New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-10-11
NJ 'CURDY, SR., TELLS LITTLE
SONS PROFITS UNKNOWN.
Other Mutual officials Testify Big
<<YeUoso Dog" Payments.

The mystery of the McCurdy millions from
Mutual sources deepened yesterday, when
the senior member of the family, which has
gathered 81 5OO00O in salaries and commissions
from the Mutual in recent years. testified that
he had never known what his son or his son-ln-
law was making in profits through c. H. Ray
nond & Co. that he had never, either from
paternal pride official sense OF outy'
inquired about the matter, and that so far as his
own S150000 salary concerned he had mere
~ accepted it when subcommittee offered it
as his due. On top of this he talked at some
length about the modern and earlier notions OF
the purpose of insurance companies, and caused
a gasp of astonishment among the several hun
dred spectators by insisting that the real
field of insurance was missionary and philan-
thropic, a statement he supported by half an
hour of argument.
When he had closed his novel explanation
Mr.. Hughes said, with unwonted sarcasm
Very well, Mr.. McCurdy. Insurance may be,
as you say, a matter of missionary character,
but we are now considering the question of the
salary of the missionary"
To this Senator Tully. of the committee,
added cynically:
And it seems te be purely a matter of home
missions
AS a witness Mr.. Mccurdy supplied no In
formation of value on the subjects he was ex-
pected to illuminate. He confessed that his own
$4,000 salary had been fixed by his board
after ne was asked to leave the room. and
that he had accepted it, The fact that his SON
in-law. Louis Thebaud. making S147.000
a year out of Mutual agency was news to
him; neither paternaI nor official solicitude had
ever prompted an inquiry. That his son. Robert.
who has approximated $1,75ooo0 in twenty
years of Mutual employment, was being paid be-
yond his merit he never suspected and was not
at all ready to concede: but he certain, as
he said, that the purpose of insurance COM
pany was ito do good
Yes. but to do good to whomf' inquired
member of the committee. The answer un-
Illuminating Not even on the question of cam
paign contributions did Mr.. McCurdy have any
thing but the vaguest of information. and ne ad-
mitted profound surprise at the trfing contri-
button of $500 to the Republican Congressional
Committee He constantly referred his Ques-
TONERS to some minor official of the company
charged with the duty of watching the par
ticular bung through which certain funds of the
Mutual had manifestly flowed When he was
questioned about technical matters of insurance
he pleaded ignorance '1ayman," but when
the rapid increase of his salary was discussed
he submitted. under advice of counsel, long
statement showing how the assets OF the COM
pany had progressed as well. in fact nearly in
proportion to his salary.
Much more important than Mr. McCurdy's
non-committal statements were the evidences
supplied by Vice Presidents Robert A. Granniss
and DR. Waiter r. Gillette. Robert Olyphant and
other officers of the company that the cam
paign contributions of the Mutual had approx
imated those of the New-York Life. amounting
to about 100000 in the last three national
campaigns. and to $4,000 at the last election.
when the "free silver heresy seems to have
again alarmed the Mutual officers. In addition.
a strange yellow dog payment of 100000. in
four nstalments annually for two years of S2o.-
600 on the order OF Robert Olyphant. was dis
closed. made. as has been usual with yellow
dog payments without vouchers. or state
rnents as to the purpose for which it was made,
and charged to legal expenses" This was taken
to indicate that the vast sums of money shown
to have been used by Judge" Hamilton In the
case of the New-York Life We're duplicated in
the case of the Mutual. Particularly significant
of the blindness of the whole system of legal
expenses" was the apparent effort to make it
appear that E. L. Short, the former general
solicitor of the Mutual, who died recently, was
the only person fully apprised OF the exact uses
to which legal expenses were put.
curious situation regarding the stationery
purchases of the Mutual. which seemed in large
part to be from Lysander Lawrence. who has an
Office in the Mutual Building developed.
tionery purchased from this firm. and the
Office of the Lawrence stationery business was
connected by door with the office of A. 6.
Fields who superintended the placing of the or
ders Contracts and sealed bids were apparently
not employed as a means of inviting competition
and reducing expenses. sharp tllt petWeen
James NJ Beck representing the Mutual, and
Mr. Hughes over the non-appearance of Fields
ma rked the close of the session in the morning.
Mr. Beck disclaimed any responsibility for pro-
ducing Fields. whose testimony regarding legis-'
saSs sc explaining
sick Mr. Hughes at length assumed the burden
of finding him and serving him with the commit
tee subpoena
District Attorney Jerome was again in attend
ance and listened with apparent Interest 70 the
testimony of the elder McCurdy. The audience
was larger than at any previous session OF the
committee and it's laughter at times interrupted
the witnesses Sir Richard Lang M p was
among the number who sat within the railing
with the committee and he followed the testi-
monv with close attention. Justice Davy, be- i
fore whom Mr. Jerome made his request for the
Continued third page