|Anthrax | 67 (22| 59 (18| 50 (10| 47 (12| 38 (9| 39 (10| 37 (7| | Wool | 24 (8| 34 (12| 12 (1| 20 (5| 12 (2| 6 (4| 9 (2| | Horsehair | 10 (4| 7 (1| 12 (4| 7 (1| 10 (2| 9 (1| 12 (3| | Hides | 19 (7| 17 (4| 18 (3| 12 (1| 11 (5| 20 (5| 9 (1| | Other | 14 (3| 1 (1| 8 (2| 8 (5| 5 | 4 | 7 (1| +--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+ My own experience does not lead me to expect much in elucidation of industrial diseases from the Sick Insurance Societies. In Austria they make a statistical return as to the causation of illness to the central authorities. I have myself—in my capacity as an official of the State Central Board—examined these in order to try and gain knowledge of the extent of industrial disease in Bohemia. In spite of the returns drawn up by the district surgeon who visits the factories in question, it was impossible for me to obtain a complete picture of the extent of industrial sickness. The reports only give valuable data on which to base action in particular cases, and from this standpoint I do not under-estimate their value. But so far as the expressed wish of the International Association is concerned they appear to fulfil it, inasmuch as for specially dangerous trades special reports are issued, the Austrian law for sick insurance requiring such industries to institute separate sick insurance funds with separate statistics. Hence, under present conditions, I do not see how the duty of notification will be effective. There remains the endeavour to secure insurance and the right to claim compensation for industrial disease in the same way as is provided for accidents. This point was fully discussed at the eighth International Congress for Workmen’s Insurance held in Rome in 1908. There is no valid ground for granting compensation only for _sudden_ disturbance of health arising in the course of employment by accident or acute poisoning, and withholding it in the case of _gradual_ disturbance of health caused equally by the trade, as the effects of such chronic indisposition weigh often no less heavily on the sufferer. Inclusion of industrial disease in the same category as accident insurance, as indeed has been done in France, Switzerland and Great Britain, has, apart from the fact that it is dictated by fairness and humanity, the advantage of removing existing hardship and of solving doubtful cases. Correct statistics, further, would thus be obtainable for the first time, and the employer by insurance would be freed from the legal proceedings now frequently brought against him for injury due to chronic industrial poisoning. And it seems the more right and just course to institute a general scheme of insurance against industrial disease than to have recourse to an Employer’s Liability Act in this or that case, particularly as the question often arises in regard to a disease which