The Chanute times. [volume] (Chanute, Kan.) 1897-1913, 1900-09-07
ANSWER TO PROPERTY OWNER"

creased even more strlkingly."
In the same year. Gov. Altgeld, OF
Illinois, vetoed similar act, and in
the course of his discussion used this
language: Insurance Is an indemnity,
not speculation. 1t Is intended to
protect man against loss, not to give
him something for nothing. It's object
is to make a man whole so that he
shall be no worse Off after fire than
before. The principal involved in this
bill would enable man in many
cases to be twice as well off after
fire as he was before. In all cases
where a dishonest man could, by con-
niving with agents or in any other
way, secure insurance for more than
the real value Of his property, fire
would be a blessing. There would be
standing bride, perpetual induce
ment to allow his property to burn-I
will not say to have it burn-and when
1t Is remembered that a fire in one
building always endangers and fire.
quently destroys property near by,
which often is not insured, 1t would
be bad policy for the state to permit
condition of affairs to exist which, to
say the least, tends to increase fires.
1t is true that several of the
states have adopted acts similar to this
BILL except that they provide against
fraud, which this bill does not"
(neither does the bill under considera-
ton, except in case Of concurrent in
surance), "but in these states expert
ence has shown that the proportion of
fires has greatly increased; conse-
quently the insurance rates have been
raised in all Of these states, and the
general public, which pays insurance,
has in this way been taxed to an ex-
tent which it would otherwise not have
been. and this largely for the benefit
Of the very few who were fortunate
enough to have fire which totally
destroyed their property"
In 1899 Gov. Thomas, of Colorado,
vetoed such a bill, and in the course
of his discussion of the question, used
this language: "The experience Of
other states under legislation like this
is most instructive. In every one of
them the proportion of fires has great
ly increased, and the ratio of that in
crease presupposes incendiarism. The
natural and necessary result has been
an increase in the rates of insurance,
which means an additional tax upon
the insuring public. The increased
burden which these laws impose upon
the insurer is shifted by him upon the
mass of policyholders, and the COM
munity is the ultimate sufferer. From
every standpoint the measure is a
vicious one. From none of them can
its policy be defended. Protection
against loss is the only possible basis
of sound fire insurance. and any de-
parture from it will pave the way for
the preparation Of fraud and wrong"
In 1891, bills similar to this were in
troduced in the legislatures of fifteen
different states, and were passed by
none.
In 1892, similar bills were introduced
in six states, and but one was passed.
In 1898, similar bills were introduced
in seventeen states, and passed in
three; two of which were vetoed.
In 1894, similar bills were introduced
in six states, and rejected by all.
In 1895, similar bills were introduced
In eighteen states, and passed in but
one.
In 1896, similar bills were introduced
in seven states, and passed by two.
In 1897, similar bills were introduced
in sixteen states, and passed in but
three.
In 1898, similar bills were introduced
in three states, and passed in none.
In 1899, similar bills were introduced
in fifteen states, and passed in four,
three of which were vetoed. Gov.
Thomas of Colorado, Gov. Wells of
Utah, and Gov. Sadler of Nevada,
promptly vetoed. Gov. Atkinson of
West Virginia, allowed the bill to be-
come operative without his signature,
but filed a memoranda of his objec-
lions to the bill, from which l quote
part, as follows:
st is against public policy"
1T cannot accomplish the object for
which it was intended
1T applies only to real estate, and
not to personal property, and is there
fore class legislation"
(The bill under consideration is also
vulnerable to this objection.)
ut requires the adjustment Of loss
by an insurance company before any
loss occurs, which is inconsistent, I'M
reasonable and expensive, both to the
insurance companies, and the insured"
ut will drive out Of the state many
solid and safe insurance companies,
that are public necessity
valued policy laws Of this charac-
ter have not proven satisfactory in the
states that have tried them, and 1t
seems to me we ought to profit by the
experience OF older states.'