The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-03-10
M'NALL ANSWERS.
rcontinued from First PaRe.1

rContinued from First PaRe.1
doing or emitting to do or perform any
official act whatever he is hereby au-
thorized and required to remove such
superintendent from office, filling the
vacancy as hereinbefore provided"
OF course, l realize, Governor, that
where a decision is arrived at in adj
vance it does not require very much
evidence for the governor to become
satisfied. L think you were satisfied as
soon you were nominated for the
office which you now hold.
provides. 1t shall be the duty of the
superintendent of insurance, whenever
ne shall have good reason to suspect
the correctness OF any annual statement
of any insurance company Incorporated
in this state, or doing business by its
agencies in this state. that the affairs
of any company making such statement
are IN unsound condition, to make or
cause an examination to be made into
the affairs of any such insurance COM
pany." and the law further provides
that the expenses of any examination
made under this act shall be paid by
the company examined.
As to the power of the superintendent
of insurance, 1 would respectfully refer
You to 10th Kansas, page SOL, case of
Dwelling House Insurance Co. VS.. D. w.
Wilder. as superintendent of insurance.
The syllabus of said cases reads as fol-
lows:
THE determination of the superin-
tendent of insurance in granting, refuS
ing, or reVOking licenses authorizing in
surance companies to transact business
within the state involves the exercise
of official judgment and discretion on
his part. which can not be controlled or
directed by mandamus."
The decision further reads on page
56S. as follows:
He is entrusted with the exclusive
control of the department. 1t is he who
values their assets and investigates
their condition He examines the evil
dence of fair dealing and fraud on their
part. and II is he alone who must be
satisfied before q license is granted.
on evidence satisfactory to him a Ii
cense may be revoked; and, indeed,
every one of these steps in granting,
refusing or revol1ing the authority of
insurers involves the exercise of discre-
ton and judgment, which is vested in
the superintendent alone. No appeal
from his determination is given, nor
any power or review in any other officer
or tribunal recognized in law"
Again on page $40 the decision fur
Their reads:
But when he acts. and the deternin-
alton is reached calling for the exercise
Of official judgment. the motives which
actuated him are not open to inquiry
in the action of mandamuS."
This decision was rendered by Justice
johnson, and concurred in by Hon. d.
N Valentine and Albert H. Horton.
This decision is the law of this state
today.
Now. then. must say that the
charges made by Arthur Capper'' keep
strictly within the law authorizing the
governor to remove, but we will take
up the charges, which I shall treat as
your charges, and not as charges of
Arthur Capper,' because Arthur
Capper' knows nothing of the matters
contained therein, but some inducement
of some kind or nature has been held
out to Mr.. Capper to sign matters that
he knows nothing concerning.
First, would like to ask you as
lawyer if you know of any law in the
statutes of this state which provides
that the fees and charges of examiners
appointed by this department to exam
inc insurance companies shall be COW
cred into the state treasury. / say to
You that you do not. The law does not
provide for any such thing and 1 as
sumo that as a lawyer you know this
] Will say to you further that the laws
of no state in this union, which I am
cOnversant with provide that the fees
and expenses of examiners shall go into
the state treasury. In other words, the
laws of every state provide that fees
and expenses shall go to the party
making the examination, and it is mere
pettifogging to attempt to get around
this proposition.
One of your charges reads as fol-
lows: by such oppression and intimi-
datiOn, in some ca ses. prevented a fair
and reasonable adjudication of legiti-
mate controversies in the courts of the
state" Now, suppose that this is in
tended to cover what is known as the
Hillmon case. The supreme court of
this state has said, as 1 have cited to
you above, that the superintendent of
insurance has a right to pass upon the
evidence of fair dealing or fraud upon
the part of insurance companies. That
is what 1 did in this Hilimon case. 1
did not evade anything or go around
My record was an open book. 1 said
in my letters to the insurance COM
panies that they had not dealt fairly
with Mrs. Hillmon. said so then, and
/ say so now, and I would like to ask
you, Governor Stanley, what you think
about it. 1 suppose. however, that you
are the special friend and champion
of the aforesaid insurance corporations.
know more about what the insurance
companies did in the litigation of said
case than 1 will state in this letter.
will say, though, that as a legal prop
osition-and 1 assume that as a lawyer
you know this-that where a person
disappears for a, period of seven years
and is unheard of during that time, in
law he is presumed to be dead; so,
suppose that under the showing in the
HillmOn cases, Hillmon has been dead
at least twice and fOur-sevenths 1t is
a fact that the New York Life Insur-
ance company settled with Mrs. Hill
mon, or her lawyers, and I think it tC
be a further fact that the ATTORNEYS
upon the part of the New York Life
insurance company were not advised
as to what the company was doing.
am reliably informed that they found il
out afterwards.
AS to one of the other insurance com
Life Insurance company of New York
! VIII say to you, governor. if YOU dc
ranto suit brought by the attorney general
of this state, the Hon l. c. Boyle. against
TINS company in the supreme court, and
mat the company was ousted from doing