ceded to other companies and that some of them demanded, earthquake
affidavits with every claim; that while I regretted to put him to any
inconvenience, it would be necessary for him to produce this testimony.
He looked me squarely in the eye and said, "I'll sign it and swear to
it. Not a brick in the whole building was disturbed." He attached his
signature to the affidavit. I showed him the photograph and then stated
that we should be compelled to penalize him to the extent of thirty-five
cents on the dollar. As a matter of equity, there was little, if any,
liability under the policy. He shouted, "Fake!" "No," I replied, "simply
a matter of contractural rights and of justice. The picture is
absolutely bona fide." He left, emphatically stating that he would at
once "go to the bat." I suggested that he submit the matter to his
attorney. Fortunately for him, he had a wise one who promptly advised
that he accept the terms offered.

This is another angle of the settlement of the San Francisco losses - no
more nor less in fact, methods, and manner, than that with which other
legitimate companies had to contend.

Another instance is recalled of a claim for a thousand dollars covering
on lodging house furniture in a building on Sixth street, with the loss
made payable to the owner of the building. I supposed that the policy
was collateral for payment of rent. It developed that the claimant was a
widow with one child. She was without a cent in the world, and called to
request payment. By this time the company was running short of ready
funds to such an extent that instructions had been issued to adjusters
that all claims hereafter would take the customary sixty days before
payment. She stated that the fire had canceled her lease, that she had
seen the payees and that they would waive the claim and that she was
absolutely destitute and would be willing to take whatever we would