New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-12-22

4 l
The legislative Insurance investigating COM
mittee yesterday began its probing Of the State
Insurance Department by a prolonged examina-
ton of Francis Hendricks. the State Superin-
tendent. Mr.. Hendricks was on the stand for
several hours and his testimony made it clear
why the various abuses discovered by the COM
mittee were not unearthed by the State officials
In the main, his explanation that the de-
partment was not looking for them. He testified
practically that the scope and extent of the work
of his department had been conceived by him
to consist In finding out that the insurance COM
panies in the State We're solvent that they were
able to meet their obligations and that they
actually possessed the assets specified in their
reports.
yellow dog funds. legal expenses, high sal
aries rebates, legislative expenditures. syndi-
cate operations and the of other abuses the
investigation has revealed were subjects with
which Mr. Hendricks declared his department
had not dealt partly because it had no authority
to act had 1t discovered them. partly because It
had neither the facilities nor the force to dis
cover them. and largely owing to the precedent
and tradition of the department which he had
followed since he became Commissioner.
Moreover Mr. Hendricks did not express any
strong belief that the discovery and checking OF
handled by the department. The management
Of great companies, he declared. should be left
to the officials the only alternative was 'pater-
naIisrn" State control and State insurance.
This he did not advocate.
IGNORANT OF MUCH.
Mr.. Eendricks's characteristic reticence and
his feebleness combined to make his testimony
frasnentary and relatively unsuggestive OF
legislative reforms He confined himself to
renIving TO questions and not infrequently
showed himself unfamiliar with insurance topics
If general interest. He could not recall sec
ton So when asked about 1t. and would not
express any opinion about the wisdom OF us
repeal In the main he did not show great
familiarity with the details of his department
and he did indicate that in the majority OF
cases he depended absolutely upon his subordl-
mates. with a full realization that their scope
was so limited that they were perforce obliged
to accept the information furnished by insur-
ance officials. Moreover, he admitted that Oh
the three appointments made in his regime two
had been recommended by Senator Plat or ex-
Governor Odell.
The trail of the mysterious William H. Buck
ley former employee of the department. later
legislative attorney extraordinary TO score Oh
companies. was again uncovered MT Hen
bricks recalled that while still a State employe
the missing Buckley had been in the pay OF IN
surance companies and had subsequently ap-
peared In behalf of Prussian company before
him He also testified that he had found upon
investigation that David Keefer the employe
OF the department who had been employd by
tn Security Mutual actuary, had received
the consent of his chief before doing this work
and that this chief had not referred the ques-
ton to Mr.. Hendricks. He declared that he
would have decided against such a course had
he known about it. This was true of many
other things that he discussed.
OMISSIONS FROM REPORTS
Mr.. Hendricks was frank witness, meeting
all questions with absolute readiness Of spirit
though his utterance was at times difficult to
catch. Asked why he had omitted the Union
Pacific blind pool transaction from his Equl-
table report, well the Depew improvement
Company he explained that the former seemed
to him justifable, since d profit had been made,
and that the latter was an ''old story" Mr..
Hughes pressed the point by asking if any
one had suggested such an omission
IT don't think any would have dared to-
was the quick retort. Mr.. Hendricks commented
on the conflict of evidence in the Equitable stu
alton He made rather significant remark
garding the difference between James Hazen
Hyde's testimony about the Union Pacific
pool and that of Jacob H. Schiff. The last
named had maintained that he had never sold a
dollars worth of stock to the Equitable" Mr..
Hyde insisted he had.
81 think Mr. Schiff mistaken" remarked
the Superintendent
Summing up Mr.. Hendricks's testimony it was
clear that his department had little grasp on the
actual situation in many insurance companies
Mr. Hughes ran down the list Of the smaller
companies In which grave abuses have been dis
covered with conditions approximating insol-
yencv notably in the Empire Life, but the de-
nartunent had neither information nor power to
oct in these. One of the laws passed last year
20 meet such a situation was as Mr.. Hughes
oboracterized it, with Mr. Hendricks's approval,
90 roockery' Isaac W. Vanderpoel who tesu-
cod later. admitted that the rigorous exanina-
49,, conducted by the department. and lasting
-,anv months amounted to little more than
-, off from a list supplied by the COM
- +ta securities held. No attempt was made
N ,,,hetler the company had other securities
y. ortad out contained in the vaults Sol
,. seemed to be the sole desideratum
.ppRoPRIATIoN ALWAYS CUT.
,tse+ Mr.. Hendricks testified that his
$50 took in 1921. 900 ir fees and re-
ea,,,e6 of this $4,000 In Appropriation mI;
-, designated this an indirect tax and
husiie :. o,,a not all have been profitably
employed 49, -,
MY appropriation requests nave 1i"ass zen -
- The reply. He then testified that he
CUT - .brea examiners one Of whom had
nao apr o,,ded nv Senator Platt. An ap-
Oeo.- road Taggart came from Newburg,
,,ontfuued ON third
TnREE WEEKS IN CALIFORNIA.