparently very much less than from other causes. =Humanity.= No reliable statistics that we can get show that gas in any way causes tuberculosis any more than a severe attack of bronchitis or pneumonia causes tuberculosis. Since its principal effects are upon the lungs and, therefore, hidden from sight, every impostor is beginning to claim gassing as the reason for his wanting War Risk benefits from the Government. We do not claim there may not be some who are suffering permanent injuries from gas, and we are trying very hard to find out from the manufacturers of poisonous gases and allied chemicals if they have any authentic records of such cases. So far the results indicate that permanent after-effects are very rare. As to non-combatants, certainly we do not contemplate using poisonous gas against them, no more at least than we propose to use high explosives in long-range guns or aeroplanes against them. The use of the one against non-combatants is just as damnable as the other and it is just as easy to refrain from using one as the other.