2. What is the duty of the military authorities relative to so called traumatic paresis? Medicolegally speaking, Froissart, quoted by Rayneau, states that a victim of traumatic paresis _may or may not_ have presented mental disorders before the accident, that is, that the paretic symptoms may develop out of a clear sky as a result of the accident. The accident itself must be of a serious nature. The accident must be followed by phenomena pointing to brain injury of traumatic nature. These phenomena need not be characteristic symptoms of general paresis at the outset. The period elapsing between the trauma and the supervening condition of paresis must be occupied without notable interruption, at first by phenomena of a purely traumatic nature, later by signs indicating the onset and evolution of general paresis. The French invaliding process called _Réforme No. 1_ with pension is granted according to the governmental instructions only to officers, subalterns, and soldiers whose disease is due to trauma. In view of this governmental regulation, the military surgeon must write out certificates describing every cranial trauma, however slight, which might have a bearing on the development of paresis. However, he should not too readily admit trauma as a cause of paresis. If a long period of quietude, a period in which the trauma itself seems to have undergone a complete recovery, supervenes, then general paresis should not be reported by the surgeon. Lépine has recently noted the following features as desirable in board reports concerning paretics: nature of trauma, length of service, fatigue endured, insomnia, date of infection, treatment, W. R. =Can “gassing” light up a paresis? Example from de Massary of Issy-les-Moulineaux.= =Case H.= A soldier, 35, was sent to the _Centre Neurologique_ with a hospital ticket reading: “Neurasthenia, general weakness following intoxication by gas.” The soldier was thought at first to be a neurasthenic. But he soon showed signs of more pronounced mental trouble. The voice was suspicious. There was a slight irregularity of pupils. An epileptiform attack occurred, followed by aggravation of symptoms. Lumbar puncture showed pleocytosis. The W. R. of the serum proved positive. Yet the evident =neurosyphilis=, possibly =paretic= (de Massary’s diagnosis), was preceded by a neurasthenia and the neurasthenia was preceded by “gassing.” De Massary believes the patient _and his family_ would perhaps be justified in believing the condition produced by the injury. De Massary is not clear as to the financial deserts of the patient. It is not a manifest case of aggravation of antebellum symptoms, even if it be neuropathologically an instance of acquired loss of resistance to pre-existent spirochetes in body or brain.