might require. Not being profit producing or sharing organizations, no property value attached to membership, which was a mere privilege or right, and neither members nor their beneficiaries had a vested or money interest until disability or death occurred. The beneficiary could not, therefore, be a creditor of a member, but had to be within the relations of kinship and dependency, and could be changed at any time by the member.

To summarize the distinctions between the two systems, it may be said that the plan of the life companies is wholly one of contract, in which all relations and obligations are definitely fixed, and the courts have very properly applied all the rules governing the interpretation and construction of contracts to the relations entered into between the corporation and its policy-holder.

The fraternal system is not and never was intended to be immutable in any of its elements. Elasticity in plan of government, methods, policies and relationships, were always, and will be, governed by varying conditions. Growth, experience and necessity will constantly require that changes be made in every element of the relations incident to membership.

It is an intellectual impossibility to prepare blanks and by-laws, or formulate policies which cannot and should not be improved upon. It is therefore evident that great injustice has often been done by Courts applying the rules governing life insurance contracts to the relations existing in Fraternal Societies. This has been done in most cases because of ignorance on the part of those who prepared the by-laws, blanks, benefit certificates or other parts of the member's contract, and who, through ignorance of the effect, have incorporated therein some features of the life policy or plan of life companies, and thereby created some ground for the erroneous decisions which followed. Frequently the ignorance of the lawyers as to the true theory has led them to improperly present the issues to the Courts, thereby inviting defeat and establishing a precedent, when by an intelligent presentation it would have resulted favorably.

To obviate these difficulties, the lawyers representing Fraternal Societies should, at this session of the Congress, agree upon a uniform contract which I would name "Conditions of Membership," as being less objectionable than to use the word "Contract," and upon blanks for proofs of death, which should be made out by the beneficiary in

stead of by the Society; as its contents would thereby become a representation to the Society. Without delay the blanks thus adopted should be uniformly accepted and used by all of the Societies. This plan is now followed by fire companies with beneficial results to all concerned.

Every feature of the plan of life companies that may have been adopted and used in any part of the by-laws or system of doing business, should be at once eliminated, if in conflict with the true theory of Fraternalism, and language substituted which will confer authority upon the supreme or governing body to make all need ful changes as occasion may require. The Courts have judicially established a meaning for the language used in similar relations by Societies which should be uniformly adopted.

In the trial of cases there should be kept clearly drawn before the Court the characteristics of the two systems, so that uniformity will be secured, both in presentation of cases and the Courts' considerations; thereby assisting in establishing precedents which will prevent dangerous rulings in the future.

There should be no hesitation on the part of any one in making needed and important changes of a uniform character. The benefits. resulting therefrom will not only protect and be helpful to each Society thus correcting its defects, but will hasten judicial recognition of the radical differences between the two systems, and the necessity for establishing new standards applicable to the features peculiar to the Fraternal System.

In this work the Legal Adviser of each Society will find much to do in correcting and avoiding errors in the legislation and usages of his organization, and helping mould judicial thought in right channels. While so employed he may at times grow weary, and the task may seem both difficult and without satisfactory results, but he should remember that he is one of many who are toiling in behalf of justice and Fraternity, and that ultimate success is assured.

UNIFORM BLANKS AND UNIFORM CLAUSES OF LIMITATION.

At the annual meeting of the Law Section, held in Denver, Colorado, in August, 1902, the committee appointed at the previous annual meeting to consider uniform blanks for use by Fraternal Benefit Societies, presented its report which was adopted. Because of the importance of the subject of the report and its value, it is included here. The report was prepared and signed by Messrs. Mark W. Stevens, General Counsel of the Loyal Guard, Flint, Mich., and Judge A. W. Williams, then General Attorney of the

Protected Home

Circle, Sharon, Pa.

The report follows:

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON “UNIFORM BLANKS AND UNIFORM CLAUSES OF LIMITATION.

To the Officers and Members of the Law Section of the National Fraternal Congress.

At a session of this Section held at the City of Detroit on February 24th, 1902, the undersigned were appointed a Committee on Uniform Blanks and Uniform Clauses of Limitation in Contracts of Insurance. After giving the same due consideration your Committee begs leave to report as follows:

Before offering any recommendations, however, we think it proper to state, briefly, some of the conditions with which the Fraternal Beneficiary Societies are confronted, with respect to the decisions of some of the Courts.

First. The Courts of the land substantially hold "that Contracts of Insurance should be strictly construed against the Company."

Second. "That forfeitures are not favored."

Third. "That waivers of forfeiture seem to obtain by the acts and statements of officers and members of local bodies, acting directly contrary to the laws of the Order, without the knowledge and

consent of the officers of the Supreme Body, although such Supreme Officers have acted in perfect compliance with the terms of the contract."

Fourth. "That the Law of Agency as applied and understood in business matters generally, has a different construction when applied to the business of Fraternal Beneficiary Societies."

Some of the Courts seem to overlook the fact that Fraternal Beneficiary Societies are great co-operative institutions, conducted for philanthropic purposes, and not for gain or profit. The tendency is to place such Societies on the same plane, and apply even more rigid rules of construction, than is applied to regular Life Insurance Companies.

To the task of influencing the Courts to make a proper distinction between regular Life Insurance Companies, and Fraternal Beneficiary Societies, this Section is and should be applied.

That the conduct of a member may operate as a forfeiture is well understood, and that any misrepresentation or misstatement in the application for membership, whether material or otherwise, if made warrantees, will render the contract void, and in the event of the death of the member is a perfect defense, unless the Court finds in the conduct of the Supreme Officers, or in the conduct of those persons whom some of the Courts have found to be the agents of the Supreme Body for whose acts the Supreme Body is responsible, and by whose acts the Supreme Body is bound, some act or statement which amounts to a waiver.

A brief reference to a few leading cases where these questions were involved, will serve to show the trend of the decisions of some of the Courts.

The case of Knights of Pythias vs. Withers, Vol. 177, U. S. S. C. Reports Page 260, was one where the local Secretary of the Subordinate Body, chosen by the Subordinate Body, was made the agent of the Subordinate Body by the laws of the Order, but was held to be the agent of the Supreme Body or Board of Control, and as such, his acts were the acts of the Supreme Body, and that his acts, although in direct conflict with the laws, rules and regulations of the Order, and without the knowledge, consent or ratification of the Supreme Body, amounted to a waiver.

It will be noticed that in this case the Court cites many cases as

authority, nearly all of which are either Life or Fire Insurance Companies, also squarely overruling Campbell vs. Knights of Pythias, 168 Mass. 297, upon a similar state of facts.

The Supreme Court of the State of Michigan, in the case of Wagner vs. Knights of Honor, 87 N. W. Rep. 903, cites with approval the Withers case.

The case of Coverdale vs. Royal Arcanum, 61 N. E. Rep. (Ill.) 915), was one where the defendant claimed forfeiture by misstatements in the application as to the insured being engaged in the liquor business, who under the laws of the Order, was precluded from becoming a member.

The officers and members of the Subordinate Lodge had full knowledge that he was engaged in the liquor business when the Certificate was issued, and with such knowledge, continued to accept his dues and assessments and to treat him as a member.

The Supreme Officers upon whom the management was imposed had no knowledge that he was engaged in the liquor business, but accepted his payments, believing that he was eligible to membership under the laws of the Order.

Held, that the knowledge of the Subordinate Lodge, was the knowledge of the Supreme Lodge and, that the Subordinate Lodge. was the agent of the Supreme Lodge and that forfeiture was waived.

In the case of Schlossor vs. Grand Lodge of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. 50 At. Rep. (Md.) 1048.

The Court held that the Subordinate Lodge, in the collection of assessments, was the agent of the Grand Lodge and had power by its acts to bind the Grand Lodge, even without any express or implied authority to do so.

See also Boward vs. Bankers' Union of the World. 68 S. W. Rep. Mo. App. 269.

Attention is called to the following cases as bearing upon the question of Agency:

"When agents prepare the application of the insured, or make any representations to him as to the character or effect of the statements in the applications, they will be regarded, in doing so, as the agents of the Company, and not of the insured, nor does it make