The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-03-10


refused to grant to said companies
license for the year 1897. / will say in
this connection that the charge should
have gone further and recited that 1
did not issue any in 1898 and so far have
issued none in 1899. I also notice that
your complaint charges that con-
spiracy was entered into by McNall and
certain agents and attorneys of the New
York Life Insurance company by which
a settlement was made of the Hillmon
claims against the company, etc. Gov
ernor, does it not appear to you that
it is a peculiar kind of conspiracy when
the New York Life Insurance COM
pany conspires against itself to pay a
claim that it ought to have paid over
eighteen years ago, and where they are
required to pay thousands of dollars
to a woman? L will say that charges of
this kind require no answer They drop
of their own weight.
will say in connection with the
above that there are other suits which
l have required to be settled and the
companies have paid the costs of the
same and the amounts they owed to the
inSured-SOme of them under the valued
policy laW-and expect that you can
obtain more information along this line
from the department than you can from
Arthur Capper'' You may find two
of them in the Atchison county district
court, and others in the various dis
trict courts of Kansas, and when 1 COM
PEELED the companies to settle these
cases 1 was enforcing Republican law.
Insurance companies in certain cases
that have come before the department
have set up what they styled defenseS,
which defenses have been passed upon
by the supreme court of this state years
ago and held to be untenable. and such
defenses were invariably overruled by
the department.
AS to the Phoenix Insurance company
of Brooklyn, 1 can possibly give you
some light on this subject, if light is
what you are after. 1 may be preju-
diced, my dear governor, but 1 am la
boring under the impression that it is
not this after b1lt a verdict
of custer. Last fall the state agent of
the company above referred to submit
| ted to an interview and said that he
was using the ClarkSon rating book;
that insurance companies could not get
along without this rating book or some
other, and that all companies used
| them. Then Mr.. ClarkSOn went on the
witness stand in the presence of afore-
! said state agent and said that he was
disDOsing of his rating books to the
state agent, and, governor, did remove
| him soon as 1 could get to the office
| for violating the rules of this depart
ment and in addition violating the de-
cisiOn of Judge Hazen, wherein he held
I in case brought by Mr.. Harrison
! ClarksOn against this department that
in using the ClarksOn rating book for
the purpose of fixing rates in this state
the companies violated the antitrust
! laws of this state, and I had a, right to
shut a company out of the state which
used the same. 1 believed then that this
| was good law and 1 believe so now.
| Don't you?
A short time after this Mr.. Horton
and Mr.. Hite, as attorneys for the
| Phoenix Insurance company of Brook
! lyn. went into the federal court and
! brought an injunction suit against the
department, alleging amonst other
| other things, that I threatened to re-
/ woke the license of the Phoenix Insur-
ance company, which they knew to be
untrue, and they admitted that they
| have no standing in court upon trial
! of the case. Afterwards Mr.. Hite came
! to this Office and said that he would ad-
| NIT that the state agent, Mr.. Bailey,
| had technically violated the law, but
| that he did not do so Intentionally;
| that he was not doing so any more, and
! 1 said to him that if Mr.. Bailey would
/ make a statement in writing to this
| effect to this department. that 1 would
! issue license to him. Mr.. Hite came
| to this office again after you were in
augurated and asked me if 1 did not
| desire as a New Years present to give
Mr. Bailey license to transact bust
ness in this state, and L Informed
him that I did not; that while
! the administration had changed that the
| rulings of this department had not. The
matter was passed along in court un-
! til the department had to employ attOr-
! neys to defend the suit and 1 employed
| the firm of QuintOn & QuintOn for that
| purpose About the last of February
| Mr.. Hite wanted to know if the COM
| pany would dismiss the suit in the fed
| eral court and pay the costs L would
! license it to do business for the ensuing
| year. 1 refused to do this unless the
company would agree to not only DIS
! miss the suit and pay the costs but to
pay the attorneys fees incurred in the
matter by the department, and L am
| reliably Informed that this was done
| and that the same fee was paid to the
! departments attorneys as was received
! by the attorneys for the company. If
| this is any OffenSe under your admin
! iStratiOn you can make the most of it.
That is what the attorneys for the COM
pany did and what the department re-
| Quired them to do.
| AS to the allegation that the Phoenix
| Insurance company in September, 1898
| was a reliable and solvent company, I
| will say that this matter is not in issue.
| I have never heard or supposed but
! that it was a solvent company. 1t is
! not a question of solvency or insolvency
| in this particular case, it is a question
| as to whether or not the company, or its
| agents, are lawbreakers-
| 1 notice under the heard of Third"
! that the complainant says: THAT I'M
| der pretense of ascertaining the finan-
! cial condition of various insurance COM
( panieS, the said superintendent has sent
| his authorized agents to the home
! offices of such companies with authority
! to examine the same Your petitioner
| charges the said examinations have in
all cases been superficial and perfume
| tory and of such a character as to be
J of no value to the department of in
surance, or to the policy holders, and
! were made solely as an excuse for levy
| ing blackmail upon the companies thus
| examined for the financial benefit of
| said superintendent and his employees"
| Then follows a list of eighteen COM
panies that Arthur Capper' says were
! examined in a superficial and perfume
tory manner.
Now, my dear governor, the charge is
| rather broad, but what evidence will be
| submitted upon a proposition of this
| kind? understand that you have the
IIlS ~