Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1885-10-28

ject, and probably have not had the
years Of experience in the Insurance
business that some others have had.
And the articles, ~ published, show
that both editors are ignorant Of the
operations and results of the Valued
Policy law, in the States where it il in
force.
The Valued Policy bill became .
law in Wisconsin the fall Of 1874.
The loss ratio for that year was A
per cent; the following year, 1885, it
was 80 per cent, An increase OF over
100 per cent. See Wisconsin Insur.
ance Reports, 1879, page 8.
In 1884 it was 74.9 per cent. See
Year Book, page 1913.
Loss ratio in Ohio for the four yea .
proceeding the passage Of the bill, i.e.,
1877? to 1880, was Al, Al, 46, and "A
per cent, respectively. Four year,
under the Valued Policy law, 1881 to
1884. was 81. 50, So, and 70 per cent,
respectively.
Think the bill was passed in Nilsson.
ri in 1883. Loss ratio that year,
50 40. Ratio in 1884, 70 no. See
Insurance Reports for these years.
Can our editor say . man hes when
he says this law 10 blot on the stat
utes, q bid to incendiarism, and con.
trary to the interests and wishes Of
ito best people; and can they intelli.
gently present the peoples views
when their editorials show they don't
know what they are talking aboutP
1t is strange how ignorant people
are Of the insurance contract. Men
who are we'll posted in other bushes.
ways seem to 90 wild when an insur.
ance contract is discussed.
In life insurance. the subject, i. e.,
"the man," il insured, aud the con
tract by its very nature become. a
valued policy. But in fire insurance,
the subject, i. O., the property, is no,
insured, but the owner is Unidentified
against loss, whatever it may be, up
to the face of the policy, and his in.
terest in the property. That is q
comnon-sense proposition, and any
thing that goes farther than that is an
inducement to be moro than careles,
with property. And the intent Of in.
surance is to collect from the many
the losses Of the few, distributing the
loss so the burden will not be grea,
for the honestly unfortunate. Com.
panies attempting to make profit in
the business, stockholders investing
their millions as evidence of good
faith, but of late years, the stock.
holder and not the public have been
paying the losses, and every effort
should be made to decrease the haz.
ard and not to increase it.
II Idaho wishes to insure property
and not the owners, she undou btedl,
will find plenty CT idle capital to max.
the venture.
As to the insurance companie.
making an extensive "k,ck" against
the law, as the article mentions, an
safe in saying that no company il
making any effort, or will make al
effort to repeal that law. Outside o
a remembrance made at the time o
passing the bill, to the Governor, ane
who returned, so I am informed, t,
the prosecutors, the dignified response
"Tell the insurance companies to g
to HE'LL" think he ana the editor o
the WooD RIVER TIMES have tn
same form of indigestion no other Of
fort has been made or will DO made
II Idaho is satisfied with the presen
law, l see no reason why it should no
remain in force.
New Hampshire has lutely place.
tho law on her statutes, with the SAM
results as in Idaho-all the compan,e
having withdrawn. The attempt wa
made in Oregon to pass the same bill
but the local agents, who had spen
years in building up q business
knowing full we'll if the bill became
law the companies would Withdraw
| i" body from their State, and ruiz
their business; and realizing the fac,
which Idaho is fast learning, that tn,