Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-10-17
holders letter was furnished him I've wonld
have the matter looked up.
Why He Preferred McCurdy.

WY 4AV 4AC4C14O0 x0CSuXuys
Mr.. Hughes said the reason he took up
this subject with Mr.. McCurdy instead Of
the actuary was that Mr.. McCurdy had
submitted great many figures to show the
increase in the salary Of the witness was
due to the great prosperity of the COM
pany. Mr.. McCurdy many times de
ciined to answer" questions by Mr.. Hughes
II don't want your discussion" said Mr..
Hughes. IF you say you don't know We'll
accept that answer"
Il decline to discuss the question:" wit
ness said.
do you known
II decline to discuss the question
do you refuse to answer the question:
~ decline to discuss the question when
1 have profered you witness whose BUSH
ness it is to know all Of these facts you are
looking for"
Other letters from policy holders We're
read to Mr.. McCurdy showing a gradual
reduction of dividends and he replied that
probably the decrease was due to the ap-
proach of the maturity of the policy. Cues
toned further to explain what ne meant
he again refused to discuss the question"
Chairman Armstrong then asked the wit
ness what relation the approach Of the ma
turity of the policy had to it's earning Ca
pacity, and witness refused ito be drawn
into discussion"
Chairman Armstrong then said he did not
think Mr. McCurdy comprehended the scope
of the committee, and that II the committee
desired MS Judgment OF the INSURANCE DUST
ness the witness should be glad to give 1t.
Preferred Actuary for Information.
Mr. McCurdy again proffered his actuary
to furnish the information desired. He pro-
tested so strongly against the manner in
which the investigation was being conducted
that Chairman Armstrong asked witness
how he would conduct 1t.
II don't know. / don't impugn the mo-
-fxx- - =
worthy chairman"
III there Is better way of conducting
this investigation Mr.. McCurdy.' said
Chairman Armstrong, I'VE would be most
happy to learn it,
Senator TulIy asked the witness If he
thought the committee was too thorough in
the Investigation, and the witness replied
that he did not.
a witness under oath and making him feel
that he Is on the rack is apt to produce In
correct answers. His answers, he said, were
published in a distorted manner that looked
like an attempt to ruin him. why shouldn't
a witness shut his mouth up, he continued.
When a witness comes here and tells
frankly all that he knows the committee
should consider such testimony in executive
session to see what further steps should be
taken. but to attempt to drag from wit
ness any further than he knows makes him
feel like criminal"
Recurring to the question of reduction or
dividends, witness again declined to give
direct answer.
McCurdy's Tart Reply.
Figures don't lie, but liars can figure"
was Mr.. McCurdy's reply after Mr.. Hughes
had read a long list of policy numbers,
with the amount they were taken out for.
the amount paid in, and the dividends re-
ceived by the policyholders Mr.. McCurdy
continued: You have right to get your
ca gv, t,1
have not followed the figures. There are
too many for anybody to follow. l have
no doubt that all those statements and fig
ures can be explained by the proper per-
sons. I do not attribute any lie to any
body; say it facetiously''
We'll, let's see what you do to reduce ex
penses of your company. Do you reduce
salaries?" said Mr.. Hughes.
We'll 'er," here there was great laugh
ter.
You're entitled to that laugh" he said.
Let me see, how can answer that?"
Mr.. Hughes then brought out that saIa-
ries had been slightly reduced in the re-
forms of clerical force and general agen-
cies. Il have not reduced the salaries OF
the executive officers; they were never cut
They were none too fat anyway" said Mr..
McCurdy.
Tried to Reduce Expenses.
Mr.. McCurdy said he would furnish fig
ures to show how much the expenses had
been reduced by the reforms He said he
had tried to reduce expenses of the legal
department. Mr.. Hughes said that the legal
expenses for last year were greater than
heretofore. Mr.. McCurdy denied any re-
sponsibility for any statements made by
other witnesses. He said he had ordered
discontinued many suits and they dismissed
a number of attorneys.
MI Hughes read another complaint by
prominent lawyer well known to President
McCurdy." The lawyer, In a long letter.
described the falling off in the dividends of
his own and twenty-five other policies The
ngures given In the lawyers letter indicated
that the dividend began decreasing in 1896,
going down In his case from S16 in that
year to S2.75 in 1904. Mr. Hughes stated
that before 1885 the theory of high sur
plus was not put In operation, and up to
that date policy holders were paid reason
anle dividends. but under the high-surplus
theory dividends decreased.
have you any comment to make unon
the lawyers letter." asked Mr.. Hughes
The Lawyers Letter.
4 have no doubt the statements made in
the letter can be successfully controyerted
or properly explained by persons In the en-