The Press Tuesday, February 24, 1931. Earthquake Insurance.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20170, 24 February 1931, Page 8

The Press Tuesday, February 24, 1931. Earthquake Insurance.

J# print to-day a letter from a corfflrespondent who suggests that the State IrFire Office, instead of voluntarily meeting the claims for fire caused by earthquake in Hawke's Bay, is meeting thein because it has no option. Sis argumentia that the proprietary companies-have expressly protected theinaelves against liability for fire caused, by earthquake, and that the State Oiftoe has not. Until the San Francisco earthquake, he says, it was the belief .of all companies that their policies this risk. After the i earthquake ■ it was discovered that liability had not been excluded, and j as a result the large British and American- companies concerned paid 60 millions sterling for fire damagenot throngh public spirit, or generosity, but because they were "legally liable." Since then, he goes on to say, the proprietary companies have protected themselves, while the State Office, when the Hawke's Bay earthquake came, had got ho further than <f intending to exclude; " earthquake damage and fire damage " resulting fsrom earthquake." In reply to all this the State Office, in a statement which :we print as a footnote to our correspondent's letter, says that the exemption clause " excludes acts "of God to the same extent" in both cases. This is a flat contradiction of our correspondent's argument, and it is quite impossible that the matter should rest there. We would not print such charges as our correspondent makes unless he were in a position to make them with more than ordinary authority. On the other hand the State Office is so definite in its denial of a variation that the public are entitled clear statement from the Government.' It will not be denied, whether the pffice has or has not advertised the fact that it was paying, " out for fire damage in the earthquake that it-has praised "dfer its <K>nduc6»in the jnatter, and ,tsat the proprietary by comparison Jiave'been placed In onlight - This is an extremely unpleasant situation il the facts are as our correspondent suggests, and it should" quite easy for* the State Office to prove our- correspondent Jwrong If jte actually is wrong. It ha# iperely to spyl (1) whether • the StateOffice has, .like .offices, wagons the purpose and effect of the change : secure against liability for' fir© L op earthquake. ' the Prime A csbls wssage to-day announces the "lty&gpifyfa whop,Mr Cbaries Chaplin has £Svnt|i/to, % '^l:acrßenin§. of r th«v iW'^Et^ b iSFD^jr.^A list ,th& ; Of-'eourse • about m . of twenty B. V. J? > oinfc , tM tlie gougl fcdig. fgw <rpakto|f everybody f a BTe ßfc styieter, of < the old secrets of of a new thra/his,.Mn»que ims: explained,/and imitated; ;but it, aq4,¥»mit«ble, if ;fipgy ■ in. detail a cgmifl congeplian which has the breadth jmd,smpliflity and individuality* of that; force,,which 'fef«lt,'Bwa 'tei(»TSJ» through its «flteot . tectoigue bag of tricks. But terms what Chaplin has done , fy.WMj personality two , sternal 4fqhi<v sources. - One is' the 1 whuiiy JBke that of Pickwick, j 4dfiujas, p^Do^'Quixote, in- J vitas :«|Il the ridicule of a ] world. The othoc is, that of the J like Sganarellej j of . wKo always extricate j from bhaplin, was ( tbis character— % ,fhe % only character shat the screen has 1 prttduoedr-insfoad. of playing parts; ,to the gallery, , ' of universal i efaajjkflgives. - But J*>pdon, which bore i wiil Mtfays J ftn; th£t .reason 1 1

Politics and Principle. 3 It is not surprising that. Bishop Crotty, as reported in our cables to-day, should _ have chosen to devote a Lenten Pastoral at Bath,ursfc Cathedral to a denunciation of the character of politics in his s country and the apparent lack of principle in many of its politicians. Whatever else may be obscure or uncertain ■- in the Commonwealth, it is at least e plain that the politician has not only Sr failed, but that many thoughtful people y revise how badly he has failed,.and - what failure has cost. This does : not i. mean, however, that 'Australian poEy ticians are guilty of the sin described j by an English preacher as " the cult of 0 "politics divorced from principles." a Possibly it is true that, in Bismarck's ! biting phrase, "hardly fifty of them 3 "know what they are doing; and even | r "among these fifty, thirty are ambis " tious and conscienceless' rogues, or j. "comedians puffed out with vanity."} | but not all of Australia's army of 1 legislators have divorced themselves j from principle. Many are just as much distressed as Bishop Grotty over the drift of politics in the Commonwealth, and if they could they would act at once as the demand for high principle in politics urges them to act. j If they are unable to do so, it is bek cause Democracy has made them the ; victims of a political machine and cer- ' tain special evils of Party control. As everybody knows, electors everywhere, do not always choose their politicians in obedience to principle. They are I frequently careless even of the special ' qualifications of candidates. Members ■ of Parliament and administrators are 1 chosen, notbecause they. are-competent ; but for any one or more of fifty [ irrelevant reasons; and the wider and easier the ;franchise, the greater the ' risks of keeping the- best talent of a community out of the Legislature. ' Until the principle of selection has been raised it will.be idle to hope for a higher standard pf character in • politics.- , . -