The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-11-25
DOES A MAN DIE DISGRACED
WHOSE LIFE is NOT IN
SURED?

The question of insurance has come
to occupx the first place in the minds
of the people of North Carolina. The
number who insure their lives have
greatly increased and how to ger the
best protection at fair prices is impor-
tant. No doubt much money has been
lost by insuring i'm companies not
founded on correct principles and hon
estly managed. Much more has gone
never to return in the waste by great
companies that use money to buy two
thousand dollar mats and paw such
salaries as s26. 1000 to a janitor
In the old times before insurance
became almost universal, compare
lively few men worked on salaries, ana
instead of putting by certain por-
ton of the monthly savings as nov
for insurance, it was the custom %
invest the years savings in lands or
houses. This was making provision
for the wife and children rs well as
by taking Insurance policies, and in
the case Of men who had Il talent
for trading it was many times better.
But With an era of weekly aQd month
~ salaries, and no time from work for
gains, the average man is wise ~ de
pend upo1 putting some of his salary
in life insurance as projection if he
should die. Insurance for protection
should be carried by every man who
can do so. particularly every man de-
pendent upon his monthly salary or
weekly wage. But, while believing
strongly in insurance for protection
and opposing any other sort of in
surance (for insurance as an invest
ment never pays), we are not pre-
pared to go as far as the Monroe Jour
nal In recent issue. the Journal
said:
But amidst il all. one thing is clear
to the eyes of the modern world. That
is. that the man who could have pro-
yidcd for his family by life insurance
and dies without having done 50 is
practically disgraccd-"
Several papers have replied to this
extreme position of the Journal, among
them the Marshville Home and Char
ity and Children. We regret that the
Homes pretty strong reply has been
misplaced. Here is the reply of Char
ity and Children, which contains much
homely wisdom:
1.-THE Journal puts it pretty strong.
We find ourselves disinclined to accept
the statement and to endol Sc the re-
joinder made by Our Home, that lifa
insurance is at best only a chance
game i'm which a man has to die TO
win, and it is no great honor for a
man to die in order{o make living
for his family. This insurance business
is a fad that cannot last. 1t does not
furnish the proper incentive and feeds
the passion for gambling which is al
ready so much OF a mania. We re-
spect the men who are opposed to
life insurance on principle and who
refuse to invest a dollar in it. We
know a man. a preacher. too. who
has invested what he would have Drt
i'm life insurance in houses, and we
would be glad to swap him three poll"
cies i'm old line companies for his
holdings and give him big boot! The
world has gone crazy on this insurance
business. The agents have rung the
changes on mans Christian duty to
his family, which really means prince
ly fortunes for the naboDs who hold
the Offices in the companies, besides
corruption fund to buy legislatures
and pay campaign bills. 1t is time
that the false and injurious senti-
ment that insurance is a Christian
duty were exploded. L is no Chris
tian duty. 1t is an investment just
Z, .N..Ir -Aft 70
or vacant lots III a growing town. All
honor TO the men who Will not yield 10
the entreaties of oily agents pleading
for t:lcir masters! Let us have done
with this nonsense about man being
disgraced who does not provide for his
family by insuring his life. 1t is
sentiment born of the shrewd and
faithless reasoning of the insurance
companies and not of the preceptS of
the Bible nor of the dictates of COM
mon sense.
The Monroe Journal does not aban-
don its view, though stating it less
extremely and therefore more wisely.
Replying to the Marshville Home the
Journal says:
Our Home of Marshville takes the
Journal up on the statement that the
man who dies without having made
provision for his family by life insur-
ance, provided he could have done So
is practically disgraced. Our Home
draws the unWarranted- conclusion
that we meant that a man must thus
lay up wealth for his family whether
they need it or not, and proceeds to
argue against this idea ably enough
to be sure. But to argue that man
who has a helpless wife and a lot of
small children dependent upon his
la Dor, and who may be rendered des-
titute at any moment by his death.
should not take some life insurance
because it is gambling on a chance
and he has to die to win, shows ii
wrong conception of the object of in
surance which Our Home ought to
divest itself OF. We have seen men
carry fire insurance who were op-
posed to life insurance because their
conscience forbade them to gamble.
A close analysis of such a mans posi-