The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-31
AGAINST THE INSURANCE. COMBINE.
A Meeting of Business Men Declare
Against the 80 Per Cent. Clause.

AGAINST THE INSURANCE COMBINE.
Against the 80 Per Cent. Clause.
The meeting of citizens called by the
Board of Trade to consider insurance 1egis-
lation was intended by the officers to secure
expression of business men in this and
other cities insurance matters, and par
ticularly in regard to the 80 per cent. re-
quirement now added to the policies of all
large manufacturers and merchants carry
ing stocks valued at $4,000 and over. About
fifty were present, all from this city except
a half dozen from Terre Haute and Mr..
Mooney, a prominent manufacturer in Co.
lumbus.
The meeting called to order by Presi-
dent Sloan, who called upon Mr.. d. P.
Erwin to explain the object of the meeting
Mr.. Erwin responded by saying that he
thought there was a general feeling on the
part of large insurers that the so per cent
requirement of the companies should be
forbidden, as is provided by Senate bill 49,
and that there a feeling that the limit
should be changed so that several companies
having a capital of 100000 should be per-
mitted to do business in Indiana as is pro-
vided by another bill. Mr.. Erwin then
called upon Mr. Robert Geddis, of Terre
Haute, who had some suggestions to make
Mr.. Geddis said he and his friends had
another BILL the object of which is to open
the insurance field to home capital lie
then called upon mis- attorney, Mr.. BOYLE
VINO proceeded to read a bll wnich pro,
vided tor the organization of companies
wlth capital not less than 100000 10 per
cent or winch should be paid in money
and 80 per cent held in the hands of the
directors in United States, state or APP
proved county bonds. thus placing them, as
Mr.. Boyle said, the same basis as for
eisn companies This matter did not call
forth any response, ana the discussion
lHent, Mr.. Erwin presenting the following
resolution as the basis Of discussion:
Resolved, That oppose the introduce
tlon OF any co-lnsurance clause in the l1re
poIcles and understand Senate bill No. 80
recommend its passage
Mr. H. II. Frediey explained the princi-
pie upon which the 80 per cent. clause was
based. 1t was a wholesale rate of insur-
ance so to speak, and at a lower
premium than for less amount of insur-
that there should be no Wholesale raf sas
that In the stock yard the man who bought
one carload or hogs got them at the same
carloads. He could not see why insurance
agents come to a meeting Of citizens. Mr.
f9ledley, however, kept on and made his
explanation, though frequently interrupt-
ed by Mr.. Gedds.
Mr.; Erwin expressed his condemnation of
| that the combine made the rates. Mr. Nc
| Cune complained that because he had a
| spice mill he was compelled TO pay a high
>,
Mr.. Geddis. comp aimed that in Terre Haute
the companies had increased the ra ties
heavily, though the same property had
been made safer. Others made the same
| complaint. Mr.. Mooney. of Columbus said
| that he got a better rate through the 80
| per cent requirement, and that as "a large
| insurer he was in favor of it.. Mr.. Geddis
| VINO was a good deal in evidence, ted
Mr.. Mooney. Mr.. G; F. Sayles got the
| floor and explained the so per cent clause
with force and clearness, interrupted ali
| the while by Mr. Geddis Other gentle
| resolution.
This matter being decided. most of those
| present during the discussion left. Mr. Err
| win made suggestion regarding the ad-
mission of companies with less than 100000
| capital. After few brief expressions Mr.
| w. L. Taylor addressed the meeting. He
was against the companies with 100000 be-
nyy bs es hin for
| organization of companies in Indiana on
any other basis than paid-up cash capital
| He said that the small capital or partially
| paid capital companies had been short
| lived and disastrous to policy holders. Only
| once Ohio had seventysfwo such companies
| 1t was proposed to organize under the
| Geddis BILL and the people lost s13, O000 00 by
| them. He said that we had had experience
| with two or three such companies under
| special charters, and declared that they had
| failed. while their guarantee bonds in the
| collected. Mr.. Taylor going on to ex-
| pose graveyard insurance, when one of the
| was that motion under discuss on
| but before making it he had asked Mr. Tay-
| lor questions. The parties who had come to
| the meeting to get an Endorsement of their
| bill for insurance companies with 10 per
| cent. paid-up capital and the rest in securf-
| ties saw that they could not get indorse-
| ment and desired TO dissolve the meeting
| which was done after D. p. Erwin B. G.
| Cox and Robert Geldis of Terre Haute AL
| bert Kipp. w. b. Holton and G.. A. Schnull
had been appointed a committee to appear
before the legislative committee to urge the
| passage of the bill recurring the so per cent
| clause be made Illegal. No other measure
was Endorsed. :
MeIendy's ApportiOnment Dill.
Mr.. Melendy, of Steuben. yesterday intro
| duced apportionment bill. which will give
| so he claims. every county of of 1000 rep
resentative in the House. This bill. II is
said will be supported by a number of the
! Republican members in caucus. The joint
caucus committee apportionment will con-
| slider it. The bill makes the following appor-
| ment:
Senators-Posey and Gibson, one; Van
| derburg. one: Warrick and Spencer. one;
| Pike and Knox one; Daviess. Martin and
| Orange, one; Dubois. Perry and Crawforli,
| one; Harrison and Floyd one; Clark and
| Washington, one; Jennings, Scott and JEFF
ferson, one; Dearborn, Ohio and Switzer-
| land. one; Decatur and Ripley, one:
/ Franklin. Fayette and Union, one; Rush
| and Shelby, one; Brown. Monroe and Law
] renee, one: Green and Sullivan, one: Clay
and Owen. oae; Putnam and Hendricks.