Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Benton County, Or.) 1900-1909, 1905-10-20
Life Insurance.

OF all that the annals of graft can boast
there is nothing greater, more,systematic,
nor more theiving than the action of
Richard A. McCurdy, president OF the
Mutual Life Insurance Company. He
has been a "kiug pin" in filching from
tht usands of people their hard earned
cash. The Oregonian devotes some space
to the gentleman in a pretty good edi-
! torial, Wednesday, as follows:
''If there is better way of ondiIctine
this investigation. Mr.. McCuidy," said
Chairman Armstrong, I'VE should be
most happy TO learn IT," The chairman
Of the Investigating eommitte may pos
| sess his soul in peace. There is no bet
er way. F,r o Ace. al f,r \ woader :,
| perhaps, an investigating committee has
attained perfection in methods and re-
suits. The public has learne more
about lite insuranoe since Mr.. Hughes
began his qnestionin. than it ever knew
before; but something still remains to
learn. For example, what does Mr.. Ne
Curdy draw his pay for? He seems to
know nothing whatever about the affairs
| of his company Asked about the false
advertisements his company publishes.
he replied that "the casual reader knew
as much concerning them a: be did. .
Asked why policy which drew $55. .76
as a dividend in 1876 drew only So in
1874, he did not know. He knew, in
fact, nothing about the lines along which
the company is conducted. What does
he draw his salary of $l5OOOO a year
for? McCurdy explains that his extrav-
agant salary is due to the prosperity of
the company. The more it prospers, the
the more the officers get and the less the
policy holders. The latter might pray,
deliver us from prosperity"
There is a wider aspect of this matter.
Would McCurdy's ignorance of the af-
fairs of the company be valid defense
N case he were to he prosecuted for it's
malfeasance? Paul Morton's ignorance
of the business of the Santa Fe Railroad
was held to be good defense under sim
liar conditions. If the plea of ignorance
is valid in one case it is valid in all.
Who. then, is responsible for the crimes
OF corporation? Is it not criminal in a
man to be ignorant in that which it is
his duty to know? If that ignorance
makes or me possible, is he inot just as
responsible as if he had expressly order
ed the unlawful act? Undoubtedly he
is. 1t is replied that Incorporation it.
self is responsible for its crimes, but the
reply is nonsense. The metaphysical
distinction between a corporation and
the men who compose it outrages justice
and mocks at common sense. The men
are the corporation. The cor oration':
acts are their acts, originated In theil
wills and carried out by their agents
It is their duty to know what thei1
agents are doing.
Consider how it goes on the Paul Nor.
ton analogy. The officer is not RESPONSE
BILE because he is ignorant. The under
ling is not responsible because he acted
without criminal intent. Nobody can be
punished for corporatson's crimes Il
is the Mr.. Hyde of American civilization
elusive. Invisible and beyond reach oi
the law. The officers are all good DR..
Jekylls, who know nothing to the NAL.
feasance of their horrible other selves
Call yourself John and commit crime
Gail yourself James when you come to be
tried for it and the law will clear you
That is the whole theory of corporate
responsibility as the authorities are nov
inclined to view the matter, and undel
that theory McCurdy can never be
brought to justice for his embezzlements
Talk of angels dancing on the point of s
needle! That is no feat at all compared
to what American law can do when i,
comes to helping a guilty corporation
officer wriggle away from justice.