Lower down in the column it is stated that “casualty insurance companies are to be found advising, wherever workmen’s compensation is under discussion.” As a matter of fact, the casualty insurance companies have been very reluctant about advising except when called upon; but their actuaries have been in constant demand, and naturally should be, since they are about the only persons except the officials of the state insurance departments, who know anything about the business and the subject matter involved. The further statement that “At meetings of bar associations their attorneys have resolutions passed deprecating state insurance” is a gratuitous insult. No attorney for an insurance company would offer a resolution at a meeting of any bar association affecting the interests of his clients without stating that fact; and thereupon the resolution would be considered on its merits and would express the opinions of the members of the bar unaffected by the interests of the casualty insurance companies. On page 810, in the first column, it is argued that no doubt big business and the insurance companies would be glad to see the pending constitutional amendment defeated. That is a pure assumption. Inasmuch as said amendment goes infinitely farther than authorizing a compensation law, and generally repeals the Bill of Rights in application to the relation of employer and employe, there may be many conservative opinions opposed to its enactment. But big business, the casualty insurance companies and a host of conservative people have been most active in the movement for an amendment permitting the enactment of a compensation law in this state in such form as the judgment of the legislature might decide, without any restrictions in the interests of any party. On the same page, near the top of the second column, it is objected to the insurance committee’s compensation bill now pending in the Legislature that it leaves the function of fixing rates in the State Insurance Department. Why not! Is the objection to that provision that the Insurance Department, being already constituted and being composed of officials expert in the subject of insurance, will fix rates properly and not use state-administered insurance as a political weapon? Why create a new body to deal with the technical subjects with which the Insurance Department is qualified to deal? Further down it is stated, sneeringly, that “three constitutional objections to one bill is good measure.” The objections are then stated. Now as a matter of fact three constitutional objections to one bill don’t amount to much unless these objections are valid. All the objections recited in this paragraph have been carefully considered and the overwhelming weight of opinion is that they are not valid.