The Daily Phoenix

Mr. Editor: Having published in your issue of the 2d instant, a gross attack upon me, by a fellow signing himself O. E. Hosmer, Assistant General Agent, you will, of course, extend the courtesy of giving me an opportunity to reply. Recent illness prevented an earlier notice of this fellow, Hosmer, who resorts to the language of abuse and falsehood in order to cover the miserably wretched and perfidious character of the "Underwriters' Agency," of the city of New York. His epithet of "bully" is scarcely worth notice. His other epithet of "coward" I will notice, by saying that, whenever he shall afford me the pleasure, I will engage to disabuse his mind of any wrong impression he may have received of my courage. He says, in substance, that I have sought the shelter of accidental position to libel the "Agency," when he well knows that I have taken every occasion to denounce it as the leader of the robber band of fire insurance companies; that, through agencies in this State, from shortly after the war and during '66, preyed upon the misfortunes of those who were unfortunate enough to suffer loss and hold a policy in the "Underwriters' Agency," or some other equally treacherous of the predatory horde. He well knows, too, that more than twelve months ago I wrote to the Agency, freely setting forth the opinion I entertained of its conduct towards me and, at the same time, expressing a determination to use my utmost exertions to have such legislative restrictions put upon its further operations as would, at least, render it powerless for future fraudulent dealing and infliction of injury. The animus, then, of the attack of this fellow, Hosmer, is that I am about to endeavor to carry out my resolution to compel the Agency to be honest and honorable, against its will.

I will now briefly proceed to sum up and show how much falsehood this fellow has succeeded in mingling with a little truth. In June, '66, a fire swept over the town of Newberry, destroying a large amount of property, and entirely consuming the dwelling of my brother and the building in which we both carried on business, together with nearly my whole stock; involving me in a loss of about $4,000. So it is not true, as this fellow says, that my stock was only damaged. For the little that was saved, I am indebted to the kindness of a few friends, who broke open the doors while the building was burning and during my absence--having been engaged in trying to stop the spread of the fire, (in which I came near losing my life,) and in assisting those in more danger, than I supposed I was. I sent on my claim, supported by the affidavit of my former partner, and was answered that I had no claim, because the dissolution of co-partnership had released the company of all obligation to pay. In consultation with my friends, it was suggested that I should bring suit against the agents in this State, (honorable men,) which I was reluctant to do; had I been so disposed, however, it would not have availed, the Courts of this State having been soon after closed. Thus matters stood for months, until I put the policy in the hands of a friend, with power to bring suit in the State of New York. My friend disobeyed my instructions and compromised, receiving $1,150--less $150 paid attorneys. So it is not true, as this fellow says, that I gave a receipt and discharge. The compromise was made against my consent, and without knowledge that it was to be made. My friend, understanding the situation, and knowing the worthlessness of the company at that time, acted, as he said, for my best interest.

I am not the only one defrauded by this villainous concern. Mr. G. D. Smith, who suffered in the same fire, was compelled to make the best of a bad bargain, and accepted, I think, $800, for a claim of $4,000, after, as in my case, the lapse of a year. So much for this prompt paying concern.

"From the foot of Hercules, you may judge of his proportions." I might multiply examples of the worthless and fraudulent character of the "Underwriters' Agency," but my own and Mr. Smith's, must suffice for the present. I am not alone in holding the opinion I do, of the rank assigned this nefarious concern, among deservedly popular and honorable companies. If, as this fellow says, so large an amount of claims have been settled by the "Underwriters' Agency," it is to me but so much evidence of a vast sum of fraud committed on a poor and impoverished people. Quere? are there none in this city, who have felt the heavy hand of this prompt paying company?

Very respectfully,
C. D. W. MONTGOMERY.