The Portland daily press., 1864-10-01
The Mutual Benefit Life ms. Co. VS.. The
N. Y. Life.

ready in print; meanwhile abstract OF the whole
may serve to disabuse the public.
The first charge made by Mr.. X, is that did not
surrender the agency of the New York Life at a
great pecuniary sacrifice; my answer to which is
two fold; LIST, never said that 1 did. End, it is
true nevertheless; and now aver, and am read to
prove, that sacrificed four-hfths OF my yearly in
come on my Life business by making the change
complained of and that l made this sacrihce for
two reasons: first because of the superior adVdn-
tages saw in the Mutual Benefit system for the as
sured, and secondly because beheved-and my sue
cess thus far has fully justified my belie=that ."
the end. tie exchange of agency would be much
more advantageous for myself
1he End charg is, that, after claiming triumph
Mr.. Neal in newspaper controversy of last
winter, have been suddenly converted by review
ofthe same arguments. To which answer, 1st that
my part of the controversy with Mr.. Neal was con-
fined to one single point viz. the expenses of the N.
Lif3, about which he had been misled, as he ac-
knowled sed. and that most carefully avoided every
other position taken by him. because foresaw the
result and that f1cts, and not review of his argu-
,N. -, - !, -
msn.s nave Sa'isneu me, Oh .ne "dss aa0aata9es
the Mutual Benefit Co. offers to its policy holders
over the New York Life, as will appear by the
statistics given below, the highest official author
ity, al Ike disinterested and conclusive.
He says furthermore, or implies, hat by claiming
to have been further enlightened by later official
reports seek to mslead. To this charge say that
inasmuch as the Mas,achusettsIC commissioners make
up their report to the LIST of Nov while that of the
N r. Commissioner is made up to the 1st of Jany;
the frat being published in March, and the last not
until May or June, / cou.d not know in December
'63 officially what has become but too evident since
June ga; ior example, that the percentage of er-
81 per cent more than it is in The Mutual BENEFIT
and in fact nearly double nor dii know upon au-
thority NOT to be- questioned till these reports ap
peared. that while the New York Life had issued
li'4' hos 1870 nofe poilc'eS nan inc Mutua bene'
nj, wltnln the tnat the actual amount insured
by the Mutual Benefit Co was nearly $500 900 more
tnan tne amount ihsureu W inc ~ - he-sno"ing
tnas c'P''e''S's ana me" saOS.anee 0ere g'''ng
a"e ."e oeAs sys,
'e"'. ing ,,'.' 'Ao '''s VI
tne N l.. commissioners may ne'p euis ING strange
hailuoinauon "nicn mr. n. appears 70 DO iaOoring
under. w., -, -. .os
IN MI 1914 'ueu IN issS
Mutual Benefit, 35II Sill 90 392 co
N. Life, 4675 ll,331,234 90
Furthermore, in the card he complains OF, are
mentioned under seven or eight different heads the
statistical reasons for the conclusions had arrived
at; whicnare hkelyo be satisfactory TO men
ofsbusiness and foresight All but two OF these he
passes over In dosotute silence; and on these two ne
labors to show that am wrong But now! charg-
es me with an error OF Sl52 ~ 81 in stating the in
come from interest in ls63'-and attempts TO prove
the charge by quoting not from the latest, the N Y
report, but from one OF an earlier date For part
of this item however, which does MT appear in the
abstract of that report was obliged to rely on the
last annual report of the Directors" Mr. H. will
not question such evidence Among the items fin
come for 1858 the N T. Life Co. in their report fer
January LIST, 1861, gives the following amount of
interest received and accrued, 1868,
al tho ,,n,ra, ponoo+ lSo.ool''o
Amt inrerest receined 1879 sa1e 2;2a
Amt interest accrued in 1858, l2l,27479
-.c.-
CHIT. A.. -. -, >. ~ ~.
- e. -, 80 80 49,. 49,
amour, Of ,ccr,sd ,n4ere.t = = "rS
o. WITH rs~ar, - ~. .ooo,a uon. do
h r. ~
10y INC. 'ne - P'Aeeo u
cent of being e,octt do,,bIs tha o,ns,,sos 90 ,ho
Mutual Ben oit Goa fact of itself sufficient to put
any man Of common sense UPON a thorough inyesri.
CATION, since the productiyeness and to certain ex
tent the SAFETY of his Investment will depend upon
the expenses of administration; but he by quoting
from the earlier Massachusetts report instead of the
latest N. Y. report, endeavors to convict of
ror and this although had given NV authority for
what said.
Says Mr.. K, "ou the point of dip;dends. Ihaye but
little to say" Indeed!- nor do much wonuer.
SINCE after all that is the question between us-the
very gist of the whole controversy And the little
that he does say. what does it amount TOT Take his
own language. "rhe N. \ Life declared IS per ct
the last year. and could have largely increased the
same had they deemed it wise to do So" Undoubt-
edly, s.if they had deemed it wi,e to divide their
capital or any part of their capital they might have
done So and taken the consequences But the question
Is one of comparative ability depending upon actual
surplus. Take the latest official reports this very
point and sec how dangerous question Mr.. H. has
managed to slur over with a ION this point 1 have
but little 10 say"-They stand thus:
Mutual Beneft-net surplus, Sl,S26, l02 46
New York Life, 2S4 627, 81
Showing difference in the amount of undivided
surplus of 81 Sal 44 SO in favor of the Mutual Ben
eht Co.
Out OF this question abont dividends grows the
question OF cost to the assured. have undertaken
to show that by the Mutual Benefit system it will
cost the assured less every 500 of the pre-
MUM he has to pay, than to insure in the New York
Life, the dividends of these two companies being
for the last five years as follows.-
1870 roc, ,oeo 100, zoo.
Nut Bent As pr ct pr ct50 pr ct50 pr $50 pr ct
i'io 'O Fl ''l'0 pr ''l00 pr c'l'o pr c'oo pr Ct
and the dividends in the Mutual Benefit being not