tioned at the time. Not one of these has passed out of existence, or seems likely to do so; not more than one or two have proved, in their dealings with their policy-holders, unworthy of the estimate we then gave of them. There is not one of the remaining ten of which it can be justly said that it has deprived the widow or the orphan of one dollar which it was legitimately and fairly bound to pay one or the other. The principles which these companies enunciated ten years ago as the basis of their action are the principles which they enunciate to-day. If any have changed their course towards their policy-holders, the change has been for the better; the general result to all has been a decided improvement. We place the reports of two at the head of this article for the purpose of quoting from them, not because the companies which make them-though unsurpassed in excellence—are better than the others, but because they discuss the subject of insurance more fully-because the views they put forward and the precepts they inculcate, are also those with very little, if any, modificationof the other companies of their class. This will become sufficiently evident as we proceed. Thus, take as an illustration the views of the New England Mutual on the surrender values of policies:

"An absolnte surrender can be made of the policy only in cases when the persons interested can assign their rights to the Company. A person who has insured for his own benefit has at any time the right of surrender, and even where the policy is for the benefit of a wife the Company will accept the joint rece pt of a husband and wife in full discharge of their interest. But when a policy has been made for the benefit of minor children, it cannot be surrendered upon any terms. This subject is now alluded to, that persons at a distance from the home office who transact their business through agents, or by correspondence with the officers of the Company, may understand the full bearing of a contract made with the Company by them for the benefit of wives and children."--Page 12.

This is straightforward and just, but it is equally applicable to the Manhattan Life, the Phoenix Mutual, the Equitable, and several other companies of this honorable class, which we could mention. The powers and privileges conferred on agents and sub-agents by the New England Mutual, will also be found to be almost identical with those of all other companies, that mean to be honest and to continue stable Thus the directors proceed:

"It being taken for granted that the applicant for insurance can read, write, and think, it becomes important for the agent, or solicitor, in accepting an application, and the applicant himself to know that what has been signed and witnessed is a warranty to the Company that the facts therein stated, upon which the Company is to issue its contract, is absolutely true. It is not a mere representation of facts, to the best of the applicant's knowledge, but a clear, distinct avowal that the Com pany is possessed of all the information that can possibly be had. If a fact is mis

stated or concealed, the Company assumes a risk when it insures upon such an application, for which the rate of premium chargeable to a person in ordinary health will not afford due compensation. If an applicant should omit to state so unimportant a fact to him as that he had not within a certain period employed a physician, he thereby warrants the truth of his statement, even though the disease for which he was treated may not have any bearing upon the acceptance or rejection of the risk. A person of ordinary business habits, who knows that what he puts his hand to he must stand by, has no conception of the danger he runs when he conceals or mis-tates any fact in an appl cation for Ife insurance. Such an act is sure not only to imperil the existence of the policy, but may bring want upon innocent parties for whose benefit the premiums have been paid.”

Had those companies which have either given up the ghost altogether, or transmigrated, pursued this honest course, they might have possessed an independent existence to-day, since the companies which do so-such as the Knickerbocker, the New York Continental, the New York National, the Guardian, the North America and United States, etc. prove their vitality even while they seem most assailed by difficulties. It is pleasant to add that in the same report we have a new illustration of the adage "honesty is the best policy," thus:—

"The Company has paid out the past year upon two hundred and twenty-three policies, the sum of $670,283.00, and there are falling due within the next sixty days $102,730.00 upon thirty-nine policies, making a total of $773,013.00 upon two hundred and sixty-two policies, against $875,315.00 upon two hundred and seventy-two policies, in the year preceding. There have also been paid $33,100.00 upon fourteen matured endowments, against $36,000.00 upon nine policies, in 1871. The total amount paid in 1872, is $806, 113.00 against $911,315.00 in 1871."

No one who reflects can fail to regard as a beneficent institution one which has paid such sums to widows and orphans within the two past years; and yet, as we shall see presently, there are several other companies that have adduced arguments equally solid and noble in favor of life insurance.

But first let us turn for a moment to the report of the president of the Mutual Benefit. More than once we have compared the reports of this gentleman with those of the president of the New England Mutual. In each we are always sure to find sound, honest thoughts on life insurance. Mr. Grover as well as Mr. Stevens gives us many such on the present occasion. That the following is of this character will be readily admitted, especially by editors:

"Experience and observation show that the purest minds need often to be 'stirred up by way of remembrance.' What seems to some the plainest and most easily remembered truths, are obscure and most easily forgotten by others. It is a conceded fact that it is only by 'line upon line and precept upon precept' that the best of human beings are kept in the path of duty."

Still truer is this of "the worst of human beings." We could mention quite a score of presidents whom no amount of lines or precepts could keep in the path of duty-presidents who hate lines and precepts, except those in their praise, as much as Satan is said to hate holy water, or as much as the provost of the University of Pennsyl vania hates Latin ! But Mr. Grover by no means forgets this interesting class. After showing the large increase of mortality during the

past year, and its chief causes, he proceeds:

"There is reason to believe that when the experience of the life companies for the year is collected, it will furnish the strongest argument against the proposition recently made to reduce the premium rate on life policies; a subject which so greatly excited the insurance interest a short time since. Certainly no company or association of companies in this country has had the experience necessary to make so radical a change."

But this is not all. Mr. Grover first shows very truly what the Mutual Benefit has been doing since its organization for its policy holders; then he points out certain things which it has not done, thus::

"None of its assets were invested in hazardous or speculative securities. No Director or Officer was allowed to receive commissions on business or loans, nor have any of them acquired wealth in its service. The Association has acted as a kind and faithful friend rather than a rigid and exacting task-master."

race.

This seems to show that Mr. Grover has not before his eyes the fear of libel suits. But gentlemen of the bar are not generally a timid Besides, we believe, there is no Bastile at Newark-no “sponging house." The little State of New Jersey may be mocked at as out of the Union, but she clings to no institution abolished in all the principal monarchical countries of Europe more than a century ago. Doubtless Mr. Grover feels perfectly safe, therefore, in giving free expression to his opinions.

We may remark in passing, that were we vindictive we should rather thank, than blame, Mr. Winston for his libel suits. This all our insurance readers know; but our readers in general are not aware that for the many years during which the editor of the Insurance Times was the henchman and special champion of Mr. Winston and the Mutual Life, none were more grossly abused by him than we. The slightest criticism on either the president or his company was sure to bring on our head a torrent of the vilest abuse, precisely such as we have received from the quack doctors, and from the worthy organs of superstition, bigotry and intolerance. Not only would the gentleman now in our New York Bastile throw all sorts of filth at us with his own hand to please those whom we had criticised, but also make his paper

the vehicle of the similar garbage heaped up by others. Thus, for example, a sort of sheet got up by the Traveller's Insurance Company, exactly on the plan of the similar sheets of the quack doctors and manufacturers of patent medicines, would contain a column of such low abuse of us as a decent fish-woman would blush to own as illustrative of her vocabulary. Several copies of this were sent to our office duly marked; the same thing was scattered broadcast in the railway cars, stations, e'c. Lest all this might not be enough, he who was so long the ardent admirer and zealous champion-not to say the hired bully— of Mr. Winston, and who now avows a much worse opinion of him than we ever entertained or expressed, would copy the whole thing into his paper!

To this day we have never condescended to make any reply to his attacks, or to any such. But we think it is sufficiently clear that were we spiteful we should regard the course of Mr. Winston only as a manifestation of retributive justice, especially as-so far as we are aware-he has never interfered in any manner with ourselves. Mr. Winston has certainly never threatened us. It is true, upon the other hand, that we have never for one moment entertained any malice against him. When editors criticise, there are always those who will say that it is because they have not got patronage; because their "little bill" has not been paid, etc. But the Mutual Life was the first of all insurance companies to patronize the National Quarterly. We found fault with some of the calculations of the Mutual on "the expectation of life"; and its huge advertisement was withdrawn. That it had a perfect right to withdraw we have never denied; and since we have never to this day called on its president; never spoken to him on any subject; since, so far as we are aware, he has never treated us with any discourtesy, there has been no reason, at any time, why we should speak of himself or his company otherwise than, as we thought, fairly and justly. Nor have we ever done so, however severe we may have seemed on some occasions.

We have said that, far from threatening or insulting us, Mr. Winston has never treated us with the slightest incivility; and we may add that none of his colleagues have treated us differently. But could we say the same of all underwriters whom we have criticised? There are several companies now extinct whose officers have threatened us again and again, in every way; but our readers know whether it is likely that any of them have ever succeeded in frightening us. We understood all about the Bastile three months ago, nay, ten years ago,

just as well as we do now. But we were equally familiar with the fact that a large proportion of the world's most eminent thinkers, philosophers, poets, and scientific discoverers, as well as editors and critics, have been inmates of still worse dungeons. Nor can we accuse the president of the Mutual Life of any marked proneness to libel suits, since one swallow makes no summer, even though it be a very noisy swallow-one that makes a greater fuss than a dozen of discreet, sensible swallows. We can hardly be said, therefore, to be merely selfish in inviting the earnest attention of those of our readers who have power and influence to our Ludlow street Bastile, since as long as it exists there is no one so rich or so scrupulously upright-let his business be what it may-that he can say he may not one day find himself immured within its walls. For be it remembered that editors are liable to be placed there only in common with men of any other profession or calling, who may be required to give security for a larger amount of money than thelr friends may be able or willing to become their sureties for. Thus the institution is not only a satire on our boasted liberty of the press and freedom of thought; it is a satire on the right which every man is supposed to have in this country, to the enjoyment of his personal liberty until he shall have been proved guilty of crime by due process of

law.

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? Sup posing 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 giant's strength (especially in the form of wealth), use it like a giant in oppressing the weak!

Be this as it may, we think the course of the other companies mentioned above in the same category with the New England Mutual and the Mutual Benefit, is much more compatible with the benevolent object and tendency of life insurance. This is eminently true, for example, of that of the Manhattan Life. The officers