The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-04-27
DEPARTMENT NOTES,

From Sundays Daily.I
The board Of education was in session
yesterday consulting with DIR. Curry. In
reference to aid TO be contributed TO the
free schools from the Peabody fund
Nothing definite was done.
Commissioner Spaight In his report n
the legislature, says:
During the year this Office has beer
literally Hooded with letters aud prospee
fuses from managers OF so-caIled beneyo-
lent, phllanthropic, religious, and matri-
monial aid associations, organized and
chartered In other states, all confessedly
Without capital, and all professedly not
insurance corporations, and therefore
claiming exemption from state superyi-
sion and state taxation, but nevertheless
proposing TO issue IFS policies, or matrI-
moniai policies, under the name OF certl-
Gates OF membership, to collect premiums
uhIer the name OF fees OF admission, dues
anu mortuary or matrimonial assess
ments, ana promising to pay death losses.
OF matrimonial endowments, by means of
assessments on surviving members or I'M
married members respectively. All of
these associations, with one accord, claim
10 be Identical in methods and purt oses
with the knights OF Honor, Knights of
Pythias, and the Odd Fellows, and vet.
nj the same time, many of the 1etters re.
ceiVed incautiously let drop the express
zion OF a strong conviction that their res
pectlVe corporations would do a 'thrIy-
ing business" in Texas, thus hnmistaka-
bly, disclosing the fact that gain, and net
Denencenee. Is there real motive. With
orr tets5 however, their bylaws and reg
ulRtions would seem to make it sufficient
ly clear that there 10 a broad distinction
on this cardinal principle OF gain betW cen
these associations and those long and well
lFeRsN Ina 10.
whose prestige they claim exemption
from state taxation and supervision
Nevertheless, as the law stands, there Is
apparently good grounds for difference
OF opinion on the question whether the
corporations referred to are to be classed
AS corporations Tor profit" or corpora
tions for charity and benevolence I" and
II corporations for profit, whether they
are to be treated as coming under the
operations of our laws regulating insur-
ance companies. l would therefore res
pecttuily ask that the attention of the
legislature, at the approaching called ses-
sion, be directed to the necessity of
amending the act approved July o, 1879,
entitled, IAN act TO define who are in
surance agents, and to fix their liability
for acting without authority of law" by
a section defining what are Insurance cor
poratlons, In terms 30 clear as to no Ion
ger leave q reasonable doubt on the ques-
ton.
Below we give list of companies that
have applied for admission into the
state, all of them refused authority 10 do
business by Commission Spaight:
Southern mutual aid association of
West Point, Miss. Essex mutual relief
association, Northumberland, Pa, Buck.
eye mutual accident association, Canton,
Ohio, Mississippi Valley relief associa.
ton Of Little Rock, Ark. Knights and
ladies of pleasure of Little Rock, Ark,
Householders mutual benefit association
of Nashville, Tenn, Keystone marriage
aid association of York. Pa, Southern
benevolent and mutual relief association
of New Orleans, La, Cooperative life
association of Winona, Miss, Ladies
mutual aid association, Beebee. Ark,
Methodist mutual aid association, of Ken
lucky, Buckeye mutual aid and life as
scciation, New Paris, Ohio, Matrimonial
mutual benefit association, Mobile Ala,
Ancient order OF united workmen,
Nashville, Tenn, Young mems mutual
aid association, Meridian, Miss, American
life and accident association, Indiuna,
Southwestern b. nefit guild, Memphis,
Tenn, Presbyterian mutual assurance
fund, of Kentucky, Mississippi matrimo-
NAL mutual aid association, Shubuta,
Miss, Farmers and mechanics mutual
protection association, Baltimore, Md.