No facts are quoted to prove that my statement as to the club feature is “diametrically the opposite of the truth.” If the scheme does not work out to the advantage of the casualty companies it would be interesting to know why not. We would all agree that what the companies most desire is that they shall get the employers, “or all large employers,” to “come permanently under the compensation feature or to stay out permanently”—exactly my point. Under such happy circumstances prospective profits are beyond the dreams of avarice. Maybe the profits have not been made yet, certainly I have not so stated, It is the prospect which is so alluring, the profits so nearly within grasp which are now slipping through their very fingers, because of these “ill-advised enthusiasts” and other undesirable citizens. And is it, then, “a purely gratuitous misstatement of the fact” that the casualty companies opposed, tooth and nail, the Ohio compulsory act which, by the way, does not give a monopoly to political boards? Do they not oppose such an act here in New York today? Have they not opposed it in Iowa, California and Washington? As to the casualty companies having been most active “for a constitutional amendment in New York,” so far as I have observed, that activity has been very largely confined, as has that of certain lawyers, to advocating such changes in the amendment as would defeat the whole broad purpose of last year’s amendment. If listened to by the Legislature these advocates would have put off for another three years the much to be desired amendment to our constitution. The objections to the fixing of rates by the insurance department are two-fold. First, that that department is not “composed of officials expert” in casualty insurance; second, that Senator Foley at the public hearing at Albany, in order to meet the criticism of the American Federation of Labor, proposed a state fund divorced from the state insurance department. This was an important concession to labor and was so intended. Labor and many others had fears of the state insurance department, remembering the influence of the insurance interests before Superintendent Emmett took charge and fearing their influence after his retirement. That the “constitutional objections have been carefully considered and that the overwhelming weight of opinion is that they are not valid” is, as Mr. Jones would say, “a purely gratuitous misstatement of the facts,” “a figment of the imagination,” if not, indeed, “a gratuitous insult” to our intelligence. A few lawyers retained by the casualty insurance companies may disagree with us, but that hardly makes such a weight of opinion as to be overwhelming. As to bar associations, all that is needed is to look up the clients of some of these association committeemen. If what is wanted is a duly attested power of attorney of the casualty companies, I must admit that I cannot produce it.