The Press., 1895-08-01

ask ed the aforesaid member or the firm
 why, if it was such a terrible thing, his
 firm still desired it, he informed me that
 he was only part owner in the firm, that
 he told his partners not to use it, but
 that they wouldn't listen to him, and in-
 sisted upon using 1t. My reply to him
 was, that conversion, like charity, should
 begin at home, and that if 1 could not
 convert my partners who had been through
 the fiery furnace with me, would not es-
 say the task of attempting to convert the
 legislature and the state of Connecticut;
 and 1 think, brother senators, that you
 will agree with me.
 THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL.
 Let us now look at this bill, section by
 section, and see what it is and what it does:
 Section 1. A breach of any of the terms of a policy by the insured, seall not make void the policy of any insurance company doing business in this state, if the loss or damage claimed un- der such policy shall be found not to have been caused by such breach.
 One of the leading advocates of this
 bill said to me, "You certainly cannot
 object to this first section." And 1 said,
 My dear sir, it is the most vicious sec
 tion in this whole bill There is not one
 redeeming feature in it. It is rotten to
 the core" Let us examine it.
 In the first place it is well-settled
 principle of law that a contract entered
 into between two parties is equally bind ing upon both. This section of the bill
 gives the assured the right to violate his
 contract, but gives the company no right
 to violate theirs. This is manifestly un- just. Again, one of the fundamental
 principles of insurance is who, what and
 where? Who is the party insured? What
 is the character of the property insured ?
 Where is the insured property located? This first section annihilates this princi-
 pie as completely as though it had never
 been. It says, virtually, that when a
 company has injured a party, it shall
 make no difference to the company wheth-
 CT the party sells the property or not, or
 whether the character of the property is
 changed, or whether the location is
 changed. The company must pay the
 loss unless it can prove that such change
 caused the loss. Or as perhaps the
 clause reads, unless the assured can prove that such change did not cause the loss. Let me illustrate. A company issues a
 policy to John Jones, an honest, respect
 able citizen, on his dwelling house. The
 company, under the present law, insures
 only John Jones, and only dwelling house. If he sells his house, or changes the occupancy of his building, he must give the company notice, so that they
 can either approve, or declining to ap- , prove, cancel his policy, and return him the unearned portion of his premium. Under the first section of this bill John Jones might sell his dwelling house to
 party of no moral character whatever one whom no company would insure the dwelling might be turned into a powder
 mill the company never be notified of : either change; the property burn; and the company would be obliged to pay the I1T11n thn+ {hO changes caused the loss. Or, under the other interpretation, unless the parties could prove that the change did not cause the loss. What a confused state of af- fairs that would produce. Chaos would } be order, in comparison. Neither the company nor the assured would know where they stood, and lawsuits would be the order of the day. 1 would not be so foolish as to claim that no injustice had . ever been done under the present law. Technical violations of policies have no = doubt been sometimes taken advantage of . by companies when they should not have been; but 1 am sure this has been the case very rarely, unless to protect against ] fraud. But when, in order to guard = against these rare injustices, you under take to destroy the sacredness of a con- t tract, you have but re-enacted the old , mythological fable, and, in endeavoring - to avoid Scylla, have wrecked your bark 6 on Charybdis or to use a homely pro- e verb, you have jumped from the frying J fpan into the fire. Could there be move II vicious principle established? There was -zfn5ver U luwy =0itiEvI nuIIIsslI; 0i iivine,- that sometimes, seemingly, at least, wofRe4 s ed injustice. The Ten Commandments, : visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon U the children, even unto the third and b. fourth generation, seems sometimes to us s almost unjust, while following out the u precepts of the Golden Rule sometimes s brings abuse in return. But should we, | for these occasional seeming injustices, '' attempt to abolish the Ten Command i ments, and the Golden Rule?
 o The second section of this bill provides for the valued policy as relating to per h sonal property, and 1 desire merely to t say, regarding this section, that it is ab- U soiutely impracticable and impossible it II simply cannot be done. No man can tell ' what his household goods, or his stock in
 trade, will be worth five years, or three
 years, or even one year from to-day. No n state, to my knowledge, has a valued pol g icy as applied to personal property. n The third section is the valued policy @ section, and, requiring the maximum d amount named in the policy to be paid, of f course forbids the use of the co-insurance r clause. There are several provisos in this t section, but every ono Of them means a o lawsuit, being based on fraud which, as :, every one knows, it is almost impossible J. to prove.
 c- 1 have earlier in my remarks said all a that desire to say at this time regarding tt the valued policy and cO-insurance. }, Section gives the assured fifteen days e- in which to give notice of a loss, either to l. the company or it's agent, and cOmpels T. the company to adjust the loss within fif- e teen days after the receipt of such notice. e In this section desire to call your atten- e tion to just two points. First, the assured l. has fifteen days ill which to give notice to le the company. Suppose, for illustration " fire occurs in retail hardware store. y It is partial loss; the goods are drip :, ping with water. Could the company 70 know at once of this fire they would use a. prompt measures to dry and protect the Id stock, and thus make the loss what it l. should be-partial. Suppose the assured it does not notify the company for fifteen le days, as he certainly need not do under le this section. The result will be that the er goods are ruined and the company has Tt sustained total loss. Is this fair and ," just?
 '' Second: The company must adjust the S. loss within fifteen days after such notice a What would the companies have done un. l. der this clause in tho Portland, Me-, fire le of 1866; in the Chicago fire of 1871; in m the Boston fire of 1872; in the San Fran it cisco fire of last week; or in such a fire c, as may happen in any Connecticut city 'n any day? Such a fire as may happen
 even, in some great manufacturing estab- is lishment or mercantile concern any day e Every company adjusts it's losses at the D. earliest possible moment, but it is the n sheerest nonsense to presume to establish d by law an arbitrary time limit for the ad. o justment of losses.
 is Section valves arbitration if the as. 30 sured desires, but gives the cOmnanY nc