Something of the same purport may be said of the social evil now so freely discussed in the press and forming so large a part of the subjects written about in your issue of March 8. “Frankness” and “freedom” are excellent, but some things are too fine to be tarnished by careless use, and modesty is one of them. Where we are getting to in this new movement to tear away the veil that has screened the family life of America can be seen in some of the new fiction. For instance, in Arnold Bennett’s Carlotta the hectic heroine thinks that truth demands that one should follow the dictates of animal instinct! The logical result will be that morality, either ethical or religious, will be sent to the waste basket. JOSEPH D. HOLMES. New York. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION TO THE EDITOR: In the March 8 issue of THE SURVEY there appeared an article by Paul Kennaday, entitled Big Business and Workmen’s Compensation. This article is full of inaccurate statements and should never, in justice to your readers, have been printed. On page 809, in the first column, it is stated: “Seized upon with alacrity by reformers, fought at first at every step by the casualty insurance companies and employers, ‘elective’ acts are now cherished like a prodigal son,” etc. This statement is unqualifiedly untrue. Employers generally have been notoriously in favor of elective compensation laws. Of course, they have been far from unanimous, and their expert advisers have generally been in favor of compulsory laws, but anyone familiar with the attitude of employers in the movement for compensation can bear witness to the fact that the majority of employers have throughout entertained a preference for elective laws. On the other hand, the casualty insurance companies have not fought such laws, nor have they generally specifically favored them. There has been as much difference of opinion among the insurance men on this question as there has been among all other classes of people. But in general the representatives of the casualty insurance companies have favored any kind of a law which would substitute the liability for compensation in place of the liability for negligence. Of course, the casualty insurance companies have objected to such elective compensation laws as the Ohio Act of 1911, for the reason that that act gave the state insurance office a monopoly of the compensation insurance. That left the casualty companies to deal with the old negligence liability with all its abuses and consequent unpopularity, while it gave them no opportunity to demonstrate their ability to administer compensation insurance better than the State Office and without the abuses incident to negligence insurance.