The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-05-02
THE LOBBYISTS WON.
Defeat mr. Efsele's Amendme mt to
His Insurance Bill.

tcRNSe<t " NV 0NfSN3 ~
TRENTON, May 2, l894.-There was an
other fight in the Assembly over Mr..
Eisele's bill, which provides for the cash
surrender or paid VI value of policies of
insurance issued by Prudential or Industrial
Insurance Companies. Mr.. Eisele offered
several amendments for the purpose of put
ting the bill back to where it originally was
| before the committee changed it. The COM
mittee's report fixed the time i'll which the
| paid up policies should be issued at five years
! and Mr.. Eisele wanted it restored to three
| years.
Mr.. Eisele advocated the amendment,
| using the same line of argument he did
when the bill was before the House. Mr..
Edwards opposed the amendment. He said
| that if they were adopted they would drive
| the United States Company out of existence,
| and would permit companies from other
States to come in under more favorable cir
| cumstanees than the home companies, which
would result in running the New jersey COM
| panies.
The only way in which he could get the
| bill out OF the committee, Mr.. Eisele said,
was by permitting the word three to be
| substituted for the word five in the time
allowed for the paid up policy to be issued.
| He did not think that it would ruin any COM
pany to issue paid up policies in two years:
The purpose in giving a policy holder q paid
| up policy was to make him appreciate his
| policy. In d few years these companies ac-
quire a large reserve fund, and Mr.. Eisele
/ thought that the policy holders should have
a share OF that fund.
Judge Cross was surprised that Mr.. Eisele
| should offer the amendments, as the amend
ments made TO the bill by the committee
| were drawn by the representatives of the
insurance company and accepted by MI.
| Eisele. This led Mr.. Harrlgan to say that
he understood that the committee had re-
ported the amendments against the protest
of Mr.. Eisele. MIR. Eisele said that was so
and even if it wasn't he had the right to
change his mind.
Continuing, Mr.. Eisele said, that the
directors of the United States Company had
| admitted that the losses they had sustained
were due to mi-sinanagement.
Mr.. Edwards made a pitlful appeal to the
newspaper correspondents to get the matter
| straight. He SAID they had blamed the COM
mittee for much they did not do. He want
ed to be fair to the companies as well as to
the policy holder. He claimed that the
amendments were for the purpose of crowd
ing out the smaller companies in the interest
| of one large company, the Prudential, and
then placing that at the mercy of the foreign
| companies.
Mr. Olcott did not think it was fair to al
low Mr.. Eisele to change the bill now after
he had acquiesced in the amendments while
the bill was in committee.
Mr.. Flynn caused O diversion in the de-
bate by sarcastically remarking that he
would like to know where the gentleman
from Essex. Mr.. Storrs, stood on this ques-
! ton. He was a lawyer of ability and was
always talking on matters which did not
.concern him, but on the bill which was of
Importance to his county he appeared to be
I&trangely silent
Vail the fight in Mr.. Storrs was aroused by
AS and hastily jumping to his feet he We
h&nently declared that that was the second
til this session the gentleman from Passaic
hal fried to use him as he did those in the
Hon of last year. who he could make
tall It bis beck and call. If the gentleman
woul like to know where he stood on the
meas re he would say that be was going to