The Minneapolis journal., 1902-08-13

y NAAAs =
to 1t becomes impossible to keep up the
increase in membership. The defendant
was required to meet this emergency.
Three alternatives were presented: First,
1t could frankly admit that the plan of
doing business upon which it entered must
result in failure, and ask that it's affairs
be wound UP and it's assets distributed.
Second, it could pursue it's original plan
until bankruptcy actually occurred; or,
third. it could adopt such method of
doing business as would perpetuate the
life of the association. The complainant
frankly says that the association was
bound to know the probable result OF its
methods of doing business when it started,
and that every member is entitled to have
that plan Of operation either carried out
until insolvency ensues, or wholly aban-
don 1t and have the effects of the associa-
tion distributed. This contention wholly
dtsregards the power of amendment that
was reserved to the association. The
whole question is simply-how shall the
members be required to make such con-
tributions as will be adequate to meet
the death losses and continue the COM
pany as going concern? Under the as
sessment plan the payments were made
after the loss occurred. Under the new
method contributions are made in advance
mortuary tables to provide for losses as
they shall occur in the future. The change
simply relates to the manner of doing the
business; 1t is in no way change OF the
essential character of the business upon
which the corporation entered at the be-
ginning. The complainant virtually con-
tends that he has a right to have this
business carried on in manner that will,
In the light of very large experience, re-
suit in insolvency, in order that he may
| take the desperate chance Of dying before
the insolvency actually occurs. The
changes that were made have been ap-
proved by an overwhelming majority OF
the association. 1t would be remarkable,
to say the least, if a minority of the men,
bers could insist that either the enter
prise should be wholly abandoned, or that
it should be carried on in a manner which
would result in it's ultimate failure, anu
| force this course upon q majority of the
members who simply desired to make such
changes as in the light Of a very large
experience were necessary to carry on the
business of the company permanently and
| accomplish the purpose which every mem
Der had in view at the time the associa-
| tion was formed.
| Statutes Carefully Followed.
| What has been said in regard to the
change that was made in 1898 is equally
| appIlcaple 10 Iue luILnef cnduse hAaI "aS
| made in 1901. The latter change was sim
ply a carrying out TO completion of the
| first modification. 1t was authorized b5
| express provision of the statute. The
course marked out by the statute ha'
been carefully pursued by the company
Complaint. is made that proper notice O
the meeting at which the change wal
adopted was not given to the members
| The statute, however, expressly provided
that in case the change was made at {
special meeting a special notice shoul'
be given to the members; but it also con
tanned power to make the change at al.
regular or annual meeting, and no re
quirement is contained in the statute Of
the subject Of notice If the change wa
made at such meeting. Upon genera
principles the company was authorized t.
do at it's annual meeting, without specia
notice, whatever 1t had power to do unde
the law. The meeting was very largely at
tended, and the vote was almost unani
nous in favor Of the change, there bein
only a single vote in opposition. Tn
meeting was, therefore, legally held, an
it's action was legal, unless it is open t
objection upon the second ground which
have already mentioned.
This brings us to consideration Of tn
question whether the changes which wer
made in 1898 and in 1901 impaired the OBJ
!, legation OF those contracts which were
force before the changes were made.
is not claimed that there has been an
Reputation of these. contracts, or tha
the company was authorized by thos
changes to alter in any, way the terms
the contract then in force. Nor has tn
company attempted to make any sue
change. On the contrary the evidenc
shows that 1t has carried out all thos
| contracts fully, in accordance with the1
terms, and that every death loss has bee
; promptly met.
t Assessments Were Reasonable.
) Complainants aver, however, that tn
!: amount of assessments has been II
! creased. This, however, was exact]
what was to be anticipated from the yer
nature of the association, and it cannt
justly be claimed that the increase in tn
assessments is attributable to the chang
: in the method Of doing business. At tn
: present time there is no complaint tnt
these assessments are unreasonable. Y
the contrary the evidence plainly show
4 that they are in themselves insuficiel
I to pay the cost of the insurance granite
. under the old contracts Compla1nan
), however, contends that he was entitlt
y to have the company go forward solic1tl1
i members under the old plan of asses
y ment insurance, and that its failure
y do so is an impairment of Its contrac
:. This contention has already been d1
i posed Of A member had no right to II
. sist that the association should contln'
5 it's business upon basis which would
all probability result in bankruptcy. III
e officers OF the company assert that the
, Is no intention of permitting the asses
= ments upon the old members to .becon
~ unreasonable. There is a. large fund
hand pledged as a security for the pa
ment Of those early members. If by re
son of lapses the assessments should
o any time in the future become unreaso
J. able. it will then be time for the injur
3 party to complain. At the present til
= no such injury has been suffered.
rs contract has In fact, been
/, any way impaired. 1t would
% remarkable If the complaina
u were entitled to have this associate
- wound up and It's purposes defeated
y reason not of injuries suffered, but of !
~ juries anticipated. There Is nothl
10 whatever In this case to bring 1t with
~ the terms of the constitutional prov1sl
'e which forbids the passing Of any law II
3 pairing the obligation Of contrac
"a "a Neither the power nor the duty OF the q
- sociation to perform it's contracts q
. been in any way lessehed.
IN - Case of Persecution.
how