A REPLY.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 166, 25 July 1901, Page 3

A REPLY.

v,To the Editor of the Times.)

Sir, —I w’ould like to inform “ Sine Qua Non ” thafTl do not profess, as he seems to suppose, to be the father of The Workmen’s Compensation for Accidents Act, any more than I profess to be the father of Fire Insurance. What I do claim with regard to Fire Insurance is to be the originator of the idea in the State Firo Insurance Bill, which holds every owner of insurable property to be insured subject to the payment of a premium on demand—in proportion to the value of distructable property owned and risk of fire—to meet claims arising from fires. Thus while everyone’s property would bo held insured they would only have to contribute a sura sufficient to' meet’all claims that arose." That is of course after a sufficient fund had been accumulated to assure olaims being promptly paid. Thus once a fund has been accumulated, if no fires occurred no premiums would reqqjrc to be paid. I do not think “ Sine Qua Non ” can find this idea in any work on fir<j insurance. Likewise, all I profess with regard 'to aocident insurance is to be able to expound a scheme of collecting the premiums, which, if adopted, would result in a saving to the country of from 25 per cent, to 30 per cent, per annum while yielding the same nett premium income out of which to pay claims as the present system ox aocident insurance, and this,' tod, irrespective of whether' the employer or employee, or both jointly, paid the premiums, though, personally, I may mention that I consider the employees should pay tho premiums, as the burden would fall lighter on them on acoount of their number,—l am, etc., 0. P, W« Lqkgpimh