The Washington times., 1905-02-26

Thomas f, Drake, superintendent OF
the District Insurance Department. last
evening finished his reply TO the charges
preferred against him yesterday morn
ing, as related in The Times. by the
Royal Benefit Society.
The superintendent denies every one of
the numerous accusations in emphatic
language.
Another development in the case yes
terday afternoon was the announcement
by Henry e Davis, attorney for the
Royal Benefit Society, that he did not
approve the course taken by the officials
of the company, though he comedies
with the company in its opinion OF Mr.
brakes official action.
MI. Davis View OF It
Mr. Davis statement is as follows:
THE published statements concerning
the charges against the Superintendent
of Insurance and the mention of my
name in connection Herewith as counsel
for the Royal Benefit Society put me In
q light In which l am unwilling to stand.
L have had nothing TO do with the
formulation of the charges. which have
been formulated and presented by Off
GERS of the society. During their prep
aration I was busiiy engaged in court
and did not know even the purport of
the charges until after they We're pre-
sented and, indeed, made public.
Not a Defense of Drake.
II do not wish, however, to be under
stood as defending the superintendent
or disclaiming my proper share of the
responsibility in the premises.
Il have been for several years the reg
ular counsel of the society and have
been frequently brought into contact
with the superintendent and am con-
strained to say that, in my opinion. he
has done the society great injustice: has
exceeded the proper limits of his author
ity, and has gone far beyond the re4
quirements of his duty in bearing down
upon the society.
His Clients Wronged.
II differ totally from the Corporation
Counsel in his view of the law, and am
firmly of opinion that the whole action
of the District authorities against the
society is founded in error and has
| worked a grievous wrong.
This, however, is far from standing
sponsor for all that 1 see reported in
the premises, and that I am unwilling
| TO do. or to appear to do, until after 1
| shall have had the opportunity. until
now denied me. of going fully into the
matter, which L do not think 1t was at
all necessary to make public at this
time.
Drake's Defense.
Mr.. Drake. in reply to the charge that
| he was in collusion with Ernest f. Me
| meyer, a former employe of the Royal
Benefit Society, with the intention of in
Juring that organizat tion, as set forth
| in the affidavit of Henry ]. Green. of
North Carolina, filed with the Commits
Sioners by the society, denies having
had any knowledge of any such state
ment as is attributed to Niemeyer.
lie states that the only reason for
the refusal of the company's applica-
ton for a license was its failure to
comply with the law. and that his ac-
ton was based upon opinion of the
Corporation Counsel and approved by
the District Commissioners.
Denies Coilusion
He adds:
4 have no knowledge of the alleged
action on the part of Mr.. Niemeyer. and
any insinuation to that effect is abso-
luteIy and unqualif1edly without founda-
tion.
Whatever. if anything, Mr. Niemeyer
may have said or done in relation to