The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-06-05

is not a wage-eaTner and has no one or
nothing dependent upon her life. This sup
position was never true; in some depart
ments women have always been wage
earners. the lives OF dressmakers, milliners
and teachers. etc, always had a CONNER
clal value, and many such women had
mothers, sisters or invalid fathers de-
pendent upon them, whose whole support
was gone when the wage-earner died. In
these days when women are lawyers, doc
tors and even insurance agents the assertion
is, if possible. more fallaclOus Putting aside
the truth or falsity of what might be re-
garded as the sentimental aspect OF the sub
ject the question is, has not the money paid
for womau's premium the same value as
that paid for mans?
ACTING WITH CAUTION.
But prejudice dies hard, and when some
of the more enterprising companies re-
solved TO accept female risks" they still
proceeded very cautiously, fearing some not
very clearly defined dangers Each CON-
pany fancied some sort OF nameesS calam-
ity would hefall unless they hedged about
the policy with extraordinary precautions,
or, at all events, increased the amount of
the premiums.
That this danger is moro imaginary than
real is shown in the fact that nearly every
company has made different regulations,
and that the rules Of one corporation are
often Numerically opposed TO those Of
another
Some companies win not insure unmar-
ried women, upon the ground that IL they
fall i'll there is not the same incentive to re-
cOveTy as in the case OF n married woman
who has husband and children. Others
will not issue policies to married women on
account of the dangers Of ehid-bearing.
The first company to which l apt lied in
sures bOth married and unmarried women,
but the latter must pay SO extra per thou
sand and the former the same until after the
birth of the first child, or after the age of
AZ when, whether she has had a Child or
not. she is required TO pay only S. extra.
In this same company no woman can insure
for her husbands benefit unless he is an
invalid; nor for her mothers unless the
latter IS widow, or the father is an in
valid. Her child is the only one in whose
favor she may take cut policy, unless she
is prepared to declare and prove that her
husband will require the money for the
child and that he cannot support it, ! can
find no statistics to justify the extra
$40 charge until the FIRST child is
born; nothing TO prove that a wO-
man is more likely TO die at the
birth of the first rather than the second
or third or any other number The clause
forbdding policies to be issued for the hus-
bands benefit would seem TO be a reflection
upon the character Of married men. Does
the company think that the temptation
would be too great and that husbands might
De prompted 10 COiE pass the UedtN OF lUe06
too cOntdIng women for the sake OF the in
surance money? Perhaps for the same rea-
son this company refuses 10 insure a woman
beyond the sum Of $4,000 Many other
companies will not issue n policy TO their
female clients for 4 sum over $4,000 Oue
OF the companies mentioned above requires
a statement as to who is TO pay the uremi-
ums. This last regulation seems so trivial
and really impairment that / would refuse
TO give it credence IL | had not heard the
question asked.
MUST UNDERGO A TINE OF PROB ALTON.
Another well-knOwn company will not
insure a married woman until she has been
so for two years, whether she has children
or not. The reason for this restriction does
not appear, nor is it easily guessed. unless
it be a time of probation for the husband
that the company may ascertain for a GER
tainty whether he is the sort OF man likely
TO sssassinate the partner of his JOYS for the
sake of filthy lucTe.
Some companies do not lower the rate
after the age OF 4S. One large company,
however, that does not do so is enterprising
enough and has sufficiently enlightened
views TO make the extra s. rate the only
restriction of female risks" 1t also claims
the honor of having been the first to accept
women as policy-hOlders.
Among the travellers accident and life
companies many do not insure women
against accident at all, but only death. as
uldy Ut seen ny tedulDR the terms printed
on the back of their tickets, which dis
tinctly state this ticket iusures females
against death onlv." This clause shows a
lack Of practical business foresight and en-
teTprise, for in these days many women
travel and travel much, and a company that
leaves such cello Of the dark ages upon
its tickets simply drives away many Gus
toners who naturally prefer TO deal with
more enlightened corporations
Other companies do not insure unem-
ploycd women except against death. but
women. engaged in some regular occupation
are Insured on the same terms as men.
Upon inquiry one OF these cOmpanieS as
serted that where applications are made for
policies they VIII not insure unem ployed
men either except against death Bnt on
the back of their tickets sold at the railway
stations clause is inserted saving that "un-
employed females are only insured against
DEATH" Upon further questioning they de-
cared that in the case of these tickets they
had no time to discriminate between men
employed and men unemployed. The sub
situation of the word persons unemployed
instead of females would, however, OBJ
viate this difficulty, as their desire, they
say, is not to insure any one having no set
tied occupation.
A SINGULAR REASON ADVANCED.
The reason offered by corporations insur-
ing omen against death only Is that in the
case Of accident to women the company has
10 basis on which to figure the amount of
weekly or monthly Indemnity to be paid,
but in the case of female doctors, lawyers,
music-teachers, etc, this is self-evidently
false. As to those companies which insert
the unemployed" clause the reason offered
is that the work of a wife or mother en-
gagged only in household duties has no COM
mercial value. This, think, is a mistake,
for if this same woman meets with such in |
juTies as TO incapaeitate her from her duties |
she must hire and pay some one else TO per-
form them for her; either an extra servant |
or housekeeper must be engaged, which |
goes to prove that though the injured woman
herself may have undertaken these duties
from love or affection, her work neyerthe-
less had an actual money value.
After all this is taken into consideration il |
is not yet quite plain why the companies |
require any such basis at all, since If a GER |
tain sum is paid ii entities the insurer TO So |
a week indemnity. and greater sum to |
SO. and so on.
Medical and general statistics state dis |
tinctly that the average of life is higher for |
women than men, yet ali the companies de- |
cline what would seem to be the better risk, !
or else make an extra charge. When |
this was pointed cut to them the companies |
replied that their own statistics did not so |
prove; indeed. they showed in favor OF the |
men. Other questions elected tile fact that |
few OF them would accept women engaged |
in such arduOus work as washing or pro- |
fessional nursing. Now general and medical |
statistics include all women and all men. |
regardless of the nature of their |
employment and these statistics prove |
over and over again that women live |
longer than men, and married people |
longer than those unmarried. Therefore |
the question for the insurance companies is, |
If from their selected elientage they get a |
different result. then does il not go to prove |
that the selection Is wrong aud that a |
change. even If only for an experiment. |
would be good policy.
10 MY own knowledge many women |
would insure their lives If they could do so |
on the same terms as their brothers or hus- |
bands. while they feel that they cannot |
afford the extra 50 o. $40 per thousand re-
Quired at present.