The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-12-22
Tells of Examination of 1 Companies.
ALL DONE PERFUNcT0RMY'
No Effort to Go Behind the
 Books.
Chief Examiner vanderpoel Declares H4 Did Not Know what Salaries Were Beins Paid to
 ommcers.

1 New York, Dec. 2f.--Francis Hem
 dricks. superintendent of insurance of
 New York State, was the chief witness
 surance investigation today and testi-
 fled that the examinations of the in-s
 surance companies by his department were made to ascertain the solvency
 of the companies and that no investt- l gation is made into the extravaE1nce I of the management of company or l into the salaries paid to officers. so long as the company is able to pay its obligations No investigation Ia made into the commissions paid to agents. | the system of loading on the premiums. l the advancing of loans to agents or l loans to directors. The employment of kinspeople or officers in high posittons is not inquired into. This has Ions
 been the custom of the department, Mir. Hendricks said, and he declared fur ther that he personally knew little or nothing about the various examinations made as they were entrusted to Isaac vanderpoei, chief examiner of the de- l pertinent.
 While MT. Hendricks's memory failed
 him as to which if any legislation
 which had been suggested as a reme~ dy in the defects in the laws govern l ing insurance companies. he stated | that no measure that he had yer pre- scented had ever heen opposed in either house of the legislature. Neither had any bills been passed against his re- I commehdation.
 1 Expenses and Receipts. l MT. Hendricks said that his depart ment spent last year about $tS7.0oe. and received in fees and payments l $2S7,766. which was paid into the State treasury. To make examinations as would bring out such information as had been gathered by the legislative committee. the witness said would re- auire ten more examiners and an addi-
 tional appropriation of from sl5o,vev to sf60.000 He thought. however. that l he could get the appropriation if he asked for it. large expenses of the New York com l panies as they had never been called to his attention. He had never neasu ~ of the wash sales of securities nor the | year end loans of the Equitable to | clerks of Kuhn, Loeb and Company. nor | had these ever been brought to his at | tention Mir. Hughes asked; Do you require the companies to present ne- ! tailed statement of their legal disburse- ment showing the names of lawyers who had money and what they had F | for-has the department ever requlreu | thatT'
 NO. do not think so." 1 Now we find information of that  not to the New York State department. Here. for example. I have the state rent of the legal expenses or the New York Life for 1898, giving in detail tho amounts paid. aggregating Slsf.I25.se' and(the names of the reclplcnls as .ui
 Now. did the New York State de- nartment ever have a statement Ike
 that?"
 "No."
 From the New York Life or any. other company
 well. you have got total in the case of the New York Lite ana ths point is that 1t had not been the tra- dition of the department or the orut- nary practice to require anything more than a statement, so much TOT lssA. expenses, and as long as they had enough left to meet their liabilities
 win. such a margin that in the ordi- navy expectations would not De ex- ceeded. why, you would not take up the question of the details of their disbursementsT
 wade of course, am not accurate: l it is possfble they did not put thena ] all fin the legal expenses they report l ed.'
 Isaac Vanderpoe1. chief examiner of | the insurance department, toitoWeu MT. Hendricks and detailed what was done at an examination. He said that | if was practically a comparison of the company's sworn reports with the books. He had never heard of the wash sales nor of the year end loans He had never known the salary of President McCurdy of the Mutual Tho salaries are in one lump in the salary account and he a1d never taken steps to And out if these moneys had been paid for that purpose. The large expenditures in the supply departmnt had never excited his curiosity. although the vouchers had been looked at at ran dom. These were stamped with the approval of the expenditure committee and he had never questioned their le- gitimacy of purpose. The vouchers for the $25, ,000 payments to the chairman of the expenditure committee he had seen but never inquired into.