The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-04-19
The Post Bureau.
t1stIp. Texas. April 1e

Ia .---.~ rites showed up mere touhy lot
a either defeating its passage
VII, IN. adoption of an amendment
~, will In effect exempt the fire
'.,,s,. companies from its provisions
"A. telegraph wires we're hard worked
4. ,ysnsuissIon Of numerous messages
,hst It's enactment would be fol-
~ n great disturbances in commercial
..,. This time. however. the MESSAGES
=, nom Arkansas and were signed by
'...... me-, who said that their interests
y. Ming seriously affected by the adop-
\. 4 the bill in that State because of Its
~, driven out the insurance companies,
| q, ~ Arkansas kilograms we're not all
Z. .asa Az evidenced by the receipt OF
~, from state officials saving that all
| 4. ,..ursnce needed was pelng obtained by
,sas,m men. Other telegrams were also
| ...,,sd addressed to the legislature IN
,-rsl which appear elsewhere.
~ EVENING In the senate the opponents
4 A. bill we're given hearing before
Md committee provided for by reso-
,ass by Senator Davidson. Ex-A.torncv
e,x,l Crane acted as their Spokesman.
| \ md Judge GRAY of Dallas having come
NJ 10 represent them. Mr.. Crane at
[,.ied ,he bill because. UNCHANGED. 1t
vrM prove absolutely destructive to the
l,,,dN Al the commercial classes. II under
nis. DO claimed, to prevent the Insurance.
srpapies from making agreements out OF
Yuis whether those agreements are exc
u.a In Texas or not The effect Of this
void be- to defeat the real purpose OF
rdtrua legislation. as 1t would drive out
rrpetton In insurance and leave the State
4 be mercy OF few local mutual COM
| tirIs. No big companies. he asserted.
could Be oreanized for. as the proposed bill
dove the foreign companies out of the
State II would also prevent any Texas COM
/ ary from doing business beyond its boun
tirss and no strong insurance company
vcgld DO formed to operate in Texas alone
f.s people be represented. he said. were
Wiling that the law should require them -
Sske affidavit that they had no combination
b tho State or elsewhere to control Texas
n&s but objected to having their conduct
b Texas gaused by what 1t might be in
~ good He thought the present statute
nfcuE enough to reach the trusts and
nld stten to the fact that there
~ suiI pending against the fire
hatnte companies drought by himself
ma attorney seneraD under the provisions
y ND act which was being held in abey-
nts waiting a decision by the supreme
wur Of the United States in the Waters
hsrs OIL companies, wherein the validity
y ns inti.trust act was involved. If the
~ was amended to apply to Texas bust
W. alone It would be all right. But In its
7'ssnt shape 1t would also drive out build
ana loan and mortgage and trust com
1l'A Mr., Crane was followed by
iAskER OF GALVESTON. He explained
- 'le OIL would drive out the insurance
s4'suies' because it sought to make them
business all over the world according to
aSaocs prescribed by State wherein hut
s'olueth Of that business is transacted.
~ lur'her he asserted that II there was
y assurance monopoly in Texas the State
\" should be blamed for 1t because Of
~ overhead Insurance act passed IN
ae' the provisions OF which the
|t , Of insurance ruled that no
sace contract written by any one but
~. agent who has paid his license IL
u according to this proposition every
a''ns is given a monopoly of the fire
~. business in his county upon the
I'm, ',ment OF a stated occupation tax
Z. .a's view Of the matter. Mr.. Lasker
n. ,ne opinion that it was less pro,ec.
t.s.s s,usr than more restriction tina, was
|ut,..s over the case. ronIght Mr.. Crane
/ 4 me house judiciary committee No.
II Il. WI many members not belonging
49, eommlttee being in attendance His
i, was In substance the same as III.
70 the senate COMMITTEES.
I'll. AllAFERRo OF HOUSTON also so.
snn we committee. He said that he
III s'ner have the insurance trust re-.
~. 70 have II broken up at the ex-
|t,,s - Tue commercial interests of the
|h,r..u only way to break up trusts. he
|rsti, 70 return to the good old demo
IN. s0cuine OF free trade. Like Mr..
|h,s..as thought that unless the bill was
|u., 70 contracts entered into 10 be
!. ~ Texas its enactment would rs-
Ia. we Impairment OF tho credit of
|h,, "centass of the business mon of the
|a,,s.' sER OF DALLAS followed Mr.. Tai
|ss., ana wanted to know IL the bill in
ID 4. would ever have been thought of
h u. Aansas legislature had not passed
n. would not undertake TO saw that in
M anon Of merchants of Texas insurance
HI. w not too high and he thought that
Ia .,,s ' would have the effect OF reduo-
III s'es he would not object to 1t.
HI, - Ills belief that in the attempt to
as ,,sI competition it would produce
n,,ss eao BY deriving the STATE of in
'''e aitosethsr
k,r IL VI VI DALLAS said he was be-
IL NJ. atsstic trust legislation. but did
y n,cs . n committing suicide in trying
sn,c. uusn He admitted that the In
\ ttloanies were primarily interested
s,.,,ns me bill. but asserted that the
h.. ~ interests OF The State were far
as IN The insurance companies
M, 81 Out without losing much. but
h, NJ. pulled out they would leave
N 4 ~, IN the cold. II was a question
N bosssa'ency' but Of self preservation.
NM 49, 800 ne objected to a law that
SNs 49, 'ake To punish insurance COM
~ y. 'uenses committed out NJ the
N oahis. not know Of any eood reason
>lnsn. - people Of Texas suffer for
~ 1'suns In New York or else