New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-10-18
PAID TO BLOCK REFORM.
zLB4NY LEGAL EXPENSES.
Barnes's Arguments Successful
mcCurdq Defiant on Stand.


county. 5000 for his services in defeating the
XII introduced by Senator Edgar T Bracket of
saratoga last year to repeal Section So Of the
s,,-anoe law, which requires the consent of the
Attorney General for any legal action Of any
,oIicvholder against an insurance company.
The significance OF this. as Mr.. Hughes brought
arr Law IN the fact that il showed that insur-
snce companies might use the term legal ex-
penses to cover the use OF funds to defeat Iegfs-
laticn actually desired By poHcyholders.
The fight over this bill IN the last session was
instrumental IN opening up the insurance ques-
ton. Senator Bracket at the time fatty charged
that the insurance lobby was at work to de-
feat The bill and bitterly criticised the methods
enployed in the legislature to accomplish this
None OF these methods were chargeabIe to Will
fan Barnes ST, however, his fee was paid
for three arguments before the Senate Com
-nttees on Insurance and Codes, where the bin
was killed In one Of these arguments he bit
te-Iy attacked Senator Bracket, accusing him
Of practising law in the Senate. A letter to the
Mutual from William Barnes, 1r-, chairman Of
the executive committee OF the Republican state
Committee, calling attention to the fact that
his fathers 'honora-iUn'' Of 5000 66 was not
paid. was also shown IN evidence, with the sub
seouent receipt for payment
Apart rom the significant revelation regard
ing the precise character OF some portion of the
legal expenses" Of the Mutual. the main in
terest hinged upon the fashion IN which Richard
A McCurdy. president Of the Mutual man
aged TO avoid any statement Of definite knowl-
edge or responsibility. He often met pointed
questions with q refusal TO answer Time and
again, on the question OF his sons salary, On
the question Of legal expenses" or on the
question Of administration. he declared tia: he
was not the proper person to reply to MI
Eughes's tnterrogations
Finally something approaching seems came
when NJ. Hughes introduced letters Of various
Mutual polcyholders, telling the story Of the de-
crease IN their dividends In the last twenty
years, One poIicyholder wrote that his dividend
had decreased from S39 10 So and another that
his had dropped from S149 10 81 IN the period
II which Nj McCurdys own salary had risen
from $4,000 70 S150.000. and in which he and
his soa and son-tn-law had received over 81 =
10000 from the Mutual
ECURDT REFUSES TO ANSWER
With these facts IN hand Nj Hughes bl1IntIy
asked the witness Il Il was the increase in sails
res that caused the decrease IN dividends. Mr..
McCurdy fatty declined TO answer the Ques-
rnn- insisted that Nj. Hughes was eadeavor4ng
&c make fooI' OF him and referred his uues-
toner 70 the sccuary % the company. For
moment It seemed as If q question Of contempt
Il refusal 70 answer g question might be raised
and that this would constitute raisdeneanor
which District Attorney Jerome could prose-
cute M Hughes. however. apparently took
the ground that he asking a deduction. not
statement OF fact while the committees view
voiced by Senator Armstrong. was that the
refusal 70 testify was sufficiently damaging in
itself without further action This was a typical
instance OF Mr.. NcCurdy's refusal to answer
questions and The majority Of his answers took
the form OF pleas Of ignorance or explanations
that the subjects involved were matters OF de-
tail The one thing he did volunteer regarding
the question Of decreasing dividends and in
creasing salaries was that he had cut down
OF the salaries Of the clerical force TO save
money.
Much interesting detail was added 10 the
knowledge Of the committee regarding the legal
expenses Of the Mutual and the activities OF
a c Fields. the missing legislative agent OF the
Mutual An aEdavtt was produced showing that
his doctor thought he had been in California
since April :. but Mr.. McCurdy somewhat weak
ered this idea by Unexpectedly recalling a visit
from Fields while Ne was in New-Jersey last
summer FIeIdss address was not produced,
however and his whereabouts is still mys-
taET.
knsng those whose names were shown on
vouchers Indicating receipt Of Mutual money
for legal expenses were ex-senator ChaFleS
P NcCIeIald. Of Westchester, VINO "aS
member Of the Senate insurance committee Gu
resigned 70 accept an appointment Is
States general appraiser; James r F4eISe, ~
late ex-superintendent OF insurance. Joe How
ard. il. a local newspaper writer 0eoA
Plunkdtt. whose Identity was not proved 10 Do
that OF ex-senator George ". Plunkitt, OF non
est graft fame: Anderson Lawrence FORMER
sergeant OF arms Of the Assembly. and various
former insurance officials in several States IN
GLIDING Wisconsin and Michigan
A. the close OF the session question py MI
Hughes regarding the Globe Printing Company
revealed the fact that a number Of the persons
interested in the Lysander W Lawrence STA
tionery business were also interested II the
Globe company. and that the vast bulk OF me
Stationery business Of the Mutual was Done Oy
the two firms, which were in reality contFoIIeo
By the same persons
THE DIMINISHING DIVIDENDS
Al he outset Of The days proceedings Mr.
Hughes went with great detail into the question
o. The diminishing dividends on Mutual policies
and ths increasing salaries Of executive oIlceiS
He attempted 70 show, by inference at least
that there was q connection between the two
He read several letters from poicyholoeTs slo"
ing vast declines in the amount Of annual olVl-
bends M McCurdv referred him for expla1a-
tion 70 The Mutual acUuary. and made a some
what noinred reference to the fact that MI
Hughes has been called the chief inquisltoF IN
the proceedings. and that Witnesses nave peeii
Eaid 70 be on the rack Then with caiIi4
assurance that astounded every one, including
the committee. M AIcCurdy proceeded to OUT
line his view OF the manner in which the IN