Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-03-30
THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER.
<>~~-~~~~>N~~~>~-~~O~-T
BY RITCHlB s. DUNNAvANT.
TUESDAY MoRNING, ,mARcH 30, 1855

|
BY RITCHIE & DUNNAvANT.
TUESDAY MORNING, MARCH 30, ls5!
STATE INSURANCE.
Under this title the South Side Democrat Of Wed
nesday contains an editorial which betrays an unu
sual want of mature consideration. II is first sug
gested that any scheme of State insurance would ne
cessarily be surrounded with constitutional Difficult
ties. These are not enumerated, however, and it il
difficult to imagine the specific constitutional dicul
ties thus taken for granted. We are next informed
that the every first difficulty would be in the const
tuition Of the human mind itself. Public opinion il
not tolerant of monopolies and cannot be made so.
little reflection will convince cotemporary that
this rule by no means admits Of universal applca
tion 1t depends entirely upon the nature of the me-
nopoly and the power which exercises it-iu shor
upon the results Of any system of monopoly, whe
tber it will meet with public appreciation. Every
civilized government resorts to some species o
monopoly, required for the general interest, and in
some instances, unanimously approved by popular
sanction.
Another objection urged is, that the State would
probably fail to command the confidence of "custon
ers." This objection assumes what we cannot admit
in the case Of our own Commonwealth obiga
tions, incurred by The State more precarious O
fufilment, than those contracted by private compa
nes. Moreover, we are not left TO Theoretical
deduction on this point. From date little subse
qusnt, we believe, to the foundation of the colony
up to the present day the Commonwealth Of Virgins
has pursued. with increasing advantage to all parties
q system of State insurance.
1t s next intimated that the sysem proposed, would
offer extraordinary opportunity for public corruption
We reply, that this must bs demonstrated before il
can be admitted. For our part, we $40 no opporu
nifty thus afforded for fraud in public officers, which
is not equally offered by any other system Of collect
ng aud disburinR revenue.
With regard to the editorial difficulties prOpound.
ed by the democrat" It is obvious that the editor
il merely iscetious. We feel we'll assured, that our
esteemed ootemporary will never find himself, by dn
ty interest, inclination. compelled to defend some
good Democrat who might be fattenng on the pro
ceeds Of policies, against the charge of oheapening
Democratic rick" Whenever public officer shall
degrade himself by thsft from the public treasury
it will become the especial duty Of bis own parti
sans--not to defend, but to expose him. And when
the editor of the democrat shall become convinced
of the practicability Of the scheme, which he nov
seems to doubt, we that he will not shrnk
even from the prospect of discussing the question o
| cheaper Insurance. as the issue of a campaign"
| The democrat" predicts that system of State 10
-ursnoe will have the effect OF driving away from
the State all the profits OF insurance This woul be
obviously impossible under a law which should re
| 70 fba 2fafa II ia IA hl
sumed that the same law. which would forbid private
Insurance companies 10 Virginia, would permit con
tracts for foreign insurance.
On the question Of economy, the Democrat" eI
presses the following oplnon:
"The idea of cheapenng the operation OF insurance
by the monopoly of the business, is only not quite
absurd enough to be simply ridiculous, especially
when TO the proverbial character Of all monopoli1s
the cumbrOusness, and ineficiency and cOstlness 0
State agency would be added"
| Now, this smbodies two mistaken assumptions.-
First. that all State monopoes are Objectionable II
themselves and, secondly, that State agency in tht
saheme proposed will bs necessarily cunbrous. incl
fcient and costly. Now. We have already assumed
it ia undsuiabls that State monopOlies are no
only unobjectionabe, but Indispensable to the public
welfare. And We are sliIl convinced that State in
surance can be effected with all the efficiency ant
facility, and with less cost than the present sysen
private insurance demands. This latter proposition
has been practically confirmed in the history Of Vir
g,us and on a more extended scals n the history O
Switzerland. The question is no longer in the do
| main Of abstract calculation.
But the Fundamental objection" urged is, "tba
the scheme invades the sacred precincts Of pested
rights. The insurance companies of the State woulc
never rslinquish the righs with which they have
been clothed" The answer to this is easy The in
surauce companies have been clothed with no rights
which can be invaded by the scheme proposed
They the creatures OF legislation exercising
functions conferred them by and which they
would not exercise without legislative authority
Each one Of their charters is legally repeaabls--
| Each may righlfully be repealed whenever public
policy shall 80 require. The Legislature has simply
| permitted them to carry financial operations
which cannot be carried on by individuals or unncor
porated companies, and has reserved the power o
Withdrawing this privilege whenever the public inte
rest shall require. This socalled vsuted right,
is mere privilege to conduct insurances 40 long al
the Legislature shall deem it consistent with public
policy.
We have thus answered severaly the ohjsetion
of the democrat In terms almost general as those
in which they have been propounded. The same
asterkey disoloses the Involved in each obiec
tion Each results from generalization too extended
to admit Of strict accuracy. We trust that the eI
trsme curtness Of replies will not be msconstruet
into anything like discourtesy We have not time
present to do more than briefly 10 point out what ap
pears to US to be the different points OF em
bodied in the article of the "Democrat." We will here
after enter with more satisfactory mnuteness into TIT
discussion Of this subject.