New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-10-07
AUDITOR ON THE RACK,
Knes0 Little Of PaymeHts-Mut~aI
.SdIarY Roll Produced.

From the outset of the inquiry the size of the
presidents salary has been question of wild
conjecture. AS late as Thursday attorneys,
agents and representatives of the Mutual had
all testified that they knew nothing about this
mysterious salary President McCurdy's son
equally in the dark in the morning, but
soon after the opening OF the afternoon session
the attorney of the company produced the fate
full list But even this concession came after a
final request. The reading of the salary roll
produced a marked effect. Its figures, so far
as they affect Mr.. McCurdy, are printed in
another column. They showed that at the out
set of his service in 1884, Mr.. McCurdy re-
ceived $4,000: in 1856 it had risen to $4,000;
in 1898 to $4,000; in 1895 to $4,000; in 1896
TO 100000. and in 1901 to $4,000. sum three
times as large as that received by the President
of the United States.
Before the revelations regarding the salary MI
Hughes wrestled for an hour with Charles A.
Preller. auditor of the Mutual, who was at once
the most unsatisfactory and agitated witness Of
the inquiry. He apparently knew nothing about
any phase of the company's business. the mean
ing of the figures he recorded the purpose for
which the moneys were expended, and for this
profound ignorance he was paid salary OF
$4,000 Mr.. Hughes started to wreste with
figures appearing in the annual report Of the
company and on the inability Of the witness to
elucidate these asked for the ledger. which was
not there and had to be sent for. The report
showed $3.50. 254 90 for legal expenses in 1904.
but Mr.. Preller confessed his Ignorance OF VINO
received the money; he ventured to guess the
solicitor might know; he could recall only one
lawyer, Charles E. Miller, who had received
retainer or fee.
SENATOR ARMSTRONG LENDS A HAND.
The witness had a book with items for legal
expenses in It, and Mr.. Hughes ran through
this. There were several payments to agents
whose names have been mentioned in testimony
regarding Judge" Hamilton's legislative ex-
penses among them w. J. Holden. Then his
eye lighted item of $4,000 to Robert
OIvpbant. chairman. This was meaningless to
Mr. Preller. He merely knew that it had been
authorized by the committee expenditures.
What it was for he had not the slightest idea.
and his voice was tremulous he testified, On
August 81 Mr. OIyphant apparently received an
other 500 OOO This time there was no chair
man. attached to the item Again Mr.. Preier
was befogged. A third $4,000 to Mr.. Olyphant
on November 8 puzzled him yet once more. He
was getting so disturbed by this time that SEN
ator Armstrong helped him out by suggesting
that his service was merely clerical, to which
he assented with great relief. But Assemblyman
Rogers agitated him again by compelling him
to testify that for this clerical labor he received
$4,000
where is the item of $500 for that contri-
button to the Congressional Committee TO
Chairman Babceck?" inquired Mr.. Hughes, still
scanning tho book.
.,NZever heard Of it." was the answer. A few
minutes wrestle with the witness on this point
irritated Mr. Hughes manifestly, and he said
with more asperity than he had manifested be-
fore:
..rzov, Won know, or some one of your company
knows. whether that 50 800 was booked. and I
yvouId like your company to produce the man
that knows If you are not the man want the
company to have some one who can tell this
brougfa here, and 1 shall expect your company
to do it. The fact is that the payment was made
and want to know how it was booked"
A further attempt to explain the mysterious
payment of 5000 to Mr.. Olyphant failed utter
", and then clerk arrived with the McCurdy
payrols.
ROBERT H. MCURDY RESUMES.
Robert H. McCurdy then resumed the stand,
and the question Of the salaries was opened.
Prompted by his attorney. Mr.. McCurdy at
tempted to explain the increase of the salaries
as coincident with vast increases IN assets. but
this was brushed away byAssemblyman Rogers's
reference to the advantages of the policyholders,
referred to in the foregoing, and general laugh
drowned the reply. Then Mr.. Hughes took up
the questioning
DO you seriously contend, Mr.. McCurdy, that
the salaries Of executive officers should increase
in proportion TO the accumulations of the assets
Of the company
This would seem reasonable" was the
answer.
well, the assets are steadily increasing. Have
you in your mind any limit at which the sal
aries should stop?'
q have not, for never knew before what
the salaries were"
Well, If the company goes on increasing its
assets, do you think that the presidents salary
should increase to S250OOO?"
81 have never formulated any idea on the sub
ject"
Your company is a mutual company, and
whether or not the salaries should be increased
depends entirely on whether it is profitable to
the policyholders to have them increased does
1t not?'
Not entirely; I think the responsibility i'm
posed on the officers should be considered"
Your aboard of directors is supposed to repre-
sent the policyhoders. and in voting for salaries
to represent the wishes Of the policyholders and
not the wishes of the executive officers so far
as their personal interests are concerned, and
in increasing the salaries you understand that
it is your obligation TO have sole regard to the
interests of the policyhoders, do you not. and
do you think there has been any interest of
the policyholders In increasing the presidents
salary from 100000 TO $4,000, and, if so.
what?"
Only a proper compensation for increased
responsibilities / think"
You think the responsibility increased in |
1902"
The trustees euidentI,, IA ill.,. e.. -.