I am much more of the opinion that, if such is your desire and if it is plain that harm has resulted from the fact that the workers move about too carelessly, it is much better that the obligation should be put upon the owner or upon the person commissioned to conduct the machines and that he be required to watch over the employees more carefully. If the owner cannot burden himself with it then he should have such officials as would have sufficient influence with the worker to make him be careful. We must not forget what, for the most part, such a worker is like and what he knows of machinery. Frequently he knows only that it cuts or that it is otherwise dangerous. A certain grip is shown him--he must do it like this--but the rest he does not understand and regards with indifference. Consequently regulations which concern only or more particularly the laborer would not help, for the people would not understand their aim and when the regulation caused them annoyance or trouble would fail to consider it and thus render themselves liable to accident. I believe, therefore, that it is most important in the question of the conduct of agricultural machinery that we should work toward proper supervision over the laborer by the employer. When this happens accidents will begin to diminish. It has interested me very much to learn here that it is not the machines but altogether different circumstances which cause most of the accidents in agricultural operations and that particularly in all provinces where horses are employed accidents are frequent. I am therefore pleased that this phase of the question of protecting against accident has also come up here and that the gentlemen are now engaged upon it. For the rest it has been a great pleasure to me to take part in these deliberations. ALSACE-LORRAINE BERLIN, MARCH 14, 1891