Litchfield enquirer. [volume] (Litchfield, Conn.) 1829-current, 1849-04-19
No, 40. WUo,.E no. 1908,
To the Editor Of the Litchfeld Enqui, er

Mutual Insurance" published in your
paper of the 18Th February last. had
not the most distant thought of being
called into the field again by Courts L.
North, General Agent for Connecticut !"
but so it is: and as l am in this case
'sued defendant" / cannot without in
justice to friend" North be silent, and
not give answer to few straight for
ward Yankee questions" When .'plain"
answers are given to those plain Yankee
questions it Inlay perhaps appear" to
Mr.. North, whether" / am g sincere in
the opinion so hastily formed and SO po-
sitively expressed" and am quite sure
viH appear to any unprejudiced mind
not swayed by the Z" z'wo Dollars"
Question lst. Ibid you not act rs agent
of this same Washington Company from
about the 10th of October to the 18th Of
December last ?" -.t..
Yes sir, did. and I obtained forty two
applicants, for which | received ss4 and
| might have taken four hundred more
and received $500 in the same time, had
1 obeyed the suggestions Of H. New.
comb Graves, Director and General A.
gents and proved like Judas, a traitor
to the other Companies for which act.
ed as agent, "and still continue to acL.
Question I'd. Ibid you not recon-
mend this Company to your neighbors
as ga first rate Company" and lone
worthy of their patrona se?"
No sir, l did not after I visited the
section where you, and agents under you,
had done business, and saw the looseness
with which that business was done. I
did tell some of your "neighbo s. and
some not so neighborly, two weeks before
| received your letter Of the 18th of Dec.
or before had any knowledge 0 the ia.
nous resolution" referred to in t, that
l believed the Washington Com pany''
to be unsouHd, and l have seen nothing
yet to shake that belief,
Question Sd. odd you not agree, or
offer to ag e =, to d.vote all the time that
you could spare f. on the renewals in the
Hartford Company to the interests Of
this same Company now so bitterly de-
noanced by you"
Cant say whether l did or not. If I
did, it was b,f,re | became acquainted
with its manner of doing business, for I
know 1 should agree to no such thing
now, "Two Dollars" or no Two Dollars.
Question 4th. "Did you not about tho
same time employ an Contemplating young
man" to assist you in enlightening the
good people Of Ltch6eld County as to
the merits of this same Washington Com
pany?"
Previous to my going into your district
I did engage young man to "asslst"
me in insurance bu ,iness, not particularly
however to "enlghten the good people
of Litchfeld County" for l have no
doubt they will be " enlightened" to their
hea is content before the term of five
wears shall have expired, cas- to the
merits of this same Washington Compa-
ny"
Question 5th. odd not my letter Of
the 18th Of December, informing you that
you could no longer have the two dol
lars," and my subsequent interview with
you, in which explai ed to you "the
reasons for the resolution passed by the
Company, viz: That having effected their
object in all ,wing so liberal fee to their
agents by thus speedily introducing their
Company to the public notice they should
hereafter allow but 81. have something TO
do with opening your eyes to the terri
bic evils OF this same Washington Com
pany?'
| l have always been believer in the
depravity of the human heart, but up to
this time, have been slow to believe
that any man was SO lost to every sense
Of honor as to endeavor to palm off so
long n sentance as the above 18TH plain
Yankee questions" without some sem
blance of truth. In your letter to me OF
the 18th Of December, there is not even
an intimation to the 1.-TWO Dollars" or to
fees any way. In the subsequent in
teryiew" there was not one word of ex-
PLANTATION in relation to the resolution
passed by the Company" nor one word
about the Two Dollars, until made an
, objection to the Company on that very
, ground, and then you seemed " thunder
struck" that should mention the Two
Dollars in hearing of one Of your Sub
, Agents, who perhaps knew nothing OF
the amount you yourself received. AT.
ter considerable hestancy. falterlng and
squirting between you and Mr. Hubbard,
he said =" ve haze concluded to pay but
one dollar to agents; !" intending, no doubt
to convey to my mind that the Company
itself had made such an order, but as
sure you it did not go down that way.
i Why is it, Mr.. North, that one at least
/ Of those General Agents" for "this
same Washington Company" pays his
Sub Agents 81 IL l-2, when he gets
from the Company but 81? | suggest
that subscription be circulated among
r the members OF the company to remn-
nerate this pure. disinterested benevo-
n lence, or the company should certainly
). | be liberal enough to makeit up 70 him.