It is then stated that a certain change in this bill from its earlier form has “in effect, turned the whole rich New York field over to the casualty companies.” And the reason for that conclusion is stated to be that the employers will do nothing until the casualty companies’ agents come to them, and will then do what the casualty insurance agents advise. That is nonsense. When the casualty insurance agents go to the employers under a law such as is proposed in this bill, they will go with a proposition involving an extremely large increase in rates. Employers throughout this state have been aroused over the subject of compensation and have studied the question of insurance sufficiently to turn out en masse against a proposition to give a state office the monopoly of insurance. Does it seem probable that when they are approached by the casualty insurance companies’ agents they will suddenly turn into fools and in effect submit to a monopoly by those companies? On the contrary, they will study the problem of mutual insurance very hard, and there will undoubtedly result many experiments in that line. Large establishments also will study out the problem of carrying their own insurance. It is also probable that a few employers may venture to experiment with state insurance. But the fact is, as the writer of this article knows, that no well informed and substantial employer will have anything to do with state insurance except as a last resource, or unless he is compelled. Finally it is stated that no spokesman for the casualty insurance companies appears upon the field in New York. That is rather ridiculous. Officially, the two best informed persons upon casualty insurance in this state should be Mr. Hotchkiss, the former, and Mr. Emmet, the present, state insurance commissioner; and they both have spoken for, although not as the representatives of, the casualty companies of New York. At the same time, Frank E. Law, of the Fidelity and Casualty Company, and Edson S. Lott, of the United States Casualty Company, have made many addresses and published a considerable amount of literature on this subject. Naturally, the insurance companies have sought to avoid anything that would cause the false impression that any bill was in their particular interest. They have therefore rather confined themselves to opposing thoroughly bad measures than to advocating anything that they particularly desire or recommend.