New-York tribune., 1905-11-23
COMMISSION ON HIS LIFE
TARBELL TOOK IT ALL.
also GiUes Light on IraOeIt'''g-
Condemns Il gents Rebates.

terday penetrated the hitherto unpunctured arrnor
of Gage e. Tarbell vice-president of the E9ui1 "
| Life Assurance Society. On Tuesday Nj. A ~
waxed eloquent over the evils of rebating IN insu
snce; yesterday Mr. Hughes showed that MI i
bell had accepted commissions insurance poHeieS
Tor himself and his family. both from the E@uleD ,
| and the NewYork Life In the common su ee'
acceptance of the term, this constitutes reoaung.
Whether it is covered by Section 5H OF the elai
| Code was question Mr.. Hughes did not etteliipI
to discuss. This section. entitled DISCRIMINATION
and rebates by life insurance corporations pfonio-
ted." reads as follows
Any life insurance corporation doing business a n
this State agent officer thereof VINO pay 70
insure any rebate premium any speclal a,a
or advantage whatever in the dividends @ 10 eepeoied
in the policy. is guilty of misdemeanoF
Mr.. Tarbeu added the interesting inforrnatlon ION
that his New-York Life policy, obtained on '"e
terms his various Equitable policies, Gains
| directly through George W. Perkins. Mr. taroen "
testified that his policies In various companies as
gregated S500000 all held under the same TERMS
From a strenuous defence of his action in taxing
these commissions justified by custom. Mr. Iaroeh
gradually shifted under Mr.. Hughess sdlful cross
examination until at last he declared, Il am very
sorry"
Publicity was also supplied various travels OF
Mr. TarbeIl in private car, his workshop on
Wheels he described 1t The EouitaoIe mac
of its own but times the railroads lent cars
They also hauled the cars free. due to the ract
that the Equitable such a large purchaser OF
railroad bonds
Mr. Tarbeu was the most voluble witness that has
yet appeared before the committee. He had full
set Of recommendations for legislation for the COM
mittee to report: he had large number Of moral
reflections the causes of the existing insurance
evils; he had endless supply Of explanations for
many occult phases of insurance, but aside from
custom, he had no suggestion to explain his own
receipt OF rebates.
Like many other similar incidents that have oc-
CURED since Mr.. Hughes began work. the disclosure
of the TaLben rebates was due entirely to as
| ingenious suggestion of the witness himself He
parenthetcaIly added to explanation of the
beauties Of policies the assertion that he was well
satisfied with his own. Mr.. Hughes needed no
second hint and plunged into the subject with
gleeful enthusiasm that rather disconnected the
witness.
Mr. TarbeII testified to 100000 insurance held by
himself his relatives. 100000 being his own
Did get commissions the policies?"
| ouerIed Mr.. Hughes. venture.
II did" the unexpected reply.
did you get these commissions your policies
| while you were officer OF the company? There
was second affirmative answer. followed by the
| further admission that the insurance was placed
| through agent.
what was your comnission2'' persisted Mr..
Hughes,
'I think took it ALL" the significant reply.
do you think you were entitled to it?
GOT 1T ALL" SAID MR. TARBELh
II do; I think was entitled a legitimate COM
policies. Two 10000 each had been taken out
since Mr. Tarbeu became officer Of the Equita-
BILE. the others while he was an agent In ooth
cases he got "aIl' the commission, paid at hrst
through an agent and later through the cashier
Mr. TarbelI further testified that he had his son
insured. He then admitted that he had $4,000
policy in the New-York Life one for an equal
amount in the Travellers and also in the H5tna-
Did you get part of the agents commission IN
these?" Mr.. Hughes asked.
every MI. Iarbeu acquiesced
| Fifty per cent on the first years premium and
per cent on renewals the figures in this mat
ter
with whom did you negotiate your New-York
| Life policy?'
''I think it was George w. Perkins, responded
| Mr. Tarbeu He also testified that he understood
| that there was reciprocity In this matter and
that officers of the New-York Life were insured in
| the EQUITABLE but he did not know for sure
| zvhe+her they received commissions A recon-
! mendation in a statement to Superintendent Hen
/ bricks made before Tarbell became an omcer
added still further apparent paradox TO Mr.. Tar
| bells dilemma
"1s It the general custom for officers to get com
missions on their own insurances% inquired MI
| Hughes. blandly-
| Yes # has always been So" the iuminat-
| ing reply. q.
.sF4ovv do YOU, Justify this procedure? Mr.. Hughes
| asked later reverting to this matter
| "If an officer brings policy to the company
think he is entitled to a commission
| Mr. Hughes thought the company might get the
commission, but he next asked a question lAat nun
| Mr. TarbeTs feelings.
How does this practice differ from rebatlnsF
| Mr. Tarbell thought there difference MI
| Hughes evidently thought differently. Presently
he reverted to Mr. TarbelFs declaration of Tuesday
| about discha-ging any agent caught rebating
why should you instruct your agent on pain OF
| dismissal not to in other cases what was done
| in yours?" Mr. TaroeH hao not thoush' 'he oSse
| analogous.
isn't there section in the insurance law which
| prohibits discrimination. or Tebating? Mr Iarpeh
| recalled such statute. which is quoted above
| Now how can you give one rate TO one man not
| connected with an insurance company and another
| n one who is?" Mr.. Tarben did not make his
discrimination clear and moment later he brushed
| aside his labored explanations in the statement:
| TT has always been the custom. The company has
| lost nothing If I have done any wrong am
sorry for it. am sorry, but followed the general
| custom, and thought was uoihs 'lshl' u''if> -
| STILL" he added.
MR. TARBEILIs TRAVELLING.
Mr. TarbeIl's travelling trips carefully scru-
| tinized One trip from February % to March 81
| cost 81 e5s 26 Mrs. Tarbeu and his daughter, as
we'll as several Equitable officials. were on this
trim Mr Tarben testified he spent from forty 10
| ninety days the road annually. Last years ex-
penses were $3.50 Ga The total for five years was
az 22e g. This led a discussion about the cost of
/ agents conventions. Mr.. TarbelI testified that
! agents and the company divided this expense
equally. The convention at Manhattan Beach last
| September cost the Equitable S0.o00- a general
! agents convention in April cost $1,000
Nj Hughes followed up the question OF reduced
premiums by asking if a policy had been issued
to a we'll known local drygoods merchant recently.
| Mr.. Tarbeu had never heard of it, and doubted it
He admitted however, that if agent had written
a 100000 policy clandestinely reduced rate he
might not learn OF II. Mr. Tarbell little more