{"newspaper_name": "The New York herald.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 7391, "word_count": 1333, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9726999998092651], "ccnet_perplexity": [977.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
MY attention has been lately directed to the pub
lished report ofa committee ofour Chamber of Com
merce, on the very interesting question, whether
the certificates issued by the sMutual Insurance
Companies for the amount of their nett earnings
should accrue to the benefit of the owners of the
goods insured, or to those who had effected the
insurance for them. This decision declares that
the agent and not the owner is entitled to the GER
tihcates spoken Of; and now, Mr.. Editor, let
US examine their grounds for this decision, and
we may then see how far these accord with the
principles of justice and common sense.


We are first told that, to establish the companies
notes were given by individuals, and to this extent
they became liable for their losses; and next that
notes in anticipation Of expected premiums are
still asked and received by them-thus further
adding to their available capital, as we'll as to the
security OF the assured. From services thus rem
dered, and risks thereby assumed, by the resident
agent, who effects the insurance, his title to the
benefit of the stock certificates is Inferred Now.
30 far these two classes Of contributors are con-
cerned, the decision may be true but this is only
part OF the question presented to the committee
How many and what amount of contributions of
the latter class do actually take place. in the pre-
sent condition of these companies? Without DO
stively knowing their extent, it is not unfair TO
presume thar, compared with the whole amount OF
premiums received, that Of contributions of this
kind is very small Let those who have the man.
agement of these companies, and who know what
has been their actual business, be asked whether
this presumption is correct one and let any dis
interested and honest man-remembering that al
ready some of these companies possess, in funds
invested, cash on hand, bills receivable, &c,
~ \ mil Nf dnI svbo tk.nr
vice rendered and the risk incurred be such as to
warrant the conclusion oi the committee, that the
person etfecting insurance on property not belong
ing to him, but trusted to his management for the
benefit Of it's owner, he receiving commission
for all his services-and deducung, among other
outays that for the premium Of insurance-is en-


Titled, besidesxto that part OF the profits which is
found In the form OF a returned premium or part
Of the expense already charged and paid Let
him also say whether those who pay no premiums
IN advance, except on open policies, or risks not
defined, (being reminded that these doubtless COM
prise by tar the greater portion OF the companles'
receipts,) under like circumstances, incur any risk
at aldo any thing at all in the business, except
as the agents OF properly ownerr, which would en-
title them. according to the principles OF justice
and equity, to both part ct the profits Of the bus
ness and q commission too ?-for, concealed as it
may be In the ample disguise of commercial tech
nicalities to this It must be reduced, and nothing
less.


One thing all will admit: that every saving of
expense is an addition to the profits Of so much
and the profits clearly belong to the party at whose
risk and by whose capital the business is carried
who has no tear. apprehension Of loss before his
eyes, but who In any event will receive the pay
ment due for the services he may have performed
Every. portion of expense saved by the judlcious
and faithful agent-and if in the form of a draw
back or return, by him also resumed to his owner
-only proves how worthy be Is to receive further
patronage at the hands of his principal while each
part 80 saved withoutthe knowledge of the owner
and dpffo fopuy yaYdo rafp mpd n nv not
by what name It may be called-ln the pocket OF
he fairhless and grasping commission merchant,
but proves him as unworthy Of confidence aud fa-
y9F ns e. he i regardless Of justice and probity


we'll planned adventures, it is then easlly known
who are the agents and who are the owners. But
let the reverse be the case and in some hands the
scales Of justice will also be reversed in respect TO
both, with accommodating celerity.


II will not be denied that these owners, whose
gard, are the chief patrons Of the mutual plan Of


insurance. Without their aid, it would BE- az
body with but fain signs Of lfe-like thing whose
chief business is sakisg, but whom some wise and
Une leg. 4.


Now, will this committee tell US how much are
the risks, over and above the premiums paid, by
those composing the insurers and insured in the
Safety Company, who are about declaring the nett
earnings OF the year It will not be hazarding
much to say, it is little compared with the whole.
What they have decided on general principles,"
I that the Of AZ I's s.no o e.,
and not the owners OF the goods; Now, If they
had qualified their decision, BY saying that the par
ties first lending their notes At the establishment OF
success or failure Of the undertaking. were entitled
to the benefits of that years earnings, then indeed
they would have had q show Of justice with them.
Or had they said that those who contributed their
notes yet further, and until the surplus funds TO pay
losses had reached the extent of the capital Of any
Of the old and respectable stock companies, then,
too, their decision might com mand respect and re-
ceive consideration But when they ccnfound
those who take no risks with those who do, and
then, by mode Of logic which they may UNDER
stand better themselves than their report teach
others to comprehend, they say that both have the
same title to the same thing, although the chief
ration, is the risk assumed. t,f the wisdom and
equity Of their concluson let the public decide. II
the above remarks do not prove that much, If not
al! Of whst is divided is Iscsived by the parties
of such division, it Is not too much to say thatit is
capable OF proof and if 80, where 10 the right OF
any one to hold property for which he gave mo-
thing, either in capital or risk, and which no one
" This is yours give il TO you" II would some
what resemble that Of the builder who first makes
charge for the house he has erected, and on the
payment Of his demand alleges that it is his, be-
cause, forsooth, he 10 the architect.


The plea Of nearly six years usage, gravey put
forth BY the committee, 10 but poor reason, It 1t
indeed 10 any reason, tor their extraordinary dcc;-
sion. II usage il founded in injustice, age can
not lend it respectaby, should its years shield
it from merlted contempt or timely annihilation.


With the question whether the premiums are
higher, or the security fully equal to that OF other
companies, have nothing to do, nor did it,. in
my humble opinion. come properly within the range
Of the commitec's decislon. 1t their feeble apo
Iogy for the agents retaining part Of his princi-
pals proft--becallse the rate first charged is no
higher, and the security NO worse, than in other
companies. A feeble apology, indeed! and strange
to do his best for the interest of owner, and who
thinks he has fully discharged the trust, when his
outlay for the same thing 10 just little his next
neighbors, while Ut the same time he could, If ne
made il much less. ass asis


With agreements, in particular cases, OF course
no one has any thing to do, save the parties Them
selves and with regard to them there can be but
one decisien that is to enforce the compliance Of