New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-10-18

vaguest. although he had Endorsed the voucher.
OF the special services" he had no information
S. s. Odds OF Lansing. Mich, received $4,000 as
a retainer similarly. but again Mr.. McCurdy had
no details to supply.
The case of Charlton T. Lewis gave Mr.. Nc
Curdy chance to enlarge on the educational
work done by Mr.. Lewis. who went to various
States talked to legislators, went to their home
towns, paid their expenses for trips to State
capitals and their time charges. and lectured
them on insurance. He did similar work at
Washington. Mr. McCurdy outlined this work,
and declared it was to educate. not to corrupt.
For this work Lewis received $4,000.
do you recall the proceedings in the lesisla-
ture last winter for the repeal of Section IS Of
the insurance law?" Mr. Hughes inquired sud
denly.
Il didn't know anything Of the kind was
there" the answer. Mr.. Hughes then re-
viewed this statute which was the subject Of a
long legislative fight last session. The repeal bill
was introduced by Senator Bracket who was
counsel for Mary S, Young and other policy
holders of the Equitable
Don't you remember there was an effort made
TO repeal this section?' Mr.. Hughes then re-
sumed-
'Oh, yes; I do remember now"
What attitude did you take?'
None"
Was that one of the bills or species Of legis-
lation you thought your company should oppose
in the interests of the policyholdersT'
1T was never brought to my attention at all"
"A former State insurance Commissioners Of
great repute was William Barnes, ST.. was he
not?"
Yes. he was man of great experience and an
insurance expert"
Did you or your company pay him to oppose
that bill?"
Not that am aware OF. Oh. wait d moment
I think I did receive q letter from Mr.. Barnes
this fall in which he stated that he had appeared
before the committee. and I think he sent
bill"
HARNESS ARGUMENT SUCCESSFUL
Mr.. Hughes then introduced the following let
ter in evidence:
The Mutual Life Insurance Company Of New-Xork
To services as counsel on three hearings on oral
and printed argument on insurance bills before me
Committee the legislative session OF 1905. the
Cstamped) 'Recommended for payment the Law
Department, by Frederick L Allen: IN charge Sep
TENDER l3, 1896. Approved payment"
A second letter on the same subject was read,
calling attention to the non-paymeut and adding
the postscript
direction We expect to move to Nantucket IN
aS0g5 three Wseks nv O as f9tf yOn e ox Pc
teen hours from Albany Your Old 6rte1d CD
P s-You can gather that were very success
ful. the IN the Senate being think. 50 70
Z IN our favor. w. d
Other Endorsements were appended and the
wise Of the president
What I want to direct your attention to-"
continued Mr.. Hughes, after Mr.. McCurdy had
admitted he had paid no attention TO the de-
tails Of this matter els the possibility in case
matters Of this sort are left to the law depart
ment without supervision Of responsible execu-
tives that matters might be opposed that are
in the interest Of the policyholders- Has that
ever occurred to you?" Mr.. McCurdys answer
was that If his solicitor was not competent to
deal with the matter he you'd get another.
Now, as an expert insurance man, what do
YOU think about the wisdom OF repeating Section
56?" asked Mr.. Hughes
Let me think of it over night" requested the
witness.
rs it usual for the Mutual to pay out money
| as an honorariurn without regard to services
rendered in particular cases?' Queried Mr..
Hughes. starting on new tack Mr.. McCurdy
asked for q more definite question
DO YOU know If William Barnes, Jr, is a
| la1-ver?" asked MI Hughes
At don't know"
Mr.. Hughes then put in evidence the following
| letter to the Mutual signed by William Barnes
| jr.:
| 7bA bonorartuu which the Mutual Life, with
| o+beT companies was kind enough to confer upon
my fa5 s36 T JUN eaeh a gsar trust you viii
| Mutual Life has not yet sent a check
Amended was receipt for 1866 Sc signed
.ewi1,arn Barnes, ST. consulting counsel" The
| fraction would seem to indicate that the other
co,,na-fAs also contributed. and that the entire
honorarium amounted 10 $4,000.
Vouchers were then introduced signed by ".
J Holden. Of Boston, and Edgar w Rogers, and
with the latter the case of the Globe Printing
COMPANY was touched 2Ir. Hughes brought out
The facts that the Mutual printing and station
ery expenses in 1904 amounted TO S6O11O1 Il,
that several persons were interested notn IN
Lysander W Lawrence & Co and IN the GLOBE
Printing Company and that the two companies
got the bulk Of the Mutual printing MI. NC
Curdv said that he could not TESTIFY as TO the
details regarding the letting of bids or the print
Ing "0'A BOwLEs CASE UP
Mr. Hughes then went into the case Of a for
ner agent Of the Mutual named Bowles who
was dismissed for INSTRUMENTATION, and subse-
quentIy started an agitation OF poncyho!aers-
Mr.. BowIess characterization apparently con-
sisted in the writing Of long statement alleged
to be founded or secret invesLgatot' IN VIZ" !a
he charged extravagant management that mas
disregarded every principle Of SOUND and eco
roruic underwriting TO satisfy q persona aiilol-
ton 10 write large business, even 70 the extent
of orasrirg fslTaciOus business on the DOCKS or
the company ard in the sworn annual sIeteInent'
It has employed incompetent men 10 M LLnpor-
tant positions, and maintained tneIa oLy " me
aTnenditura of unlimited sums OF the coInp6nys
money Il has given the most important ano re-
munerative positions 70 men whose His tieS'
orarendation was their kinship with the chlek
executive" .. - - -. -.
pNar I4rAI