New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-12-16
CONNECTICUT
Nezc- YorA: Insurance Companies
Seek $40, 900 IN Connecticut.

Seek $40, 900 an Connecticut
New Haven, Dec Is (Specia1) .-Commission
Theron Epson has received the briefs in
the cases of the Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company the New-YorIz Life Insurance Com
pany and the Mutual Life Insurance Company,
ali of New-York. setting forth the reasons why
these companies should receive from the State
a refund of their taxes, amounting to about
$4,000 The attorneys for these insurance COM
panies base their request on a Senate joint reso-
luton of the Connecticut Legislature, which
directs the State Board of Control to refund up
to $4,000 taxes paid premiums received by
those companies through business done in this
State from 1901 to 1904 inclusive. The amount
Of overpaid taxes stated by the companies
requesting the refund is as follows: Mutual Life,
$4,000; Metropolitan. $4,000, and New-York
Life, $4,000. The Equitable and Germana also
have filed their claims with the State, but will
not appear through attorneys.
1t is said to-day that the briefs fled in the
New York companies favor do not meet the
position taken by Attorney General King for
the State The Attorney General holds, 1t is
said, that the New York companies should have
the same standing in this State as Connecticut
companies have in New York State. In that
case the present claims of the New-Yor1 COM
panies may not have the clear sailing that has
been expected. Attorney General King also
holds that the phrase in the Senate joint reso
luton ''refunding f. . as the Insurance Com
missioner of Connecticut shall determine should
be so refunded under the provisions of existing
law" was meant to limit payments to the
rangement stated in the so-caIled "retaliatory
law" He is of the opinion that the "retaliatory
law" acts a statute of limitations the
claims of the New-Iork companies and imposes
on them the same restrictions Connecticut COM
panies labor under in New York State. Against
this opinion the New York companies are max
ing strong protest.
The brief of the Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company holds that the Connecticut Legislature
intended that the phrase under existing law
meant that each New-York company was en-
titled to refund Of it's excess taxes actually
paid in each Of the years from 1901 to 1904. in
elusive. The company says that Connection.
acted under justified" but mistaken" view
of the New-York State law when it collected
these taxes and now finds itself, under the con-
struction placed upon that law by NewYork
State courts, to be in possession Of excess pre-
MUM taxes for each of those years. The COM
pany asserts, does the New-York Mutual.
that under the construction of the law
taken by this State company except such
have filed protests corresponding with the
finding of the New York State courts is en-
titled to a refund, and those for year
only. In other words, say the attorneys LOT
the protesting New-York companies, "by a cir
cuitous and artificial of reasoning we
reach the conclusion that the intention Of the
legislature should be substantially defeated"
The companies declare that the Connecticut
Legislature did not intend TO give the insurance
commissioner the right to determine that no
New-York company should be granted a refund
tax paid in one year. Mr. Beach, an at
torney of this city, in filing his brief, says the
questions to be settled are whether the phrase
referred to contemplates or includes the So
called "retaliatory tax law; whether, If so, the
New-York laws impose IAN obligation. prohtbi-
ton or restriction" on Connecticut companies
doing business IN that State, and whether, if
the New-York companies to be refused any
refund of taxes unless they have filed an appli-
cation within one year after each: annual tax
bill was rendered. The point brought out is
novel one and will bring about peculiar legal
situation for this State to decide.
STATE DEMURs IN SALARY CASE.
Attorney General King, acting for the State
in the suit brought against the controller and
treasurer to restrain the State from paying
increased salaries to the higher court judges,
fled his demurrer yesterday. It shows con-
cusively the stand to be taken by the State
and clears the way finally for q. court decision
on the constitutional question involved There
has been much interest taken in this case
throughout the State, partly because 1T was I'M
usual in many respects. and partly because IL
placed the Supreme and Superior Court Judges
IN a most unfortunate position. Until now the
legal procedures surrounding the case have been
more or less befOgged by the counsel for the
plaintiff. Senator MCGovern, but the way now
seems clear for speedy decision Of the ques-
ton. Attorney General King first holds that
the State will claim that the chief justice of
the Supreme Court the associate judges of
the Supreme Court and the judges of the Supe-
1ior Court ARE not public officers, employees.
agents or servants within the true intent and
meaning" of the constitution. Second, that the
legislature in enacting the increased salary bill
lawfully exercised the legislative power of the
State exclusively vested by the constitution
in the Senate and House of Representatives, and
did not as the General Assembly referred TO
in Article XIV. of the amendment to the con-
stitution pay or grant anything to or increase
fine compensatfon of any public officer within
the true intent and meaning of such amend
ment." Third. that the complaint IS insufficient
in law because the act of 1903 providing for the
increase in salaries of such judicial officers was
not within the prohibitions Of that amendment
The case may now be tried out on the con-
stitutonal points involved and the State relieved
of what has been from the first a decidedly IN
pleasant instance of legislative action IN the
face of accepted understanding of the State con-
stitution.