The Globe-republican. [volume] (Dodge City, Kan.) 1889-1910, 1900-09-06
ANSWER TO PROPERTY OWNER"

law the amount of risks written in
creased rapidly. but the losses in !
creased even more strikinsly.''
In the same year. Gov. Altgeld, of |
Illinois, vetoed a similar act and in |
the course of his discussion used this |
language: Insurance is an indemnity. |
not a speculation 1t is intended to |
protect man against loss. not to give
him something for nothing Its object
shall be no worse of after a fire than
before The principal involved in this
bill would enable a man in many
cases to be twice Well off after a
fire as he was before. In all cases
where a dishonest man could by con-
nivinS 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. a perpetual induce
ment to allow his property to burn-I
will not say to have it burn-and when
it is remem bered that q fire in one
building always endangers and fire.
Quently destroys property near by
which often is not insured it would
be bad policy for the state to permit a
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
Dill, 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 a 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 po1ieyholders, and the COM
| munity is the ultimate sufferer From
| every standpoint the measure is a
| vicious one From none of them can
| it's policy be defended. Protection
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 We're introduced
in seventeen states. and passed in
| three; two of which were vetoed.
/ In 1894, similar bills were introduces
| 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 I quote
| a part. follows:
| 1T 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 a loss
| by insurance company before any
| loss occurs, which is inconsistent un-
| reasonable and expensive, both to the
| insurance companies and the insured :"
| 1T will drive out of the state many
| solid and safe insurance com anfes
that are a public necessity
| g 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
Wages in Cuba.
| The keeper OF the pay roll on large
-