صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

century it was used in the churches in all the principal cities of Europe, and we read that Constantine Copronymus, the Greek emperor, presented one to King Pepin in 755.

It is a matter of some doubt and controversy who were the first successful manufacturers of the organ in the United States. But it is, we believe, generally acknowledged that among those that have been most prominent in introducing it and perfecting improvements in it are the firm of George Woods & Co., of Cambridgeport, Mass. Mr. Woods, who is remarkably ingenious and possesses mechanical skill of a high order, has devoted the greater part of his life to developing the resources of the instrument, and having been fortunate enough to have associated with him the possessor of a considerable fortune, he has succeeded in building up an establishment which produces a larger number of ininstruments annually than any other house in this country-instruments which, like the Steinway pianos, have a European fame, and are also in more or less demand in all the South American states, including Brazil. Those well competent to judge inform us that the most attractive and characteristic feature of the Woods instrument is the "combination solo stop." This, it is claimed, imparts to their instrument a wonderful capacity for blending the piano stop with some of the more delicate reed stops, while facilitating several other beautiful combinations and variations. Let the secret of the matter be what it may, it is certain that the Woods organ has a tone of remarkable sweetness, and a richness and tenderness of melody possessed by few if any other parlor organs. We shall never forget how much delighted we were one spring morning, some three years ago, when a Boston lady, distinguished alike for her musical and literary talents, sang some verses, in the original, from Frieligrath's beautiful lyric Der Blumen Rache (the Revenge of the Flowers), accompanying herself on a Woods organ.

The whole performance made such an impression on us that we cannot forbear transcribing here the lines in the rendering of which both the instrument and the voice of the fair and gifted performer appeared to best advantage, and most charming:

"Mädchen, Mädchen! von der Erde,

Hast du grausam uns glussen,
Dass wir in der bunten Scherbe
Schmacten, welken, sterten mussen !"*

* Maiden, maiden! thou hast torn us
From the earth, that, 'neath thine eye,

In yon gaily painted chalice,

We may languish, fade and die!

APPENDIX-INSURANCE: GOOD, BAD AND INDIFFERENT.

1. Proceedings in the Great Insurance Libel Case. 2. Reports of Legislative Committee. 3. Chamber of Life Insurance.

In the palmiest days of Life Insurance there was but little done at midsummer, and the present season forms no exception to the rule, if it be not, indeed, the dullest we have had for a dozen years. Still, at no time during this period had we more faith in the future of life insurance than we have at this moment. We cannot wonder if, judging by the experience of the past year or two, many regard this as paradoxical. But a little reflection will fully sustain us in our view of the case. Be it remembered that no worse catastrophes have occurred than we had predicted many a time as inevitable. To us there is nothing strange or unaccountable, therefore, in the fact that during the last three years not fewer than twenty-six life companies, each of which had been lauded to the skies as "beneficent," "solid," "established on a firm basis," etc., have ceased to exist. Their having continued to exist would have been the strange, unaccountable thing; a sad commentary on the intelligence and perception of our people. Such a result would also have seemed to show that our criticisms were unjust, and that we deserved to be ranked among the false prophets, since there is not a single one of any prominence of all the companies that have passed out of existence against which we had not, again and again, warned the public, as having never been otherwise than in a moribund condition.

Our wonder is, then, not that so many have died, but that so many of the same class, whose false pretensions we have also denounced many a time, and whose untimely death we have declared certain, still manage to eke out a nominal existence. Those of our old readers who still honor us with their attention to our views need not be informed that there is not one of the extinct companies in defence of whose "integrity," "beneficence," "stability," etc., we have not been more or less abused by the bullies of the insurance press. It is but fair to admit, however, that lately we have been allowed considerable immunity in this respect. For every dozen loads of garbage flung at us some years ago there is scarcely half a load now. Not but the bullies are as ready and willing as ever to do their dirty work, but their employers have learned that in our case that sort of tactics does not pay. Independently of this fact there are few so stupid as not to have discovered by this time that companies elaborately "defended" by those insurance journalists who claim to be at the head of their craft, are to be looked upon with suspicion on that very account. Nay, whenever a eulogy of unusual length and fervor is seen now in one of those pamphlets, the most casual observers begin to ask each other, what is wrong?

[ocr errors]

66

This has become so notorious of late that even those having the strongest stomach for praise have become somewhat shy of it. This is true even of the managers of the Mutual Life, for whatever may be the weaknesses of Mr. Winston and one or two of his colleagues, in regard to the difference between meum and tuum, they are shrewd enough to understand that even their favorite "whitewashing" contrivance may be so overdone as to do them more harm than good. True, this seems somewhat inconsistent with one or two of their recent performances, to which we will presently give some attention. The uninitiated would scarcely believe that the chief cause of that unfortunate libel suit was the altered sentiment on the part of the distinguished plaintiff as to the value in hard cash of the "first-rate notices" and "complete vindications" of insurance editors. Yet we know no theory of the unhappy 'difficulty" between the Mutual laird and his oft and well-tried" henchman that rests on so strong a basis. Thus, for example, if we are to believe the most reliable accounts that have reached us, there was a time-quite a long periodwhen an attack of even ordinary ferocity on us, in defence of the superior plans of the Mutual Life, and in vindication of the spotless integrity and fathomless skill of its chief manager, brought the individual who made it a hundred dollars and upwards, according to the number of strong epithets which it contained. We are assured that in some instances the great insurance Mokanna paid $500 apiece ($10 a line) for performances of this kind. Now, when it is known that other fault-finders have been favored like ourselves in this way, it will not be difficult to understand that it was a very provoking thing on the part of Mr. Winston to say to his worthy henchman: "Well, 'tis no use. You must see yourself that if your onslaughts have any effect whatever on the National Quarterly, it is only to stimulate it to ridicule us more and more." Henchman-"I don't see anything of the kind. You never laid out $500 better in your life. Suppose we cannot frighten the Quarterly; can't we make people believe that it is only slandering you out of spite and malice ?" "But see what the newspapers throughout the country say of its criticisms on us. If so many companies had not failed as the Quarterly predicted they would, while not one of the companies in which it has expressed its faith has either failed or suffered much in its reputation-then you might be able to do us some good in this way. As it is we must try some other plan."

Very soon after this it was discovered that more than we had ever said, and been abused so much for saying, of the Mutual and its chief manager was strictly true. Of course the latter was brimful of indignation. His other organs, delighted at the turn things had taken, published homilies in all their issues on the "base ingratitude" of their confrère. There was nobody like Winston-such an epitome of all the Christian virtues-so perfect a model of an underwriter; so gen

erous and noble a protector of the widow and the orphan! And how vile must be the person-can he be anything better than a demon ?— who would turn on such a man-nay such a benefactor of mankind! True, in all this there was nothing new-not as much as a word. All had been said and resaid in every mood and tense by the same individual, now become the "Judas Iscariot" of insurance editors.

No wonder that the head of poor Winston, never a very strong caput, except in cogitating on long purses filled by widows and orphans against their will, was turned at this juncture. Nothing less imposing than a libel surt on a large scale would assuage his wrath. Our readers may remember that, with our usual benevolence, we warned him against the libel plan, telling him that of all his whitewashing performances it would prove the most useless, or rather the most mischievous and deplorable in its results. But no use. When the ire of doughty men is once kindled it cannot be extinguished until it does mischief to one side or the other. In the case under consideration it has had this effect on each side, but it is certain that the wounds it has inflicted on its own side will prove the most difficult to heal.

Before we proceed to show those who may not be aware of all the facts how this has happened, we think it proper to remark that now, as on former occasions, we make a distinction between the Mutual Life and those numerous companies whose early demise we have predicted from time to time. We have never represented that company as insolvent, or in a moribund condition. We have only represented it as badly and not very honestly managed. Instead of comparing it with the dead or dying companies, we have always compared it with the best, although only by way of contrast. It is scarcely necessary for us to mention here the companies with which we have been contrasting the Mutual Life for twelve years past. Surely our readers must know them by this time, for their characters remain unchanged. What we said of them, three, five, seven or eleven years ago, is confessedly as true of them to-day as it was then. If there is any difference it is one in their favor; time has developed more and more the good qualities and characteristics for which we gave them credit at the outset.

But may we not say, upon the other hand, that time has also developed the bad qualities which we attributed to the Mutual. Life a dozen years ago, and often since? In other words, can it be denied that the contrast alluded to has been growing wider and wider to this day?

We have remarked, however, that we have not been in the habit of numbering the Mutual Life among the dead or insolvent. But what does constant bad management tend to? If it be true, as the poet tells us, that the paths of glory lead but to the grave, still more true is it that the paths of false glory, the paths of avarice and greed, the paths of vulgar clap-trap and spurious kalsomining lead but to that goal. It follows, then, that such is the tendency of the Mutual Life at this

moment, and the fact will be the more easily understood, and the more readily admitted if it be borne in mind that the peculiarly favorable circumstances under which that company was built up and enriched no longer exist. We have shown more than once in these pages that while there was little or no active competition, and while the public had but a vague knowledge of life insurance, but almost unbounded faith in fair speeches and fine promises in regard to its wonderful virtues, the Mutual did a flourishing business. We have also shown that as soon as these advantages ceased to exist as soon as the public became familiar with the characters of companies like the Manhattan Life, the New England Mutual, the Equitable, the Phoenix Mutual, the Mutual Benefit, etc., etc.-learning, at the same time, how much more magnificent are the promises and pretensions of the Mutual than its performances, that company commenced at once, while making the most desperate efforts to conceal the fact, to exhibit to the careful observer those marks of decay which are now visible to the most short-sighted.

On some occasions we have taken the liberty of offering friendly advice to the Mutual Life, as well as to other companies, although we thought it more likely to be rejected than accepted. As already remarked, we have done so in regard to the great libel case, telling Mr. Winston that he could hardly engage in a more foolish enterprise. When we ventured to predict that no good would result from it, either to the Mutual Life or its manager, no petition had been sent to the legislature by the incarcerated alleged libeller-no investigation had been ordered by that body. At this stage of the great libel case we wrote for our March number as follows:

"But there is another view of such cases as the particular one referred to. Who will say that Mr. Winston has done himself, or the Mutual Life, any good by his eight libel suits against his former retainer and champion? Does any one think the more highly of president, or company, on account of them? Is it likely that any one will, when all are brought to an issue, if they ever are? Supposing that a verdict were obtained to-morrow in favor of the Mutual Life and its president-a contingency not in the least probable-would it not be dearly bought? Would it not prove the most useless of all the 'whitewashing processes' ever attempted by Mr. Winston? for the American people have far too much generosity not to frown grimly on those who, having a g ant's strengh (especially in the form of wealth), use it like a giant in oppressing the weak!"

Has this been verified since, or has it not? Time has proved the correctness of our views in this case pretty nearly as fully as it has in the cases of the numerous companies whose death we had confidently predicted, often years before it occurred, and without any pretensions to the miraculous, or to any more "occult science" than mathematics and logic, as we practise them at our private desk, without the aid of spy or "own correspondent." But what is the proof that we were right when we penned the above passage? Let the majority Report of the Committee on Grievances appointed by the legislature answer the question.

VOL. XXVII.-NO. LIII.

13

« السابقةمتابعة »