342 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



cent ; that her husband got his policy by fraud although no indi- 

 cation of his physical disorder appeared to any of the numerous offi- 

 cers employed by the company for its own protection, when he made 

 his application, and by geueral reports he was (and believed himself to 

 be) a sound man. 



He assures her that they want to be generous rather than just, and 

 if she will sign a release, or " compromise," she will be given a small 

 part of the sum named in the policy. He makes her feel the necessity 

 of keeping this bargain a secret, lest other policy-holders object to the 

 company paying anything on the life of one who "attempted a fraud" 

 upon them ! He impresses upon her that in case of contest she could 

 get absolutely nothing ; that she is poor, and the company is rich 

 and strong ; and if he fails to arouse her gratitude for his generosity 

 in offering to pay her anything whatever, he usually succeeds in in- 

 timidating her in her poverty and distress. A sparrow in the hand is 

 worth more than an eagle on Mount Washington to a widow with a 

 hungry family, especially if the eagle has successfully maimed his pur- 

 suer in the beginning of the flight. 



The company knows this. The widow knows it. The conclusion 

 is therefore certain before the premises are stated, and the " compro- 

 mise " is made or the claim quietly dropped. It is easy to say that a 

 man died of some bad habit unknown to his family, and his family 

 would rather forego their claim than drag into light, or into disgrace, 

 the memory of the loved dead. All this is well understood by those 

 on the " inside," and by thousands of sad hearts that dare not speak. 

 Is there no remedy for all this ? Is there no way that a useful and 

 powerful business can be rid of features which make it both dangerous 

 and ghoulish ? 



The recent steps taken by the best companies are undoubtedly in 

 the right direction, as those still using the old forms of contract will 

 sooner or later learn. But there is room yet for improvement even in 

 the best forms written to-day. The fairest insurance contract written 

 still has room for improvement. 



Is there no way to protect these great corporations against the 

 frauds of individuals, and at the same time protect the individual 

 against the frauds of the corporations ? 



Must life-insurance contracts be absolutely one-sided, and that be 

 the side of the strong against the weak ; the guarded against the 

 unguarded ; the living against the dead ? It seems to me that this is 

 wholly unnecessary. A life-insurance company which has the agents, 

 the doctors, the medical directors, and inspectors all on its side can 

 well afford to offer a fair field a plain, fair contract to its patrons, 

 and then pay its debts like any other debtor when its obligation falls 

 due. If it can not find out within a year (with all the machinery in 

 its own hands), and while the man is alive, that he is a bad risk, it is 

 too late to make the discovery after he is dead. If the indications are 



