Free press. [volume] (Hays, Kan.) 1888-1908, 1900-09-08
| ANSWER TO PROPERTY OWNER !"

In the same year, Gov. Altgeld, OF
vetoed similar act, and in
the course Of his discussion used this
language: Insurance is an indemnity,
not speculation. It is intended TO
protect man against loss, not to give
him something for nothing. Its object
Is to make a man whole so that he
shall be no worse on after a fire than
before. The principal involved in this
bill would enable a man in many
cases to be twice as well on after =
fire as he was before. In all cases
where dishonest man could, by con-
niving with agents or in any. other
way, secure insurance for more than
the real value of his property, a fire
would be a blessing. There would be
a standing bride, a perpetual induce
ment to allow his property TO burn-I
viii not say to have it burn-and when
it is remembered 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.
~ - II ludl several Inc
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 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
\ ~ 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
ncf &c ha
Of sound fire insurance, and any de-
parture from it will pave the way fol-
the preparation of fraud and wrong. u
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 1893, 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 1895, similar bills were introduced
III SShOn SldlOS, anu pdSS0u py IHO.
/ 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 o.
Utah. and Gov. Sadler of Nevada
promptly vetoed. Gov. Atkinson o.
! 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 1 quote
| part, as follows:
1T is against public policy"
1T cannot accomplish the object FOL
| which it was Intended
1T applies only to real estate, anc
not to personal property. and is there
| fore class legislation"
CThe bill under consideration is also
| vulnerable to this objectIon.)
ct requires the adjustment of a los
/ by an insurance company before any
loss occurs, which is inconsistent, I'm.
| reasonable and expensive, both TO the
| insurance companies, and the insured.
1T will drive out of the state many
solid and safe insurance companies
| that are a public necessity
Valued policy laws of this charac-
ter have not proven satisfactory in the
states that have tried them. and il
seems to me We ought to profit by the
experience of older states"
%~~~-~~~-~~---~-~---~-~-~