The Spirit of 1906 | Page 8

comment. A few
similar instances might be recorded but they are best forgotten.
This meeting also made history. It levied the first assessment of $40 per
share on the six thousand shares of capital stock of the corporation.
This would bring in $240,000 and was subsequently followed, month
by month, by seven others, until the total assessment had reached $305
per share, amounting in all to $1,830,000, of which $1,800,000, or 98
per cent, to the everlasting glory of the stockholders of the California,
be it said, was paid.
The resolution bringing this about was as follows:
"Notice is hereby given that at a meeting of the directors held on the
11th day of May, 1906, an assessment of forty (40) dollars per share
was levied upon the capital stock of the corporation payable on or
before the 13th day of June, 1906, to Mark L. Gerstle, assistant
secretary, at the principal place of business of the corporation, No.

2350 Washington street, San Francisco, Cal. Any stock upon which this
assessment shall remain unpaid on the 13th day of June, 1906, will be
delinquent and will be advertised for sale at public auction, and unless
payment is made before will be sold on the 2d day of July, 1906, at 2
o'clock p. m. to pay the delinquent assessment, together with cost of
advertising and expenses of sale."

The "'Dollar for Dollar" Resolution

It became my duty to inform the directors that a meeting of the
representatives of all the fire insurance companies interested in the
conflagration was called for an early date at Reed's Hall, Oakland, and
that I understood the principal object of this meeting was to secure an
expression of opinion as to the method to be adopted in settling San
Francisco losses, whether seventy-five cents on the dollar should be
paid or settlement on a 100 per cent basis be made, and I requested
instructions. This was merely pro forma as the company had already
announced its position publicly as being in favor and promising to pay
cent for cent the full obligation of its contracts. The board gave me the
instructions I had expected.
The meeting at Reed's Hall was a most memorable one. The late Geo.
W. Spencer, at that time manager of the Aetna Insurance Company,
presided, and to his fair and impartial rulings and usual courtesy and
dignity of manner, is attributable the fact that there was not
considerably more friction than developed. Even as it was, the
discussions were acrid and verged at times close to personalities and
the oratory, especially on the part of those who advocated the "six-bit"
policy, was both perfervid and vociferous. However, the representatives
of the companies that had made up their minds that their honor and
contracts were worth dollar for dollar had little to say and were not
influenced by the alleged arguments of the "six-bit-ers."
They felt that in the last analysis there was no logical, honest argument
for the discounting of payments unless it were a case of absolute
insolvency with individual companies. It was maintained by the
opponents to the "six-bit" policy that the insuring public had paid for
what it assumed to be valid contracts and was entitled to just indemnity
and payment in full. Finally, the roll call came to ascertain the sense of

the meeting - seventy-five cents or one dollar. The roll call was
thrilling in the intensity of feeling it developed and in the position in
which it revealed each company's standing, whether for an honorable
fulfillment on the one hand or a dishonorable scaling of losses on the
other. Alphabetically, the California Insurance Company came early in
the list and I voted with those who felt their obligation to be one
hundred cents on the dollar. The position which the California would
take had been awaited with considerable interest. The public
announcement that the company would pay dollar for dollar was still
recent and this announcement had appealed to nearly every person at
that gathering as a promise which the company was absolutely and
physically unable to perform. The registering of the vote called forth
quite a demonstration. Laughter, smiles and sarcasm predominated in
the part of the hall where I was located. For a moment I was the center
of attraction.
Despite the embarrassment and annoyance under which I labored, I felt
that I was called upon to defend the good name of the company and,
gaining recognition from the chairman, I said that the manner in which
the "California" voted seemed to cause some of those present
considerable amusement and that, individually, I didn't see anything in
it that was funny; that it was more of a tragedy than a comedy, and that
it was a solemn and serious matter for the company