THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1906.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXVIII, Issue 7974, 27 February 1906, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1906.

A Press Association telegram received yesterday stated that as the outcome of the Conference oE Fire Insurance Company Managers it was probable that the premiums on certain cHsses of ridka would be reduced, but that it was considered that the premiums in regard to dwelling houses were at as low a rate as it was possible to accept from a business point of view. Nearly every day we have instances of. the poor paying for the dishonest, of the provident paying for the improvi-

dent, apart altogether from the matter of contributing to the relief of the poor. A forcible example is to hand wherever business is done. Jones, we will say, outers into busineaa a 9 a trocar, or a butcher, or a bootmaker, and, when considering what he should charge his Customers, he puts on so much extra for "bad debts." The two great objections to Jones's system are these- (1) be penalises the honest man who does not buy without knowing that he can or will be able to pay for the goods tLiat he is purchasing, and (2) Jones is inclined to bo oareleas and to give credit indiscriminately because he know 9 that he has made allowance in his business for bad debts.

Now, there is nothing reprehensble in Jones's system; nothing of which be needs to oe ashamed. It is purely a matter of business, of oommon-sanse, and quite in accord with the honesty of the strictest moralist that he should charge such prices for his goods as will result; in his securing a fair share of profit, all trading possibilities be ing fairly taken into consideration, j Jones himself suffers under the system which be carefully elaborates for others. There la nothing reprehensible in Jones's action, but, at the same time, a system that is I not reprehensible may be inadvisable, and in so far as the said Jones' s system is concerned, it is exceptionally inadvisable. The system is inadvisable beoause it devises protection for a minority, whereas strong efforts should be made not merely to lessen, but to obliterate the minority referred to. It is a body of persons comprised chiefly of those of unscrupulous character. "Bad debts" are by no manner of means poor people—as a rule they are unsafe puloua people. Smith owes his butcher £o. and the races come round once more. Smith has £5, and be wants to take his wife to the races an 3 to have "a jolly good day out." So be goes; he loses his £5, and bor<rows from a friend, and in the end he returns home, say, £7 iu debt. If he haa paid his butcher in the morning, and refrained from going to the racea, he would have been "all square" at the end of the day. Sra,itb is oertainly not a desirable customer from Jones's point of view. Briefly, w,e think, the general position is this—the poor brut nonedt people pay their debts, while the poor but unscrupulous people leave their debts to obher people to

pay. ! * * * ■* * The foregoing may seem rather an extraordinary digression from the question of Are insurance rates, but the careful reader will have noted the analogy which we wish to emphasise. Carelessness in accepting risks (just as carelessness in giving credit in ordinary everyday trade) results iu honest people having to pay higherjratea than would otherwise be the case. Domestic risks should unquestionably be the safest risks in any community of honest people. And so far as towns are concerned they are exceptionally good "lines." Let us instance our own town of Masterton. How many dwelling houses have been deahoyed by fire in the past five years? How many pounds have been naid in premiums during that period? The high rates of private insurance companies led to the establishment of that undesirable institution,;■ the State Fire Insurance Department. But how did these high rates come into existenoe? Our answer is ohiefly through carelessness and dishonesty. The manner iu oases in which risks are accepted is not only crude in the extreme, but one that must be condemned from the point of view of the honest "proponent." * * * * * Assuming, for the sake of sweet charity, that every fire outside of the cities that occurs is purely accidental, there are two facts that generally cannot be disputed—(l) that the building was insured for a sum in excess of what it should have been and (2) that the agent who took the risk did not personally inspect it before recommending Jt to hia company. No property should be insured to an extent whioh is either calculated to make th 9 owner

careless as to whether it is destroyed by fire, or to an extent which may, in adverse circumstances, prove an incentive to him to commit a crime. If more care were exercised, and less risk accepted by agents generally iu connection with dwelling houses we should find the rate of insurance lower compared with tbooe at v presenfc paid. Care lessness on the part of the ' agent, and dishonesty on,the part of many of those insured, keep the' rates up, while the honest man "pay-3 the piper." But the question is not all over. A Conference of Managers may say that "domestic rates" cannot be further lowered, but we aau point to the State Fire Insurance Department, which has been established iu face of the fact that "the insuranee buainesß has barely paid" for some years past—an assertion that has been made—and we venture to Bay that the insurance Company which adopts a most rigid and careful inspection of risks will, at least, do .better than its rivals, and will probably be able to give the public better terraa.