The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1897-09-28

organized or Incorporated unier the
laws Of the state Of Kansas. but were
foreign corporations and by the reading
Of the section referred TO and It's careful
consideration the court is at a loss to
know what additional legislation in the
way OF relief from any oppression by the
state superintendent Of insurance the mu-
tual home fire insurance companies OF
the state of Kansas need or required.
That the decision of the supreme court
Of the state, deciding. as it did, that the
state superintendent Of insurance in re-
lation TO foreign insurance companies
had discretionary power 10 refuse or
grant a license or certificate to do bust
ness, delivered, as il was. in January,
1889. was the prime factor moving the
legislature to pass the amendment 10
the insurance laws, as heretofore stated,
| seems to me clear proposition requir-
ing no argument TO support it. That
| some such legislation was imperatively
needed, the action Of the state superin-
| tendent of insurance in the case at bar
| would clearly show. The action OF the
superintendent in this case. refusing TO
| grant a license to transact business in
! admits TO be solvent and has complied
| with the laws of the state, for the rea-
| son contained in his letter TO the agent
Of the insurance company,to state it very
mildly, is arbitrary and is an assumption
| Of authority by a minis terial officer
| that is startling. The reason for the re-
fusal, as announced in his letter. is be-
cause they have not treated Mrs Sallie
| Hillman, whose husband held a policy
in this company, fairly. and that tne re-
! fusal to pay said policy 10 her is the
sole basis Of his refusal to grant a Ii
cense to the company to do business in
the state OF Kansas.
In this connection it is proper that the
court should state the condition of said
| claim, as il was we'll known to the in
| surance commissioner at the time or
| eaid refusal An action to recover upon
| said policy mad been pending in the
courts of the United States in the dis
, trict Of Kansas for more than eighteen
years The action has been tried five
times in said court, and the trials presid-
| ed over by five different judges, begin
ming with the fair-minded, learned and
able jurist who has presided over the
courts in said district for nearly a quar-
ter Of a century, and the next in the or
der OF trials presided over by that emf
nent turist, Associate Justice Brewer.
VINO was at that time United States cir
cult judge for the Eighth judicial dis
trict, and the next time in the order OF
trials presided over by judge OF large
experience and eminent learning, JUS
tice Shiras, Of Iowa, following next in
order by the late lamented Judge
Thomas. Of North Dakota, and lastly
by the district judge, delivering this op-
inion, and the only success at determin-
ing this issue that has been properly
raised in the courts of the United States
between the insurance company and
Mrs. Hiliman, has been four mis-trials
and a verdict and judgment at one trial
was reversed by the supreme court OF
the United States. And at this time,
after these repeated trials and\the case
still pending in the United States court.
for an officer clothed with any power Of
authority to refuse to grant any lnsur-
ance company whatever a license or a
certificate TO transact business in the
state because of their refusal TO pay a
claim thus contested and thus tried. is
virtually denial to such PARTIES OF their
right to submit any case to a final deter
mination by a jury Of their country.
This action by the state superintendent
Of insurance refusing TO grant license
to another life insurance company FOR
this same reason that it is denied in this
case. upon being called to the attention
yr,1o ~ district
was deemed by him such an interference
with the administration Of the law and
With the rights Of litigants IN his court.
that he called the attention OF the Unit
ed States grand jury 10 said action, and
il appears by the records of said court.
that the grand jury have found an in
dictment against him for such interior
ence.
Looking 20 the existing evil sought to
be corrected by the legislature it would
seem, then, that it was small wonder
that the legislature of 1889. perhaps
foreseeing that such arbitrary power
vested in one individual would lead to
Just such results as it has in this case,
and in the other cases referred 10, IN
tended by their amendment Of the in
surance laws to deprive him o. such
discretionary power, for IL ought not 10
and cannot exist in a state or country,
where right OF trial by jury Is ever
held TO be the palladium Of the liberties
and the rights Of the people. II would
seem from the history OF the state OF
Kansas that il certainly could not long
exist here. The pioneers OF the state OF
Kansas were eminent and distinguished
in their assertion OF equal rights 70 all
persons under the law, and ner state
hood. under lis Constitution. which
breaches in all its provisions the prin-
ciples OF freedom and the right Of every
one TO seek redress for all grievances
and the enforcement OF all rights oy re-
course 70 the laws and to be protected
by the laws was the result or the ac-
tons Of the Kansas pioneers OF 400
1856. 1857, and OF all the stormy years
that have passed and are part OF the
history of the territory up 10 its admis-
sion as one OF the great states o. TINS
Union. l. may well be admitted ana
considered that the Lawmakers o, my
were OF the pioneers OF 1856 and 1858 ana
1850 or their immediate descendants
and me intention OF those lawmakers i
NAV we'll De concluded was 70 enact
law asserting thar no officer should
have the arbitrary right TO deprive any
person. natural Or artificial. from tne
enjoyment OF The right OF trial by jury
in any case whatsoever
such was not their intention and de-
sire. !, must be admitted that the ar
den: desire for freedom and liberty
which animated -hei- breasts in the ear