The Portland daily press., 1864-09-30
the end. the exchange Of agency would be much

the end. the exchange OF agency would be much
more advantageous for myself.
The End chargs is, that, after claiming triumph
over Mr. Neal in our newspaper controversy of last
winter, have been suddenly converted by review
of the same arguments. To which answer 1st that
nv part of the controversy with Mr.. Neal was con-
ned TO one single point,viz: the expenses of the N
Iifs about which he had been misled, as he ac-
knowled ged and that Imost carefully avoided every
other position taken by him, because foresaw the
result; and that flcts and not review OF bis argu-
ments have satisfied me, of the vast advantages
the Mutual Benefit Co. offers to its policy holders
over the New York Life, as will appear by the
statistics given below, on the highest official autnor
ity, al Ike disinterested and conclusive.
He says furthermore, or implies, that by claiming
to have been further enlightened by later ofhcIal
reports seek to mslead. To this charge say that,
inasmuch as the MassashusettsICo commissioners make
up their report to the LIST Of Now while that Of the
NJ 7. Commissioner IL m ade up to the LIST of Jany;
the first being published in March, and the last not
until May or June, could not know in December
'63 officially what has become but too evident since
June 81; Tor example, that the percentage Of er-
penses on income in the N. Y. Life is 1912 being
93a per cent than it is in The Mutual Benefit,
and in fact nearly double! dill know upon au-
thority not to be questioned, till these reports APP
peared. that while the New York Life had issued
liza, not 1885, more policies than the Mutual Bene
ft within the year that the actual amount insured
BY the Mutual Benefit Co. was nearly 100000 more
than the amount insured by the N. \ Life-showing
that capitalists and mea Of substance oere giUing
the preference eueryere TO the Mutual BENEFIT sys-
tenn The following abstract from the last report of
the N. Y. Commissioners may help cure the strange
hallucination which Mr.. K. appears to be laboring
under.
No pol. issued Amt. insured.
in 1853. in 1888.
Mutual Benefit s6II '$11 $40 500 90
n. Life, 1876 IL, 33J 234 90
Furthermore, in the card be complains of, are
mentioned under seven eight different heads, the
statistical for the conclusions had arrived
at reasons whicbre lkelyto be satisfactory to men
of business and foresight. All but two OF these he
passes in absolute silence; and these two he
labors to show that am wrong. But how? he charg-
es with of Sl52 III 90 in stating the in-
come from interest In l863'-and attempts TO prove
the charge by quoting not from the latest the N Y.
report, but from one of earlier date. For part
of this item however which does nat appear in the
abstract of that report. was obliged to rely the
last annual report of the Directors " Mr. X. will
not question such evidence Among the items of in
come for 1883 the N. Life Co. in their report for
January LIST, 1861. gives the following amount of
s1ss s5l.7s
and the Mutual Benefit,
Aunt interest receiped, 1868, S319, 2i2,06
Amt interest accrued in 1858, l2l,274,79
cay Total, 4fA"~ SAC, 546,75
Showing the truth to be exactly as 1 stated it; Mr..
X. in his criticisms having left out entirely the
amount of accrued interest
Go with raoard IN eY.nen tho sacand noint
by Mr.. K He daras not deny tina. the expenses of
the N. Y. Life are within threequarters of per
cent. of being eractty double the expenses OF the
Mutual Benefit Goa fact ofitself sufficient to put
any man of common senseupon thorough investi-
CATION, since the productiveness and to certain
tent the safety of his investment, will depend upon
the exI enses of administration; but he by quoting
from the earlier Massachusetts report instead Of the
latest N Y report, endeavors to convict me of err
ror; and this although had given my authority for
what said.
Says Mr.. K, son the point of Dividends have but
little to say" Indeed-nor do much wonder,
SINCE after all, that is the question between usthe
very gist of the whole controversy. And the little
that he does say, whatd it amount to. Take his
own language "rhe N. \ Life declared 35 per ct
the last year. and could have largely increased the
same had they deemed it wise to do So" Undoubt-
edy '.if they had deemed it wise" to divide their
capital any part of their capital, they might have
done land taken the consequences. But hequestion
is of comparative ability depending upon actual
surpws. Take tie latest official reports this very
point, and sec how dangerous question Mr.. Il. has
managed to slur over with "on this point 1 have
but little TO say''-They stand thus:
Mutual Beneft-net surplus, l.826. 102 46
New York Life, 284 627, 81
or AL Of ;dad
surplus of 474 50 in favor of the Mutual Ben
eft 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 $22 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:-
1850 1851 1862 1868 1854
Nut Bent 40 pr ct AS pr pr 80 pr ct50 pr ct
N. T. Life 30 pr ct3U pr CT 3O pr ct IS lbs pr CT
and the dividends in the Mutual Benefit being not
only declared " but paid yearly; that in case
death withdrawal they are never lost; that the
1stdwdendis always paid in just four years from the
date of The insurance, and yearly thereafter, while
the New York Lie, averages sig and a half gears
and this difference of time as stated, will bring
80 per cent dividend at simple interestup to 574 per
at the tme the s5 per cent dividend is paid by
the New York Life Co., making difference in the
yearty cost of less than S22s0 on every 800 OF
premium the assured has to pay in favor of the Mu-
tual Benefit Co. What would be thought of the
merchant who should lay in stock of merchandise
paying therefor nearly Is per cent more than good
of equal or better quality could be purchased tor at
his own door? Why not apply the same principle
to the purchase ofa Life Insurance policy?
To the personalities and Misrepresentation of Mr.
X. I have nothing to say; do question the re-
spectability or trustworthiness ofthe gentlemen he
is acting for Certain it is that no one of them would
pnt his name to the statements Mr. x. has put forth
here. And ifthe people of Maine had not very
large and growing interest in all that concerns Life
Assurance, might have been willing to overlook
the impertinenco of Mr.. x. altofsther, and leave
those who are acquainted with the facts to judge fol
themselves ar
WARREN SPARROW, State Agent
Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co.
Portland, Sept. ~, 1864. oI