office and said to him: "I'm informed that you want $400,000 on your property. I can let you have it, or $500,000 if you need that much."
"Good," said the would-be borrower, "I will take it. Whose money is it?"
"The Mutual's."
"My dear fellow," said the would-be borrower, "how can that be? I was there at the office a few days ago and was assured I could not have the money."
"That's all right," was the answer. "Of course you could not get the money. The right party did not see the right party. D'ye understand?"
He understood.
A recent issue of the Insurance Register, of Philadelphia, in criticizing my comments on President McCall and life insurance, makes the following significant admissions in regard to the conduct of these great corporations:
While riding on the train on my way to my office this morning a lawyer told me the following story: A client of his, a real-estate agent, represented a corporation owning and wishing to sell a valuable Chestnut Street property. The price asked was $750,000. A representative of a New York corporation called upon him and agreed to take the property, but stipulated that the price named in the deed and receipted for should be $850,000, the difference covering his commission of $100,000. The Philadelphian, finding it impossible to induce his clients to make this concession, and the New York agent insisting upon it as indispensable to the purchase, made a trip to New York to see the principal, acquaint it with the facts, and find out whether or not some arrangement could be made by which the buyer could take care of its agent's commission. He was received by the manager of the New York corporation, but when he stated that he represented