The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-12-29

attacked my agency; IN 1887 1 had an
agency of twenty companies, ten union
and ten nOn-uniOn and was doing a sat
iSfactOry business for all of them, but
the Union companies came to me and
said that I must throw the ten non
union companies out of my agency or
they, the ten union companies, would
leave. l told the union companies that
no insurance company owned me or
had mortgage on me or a collar about
my neck, and that I was running my
business to suit myself and would not
permit any company or set of cOmpan-
les to dictate to me what other COM
panies I represented or what compen-
sation they paid me. The result was
the ten union or combination compan-
les took their agencies away from me
and practically pulled my agency in
two in the middle, after I had spent
years in building up the business. This
resulted in a rate war that lasted nearly
a year.
I had to fight for the business that
they had wrongfully taken from me
with various agents to whom they took
the companies, but 1 said nothing.
I thereafter represented only non-union
companies for six or seven years, until
these two union companies came to me
and wanted to get into my agency.
AS they had little or no business,
having been drifting around from one
agency to another, or as we say in
insurance parlance, they had been on
wheels I said to them, Now, see here,
you know I am a nOn-uniOn man and
~@AAA hStNAAAN-7
| should take you into my agency and
build up a good business on your books.
about the next thing you would do
would be to prOmulgate some rule on
account of the nOn-uniOn companies
and pull up and leave with all the busi-
ness had put on your books They
positively assured me that under no
circumstances would they go into any
separation business again and that if
1 would take them into my agency
could rest assured that I would have
resenting non-uniOn companies and
there would be no separation under any
circumstances. With this distinct un-
derStand1ng and agreement they IN
duced me to take the two union COM
panies, The Traders of Chicago and the
Springfield of Massachusetts and 1 built
them up a good business, especially the
Springfield, and their special agents
have repeatedly remarked how very
satisfactory their business was, etc.
"On the 18th day of September. 1899,
the Union held a meeting at Niagara
Falls and adopted and promulgated and
put in operation separation rule and
in October came along with a separa-
ton rule and started fight with me
on account of my nOn-union companies.
In other words, did exactly what they
agreed they would not do; thus you see
they got into my agency and induced
me to put my business upon their books
by this grOssest deception. misrepresen-
tatiOn and fraud and then put my buSi-
ness into the hands of my competitors.
on a dark night and sandbagged me
1 would have thought more of them.
Let it be said to the credit of quite
a respectable minority of conservative
and level headed union managers that
they opposed the passage of the rule
and questioned the propriety of putting
such an arbitrary rule into effect.
1.-The insurance press with singular
unanimity sided with the minority of
managers in the position they took a
the Niagara Falls meeting and general
ly questioned the wisdom and practical
bility of the separation rule. probably
for the reason that any measure tend
ing to injure innocent agents was bad
in policy and principle.
You now have a fair statement of
the case. The combination jumped on
to me in 1887 as aforesaid and attempted
to ruin my business and 1 did nothing;
they have now jumped on again and
that is just once too often; they will be
meeker believe when I get through
with them: they have put themselves
just where I want them and this fight
is on to a finish, without gloves and
without quarter"