Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-02-15
For the Dispatch.l
The Proposed Insurance Bill.


To the Honorable Members Of the
General assembly Of Virginia:
The bill pending consideration before
YOU, STYLED bill to protect persons In
surng property against loss by fire or
other casualties, seems designed to sub
serve the supposed interests OF class OF
merchants. but to do which it at the
same time restraints insurance companies
from the exercise of a Tightful privilege
OF their business. 1t denies to these
companies the right to continue to IN
sert in their contracts provisions that
have been in use for more than hun
dred years provisions, too, that tend TO
subserve the interests of good morals
and the safety of the community and the
State. And more. the bill serves to
abridge the rights of the citizen in his
privilege of accepting and securing for
his comfort and safety such contracts OF
insurance as he may find judiclous for
himself, however apparently objection
able to others for if the companies
are not allowed TO insert in their policies
clauses of limitation of their liability the
citizen Will be prevented from making
insurance in this form or any like
form, however much he may dGsire to
accept the policy with the clauses OBJ
jected to by the bill, and however need
ful and useful the insurance may be TO
him and 10 many who may also think
with him that it is far from being OBJ
iectionable in such form. If the Legis-
lature restrict the companies from any
rightful form of insurance the lnterdlc-
ton operates az denial to the citizen to
make his contracts 10 suit himself. And
here we beg to say that this very cOntin-
gency of injury and wrong of the citizen
IN abridging his inalienable rights por-
trays in the most fOrcible light the i'm
policy and unlawful character of the
proposed legislation.
Relentless as the law-making power
may assume to be toward insurance
corporations, the citizens and these In
stitutions are in the same box, and IN
aiming at the companies it should be
borne in mind that the blows, coming
from whatever quarter, will fall upon
the citizens likewise. The insurance
companies are bat the creatures OF pub
lie favor and patronage. and every mo-
tive and obligation exists with them to
meet the Just expectations and wishes
of the assured. But because there are
reasonable bounds to these influences
on the companies 1t cannot be
claimed that the companies are OBJ
stacles to public good and should be
coerced by hostile legislation to meet
unreasonable demands of those who
want insurance but would coDtrive to
force the companies TO supply 1t to suit
themselves, whatever might be the I'M
propriety and injustice OF their demands.
The acceptance of the conditions of the
policy is entirely voluntary with all. 1t
is evident that the authority for enactlsg
the proposed bill is assumed to rest on
the supposed right Of the Legislative
power to direct and control corporate
bodies. But this version of its power
aud authority can hardly be claimed for
il at this era of enlightened judgment,
when boundless legislation obviously
conflicts with public interest.
Ii cannot be supposed that the Legls-
lature will restrict the citizen from
making his contracts in his own way,
from accepting or inserting IN them
whatever conditions or restrictions he
nav desire, so they are not of criminal
import. And TO deny the like privilege
TO corporations would be denial of the
citizen, for the corporation is but an
aggregation OF citizens, restricted only
TO the performance OF specified bust
ness or restrict TO a particular
branch of lawful undertaking or trade.
and that is all the difference between the
individual citizen and the corporation
citizen.
Fire-insurance corporations are obliged
10 make contracts with citizens, and of
necessity must be the rightful judges
of their own interests and of the extent
of the obligation they will consent TO
assume. II this right is denied them
they cannot long exist, for capital will
not embark or continue in a business
that its owners are restrained from con-
Quoting in accordance with the usual
methods and rules of management.
If the Legislature may say that such
and such provision of the policy shall
not endure, the right, if it have it, to do
this would extend TO a reforming of the
whole policy, and the business would
only have TO await its Legislative destiny
or be wound up in advance Of the IN
certainty Of the contest for clemency.
The proposed legislation not only uu-
dertakes the guardianship OF class OF
businessmen who are thereby implicitly
accounted imbeciles. but is calculated to
leave the companies TO the mercy OF
fraudulent speculations.
Thus the peaceful and mutually salts
factory relations Of insured and insurer
will be disturbed and abruptly sundered,
relations that have existed tremendously
or with no legitimate complaint for seve-
raj hundred years, and all TO repeal a
clause in the policy that the fair-minaed
merchants would prefer to have in the
contract. Add, besides, the clause OBJ
jected 70 land like clauses in insurance
contracts) is the most judiclous and most
creditable that has existed in the entire
annals OF insurance, and is one that tue
citizen should approve and require for
his protection in the very nature OF such
contracts, aud one which the Legisla-
ture Gnstead OF iorbidding, as We con
ceive II has not the right 10 dol should
rightfuily require to be put in every
policy under its undoubted au-
thority to restrict and forbid gambling
contracts and the wonder is that legis-
la,ures have not long since made such
enactmeuts in reference TO insurance as
would tend TO promote public morality
10 respect to it and TO lessen loss to the
State, for the Legislature might properly
las the Parliament OF Great Britain has
done many years sincc) forbid wagering
policies, and thus judiciously restrain the
citizens and the insurance companies
from insuripg property 10 an extent OF
value that would encourage Its de-
struction 10 get the insurance money.
II the law.making power could be in
duced to do this it could not afford 70