199
*in need
SAY Ni Mp
T
wem with four Promes 9 No
CI
haltbare esle quot one star) 471
of enktalu
vragonų tarifas eld
➡tannbhatt out webre "Ima
AUD
{
nem enba
brt
mile to moitanchfaron not
@omanibro
enoltooido dalu Are
«mnot arnauta atë mă și DJ
Nathy Non videnekhango manung binow vi furozonit qui hest
sit to tont add to ante el videtorq bna Inaaqolb or an over
cult nowt berinoh atitoned cd? wel amoond thao" In sad ournaibxQ
boyformi trossi era delu statiratansoori ed h[vow notarinɛlb
dro dużo of "browon ffeu de di na
diwears moitoernoo miniog tok o one to ret a vitaind
waef vote mente notatge to risponde al mautok daftium veVI
snl moltsfaizal vd Ste betotnetul sme eninsamen sorpUURI
-bolidng 266ding of evty of balfagron etc tote bebienta t
ne jenetiand shade to touhnen eric ban aharlton winds vê vê- MEMATIKAN faldira et braget dein soitarny wit goed nas nisi
fale bobegnoo ed aum
Sard maiub Web bolten
sreet (F dasa orl 102 eolasqnos
Text ri sonic eti to exotain. ons
period fully bears out this view, only one company that was
solvent at the time of the passing of the Life Assurance Con-
-panies Act of 1870 (which might be called the "Publicity Act")
having since become insolvent with loss to its policy holders,
In America on the other hand and more recently in Canda the
practice has been to introduce more and more stringent legisla-
-tion governing Life Assurance Companies, and to adopt a fixed
Standard of Solvency. The result in their case has not been so
happy, as witness the recent scandals affecting some of the
greatest American Companies and the still further restrictive
legislation that has ensued.
A high authority writing on the subject of
American State Supervision states that "it is an unquestionable
fact that no less than half a dozen companies in the State of
New York alone which but for the interference of the State were
destined to a long career of usefulness were destroyed by it".
And an American writer in the Cyclopedia
of Political Science also asserts that "the tendency of State
Supervision is to interfere injuriously with honest and well
conducted companies and to afford but a feeble protection
against those of a different class - to lessen the sense of
responsibility among those who control the offices and the
spirit of prudence and watchfulness among the public and to
place in the hands of public officials a power and influence
which are apt to be abused and which are always open to
suspicion".
The chief arguments against Government
Supervision and a fixed standard of solvency are:-
1st. It does not lead to a real increase of strength.
Either the Standard is so severe that many companies
who are not strong are driven into liquidation
disastrous thing for the policy holders, whereas
under a system of Publicity and freedom they might be
honourably transferred -or the Standard is low and
a
most