New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-02-09
IIAMILroN YoTCHERs OIL.
sne 20. Ss.l2I 81

i 1906 -. ilsSe ssa@ e 500 sS
! 49,: ... -: s sS% 'sl9o 1905
totals ....... So. 2oe ssI27 81 sas.aeo s5esTSo
TS,:s the average sum per anuum paid 10 HaInii-
ton during these ten years for the PuTposiS % and
sSe9oeH oqrsa1 % apart from his own ser
vices, was in round figures selgS, ~ ren,,ttee
has no means Of determining The Generalities OF
liamiltons Paris sta emenn iuTis no 'ao FACT thar
measures nf legislation are proposed eNeIS YEA
furious snd oppressive to fc insurance companies
END their pocyhoders Tley cango a. ne IN
forlnation about mem al watching them. and OF
them or secure proper amendments. is obviously a
necessary and legitimate expenditure, ~ i nlSg
that the great bulk OF tlc sum ahhuaitf -
by Hamilton used for those legitimate pur-
If n being put 10 nightmare uses.
But the fact that there IS no lhIoti IN 80
money vas h9q 2f %r mich lave been in vogue
me IfihooS 80 80, eer~ The expenditures Of the
company this account should nor oS 5 mai
% Tseep,ea i@ ~ For every dollar paid
there should be voucher showing 10 "hoI = a.
sabject is This more necessary requirement than
expenditures IN connection WIN pioPeT Tc,ons tbey
SatursIiy arouse and the temptations 10 Improperly
mitt .l therefore emp6atcaiIy cominends The re
port this subject made by a speeia, f adonted
bv the board Of trustees. The recomne hua tols ~
Voucher for all such expenditures, and the pub
flcty az monthly report thereof 70 The ooard ana
an e snq Il Teanest 9 Thai is he system in force
s9as ahsl pas from branch efiiess ot sne ocs~
and that the charge and conduct ot all action Of
re gsTng d ss ~ s 9e fG'e' TO
WOULD COMPEL AN ACCOUNTING.
Tho testimony Of M Mccall is to the effect that
Hamilton render no account of his ex-
penditnres. either as 10 persons or purposes The
reason given for this IS thai II was necessarily ana
properly a secret service. There would not appear
secret service under any circumstances in any
thing like its entirety Payments TO lawyers for
ecutive administrative officers could certainly
have been reported with proper vouchers The same
printing and the distribution Of printed matter.
Moreover: ~ appears from the terms OF the Voucho
MAY l0 1898 Of 81 800 July u, 1885, OF $500
July Is 1899; Of $3.50 on August Is, 1892 and Of
counted for; bEt 10 account was ever rendered as
an accounting may ba compeed from Hamilton
with respect 10 the moneys received by him for
the purposes Of the so-cai!ed bureau of taxation
ana legislation. thai il may be aseertaned 20 what
extent ana Tor what purposes taey %frs used and
an accounting should at once be instituted
money with which Hamilton was connected ed and
which are IN entirely different category.
on Dece mber ?, 1903, the company's check for
- oee, and on December "A, 1908 It's check for
3.SSi e Seis GexsIea 10 fiam NH on January $
on January p. 1894, he received the company s
ts checks for SIS GO and s45 Oe5 The Total Of these
sums is s2S5,ea for which Hamilton has not in any
J. investigated by the legislative committee. and it
Is not deemed necessary to set forth their details
Were an paid 10 Hamilton by the order of Presi-
actions is entirely with him and Your c6mm;ttee
is advised that Mccall became legally liable for the
whole amount. This sum he has recently paid IN
loss on account thereof ''
There was due TO the State OF New-York from,
the company June s. 1904. for its franchise tax
81 paying the tax. there delivered TO HamiitoE
by order Of President Mccall, the check of fine
THIS check was deposited by Hamilton on June s.
lS't, wan the AeM-fork State National Bank of
not then paid on August S, 1894, Mr. Mccall as
Tsndum TO issue check the order of the state
IN oli.I ior S'9Vtl, which SO the memorandum
taniion, viii settle our taxes in full an account
eiI, ~, ~ sS rendered later and that the
Albany this week for the fun amount" TheTeupon
Sco dated August 1904 payabIe 10 ut f6S ord Ier
~ ne siate Controller aud delivered to Hamilton
used This last check and s9s lss ~ Of other MONEYS
second check $500 was first charged or se he
1sp a 800 an account entitled :'Taxes state
Is,i Was transferred 10 an account called corr
ib,s.na rAbelses ana later # was transferred TO
Was never charged 10 legal expenses.
MCCALL AND JUDGE STILL LIABLE"
The explanation given ~ this transactio, g ,h..
ere . IS1 vas not paid when the original check was
49,. nsscaust mere was a case pending I'm the
our or Appeals, involving the validity OF a nor
non Of The tax which had been argued hut not
waiting me decision and that with ts CONSENT OF
loI me purposes or the so-caled bureau OF taxa
non ahd legislation II the tax was not To he maid
when the check was delivered because of the
WAS no occasion for its delivery at thai time As
ne decision Of the case. II is said might affect
The amount % the tax. check for the proper
amount could have been obtained when the decision
Wa sencerec. There was reason for ma king
fhe eheck 10 Hamton's order If Il had been
would not have been drawn from the funds OF The
company ia bank. presumably at interest until in
drawn 10 Hamtltons order, he enabled at
once TO transfer this large 10 mis- own bank
hccouhI winch IS what he did. IL Is said that be-
tween June s, 1894. when he received the first chsek
and August s, 1894 when he received Tie second
check. he Was given permission use SIS 900 OF fbe
proeeeas Of the first check for the purposes of his
May q, lss, end June Is 1885,. he drew $40 600 from
me eraneh oifees for It's purposes. It is scarcely
1904 he needed or spent $1,000 more for lis nur.
poses ana THIS rs confirmed by the fact that thi.
rum OF $4,000 was never charged 10 legal expenses
10 other conclusion would seem 10 be permissibie
than that Hamilton used FOR his own purposss
1900 Of The proceeds OF the check of June g. 1904
delivered 10 him for the purpose OF paying the
Ar. Mccall and Hamilton are under the crc,,ra
stances legally liable for this sum, and therefore
Iecommends that proceedings be instituted against
ttenA 70 ENFORCE its repayment
on october Is, l9O4 the Court Appeals de-
cioed the case OF the People rel. the Provident
SaNinSs Lire Assurance Society Nathan 4
Miller az Controller, in which it was held that rho
arnenonen 10 the Tax law OF 1901 AUTHORIZING An
annual tax upon the gross amount OF premiun1s re-
Eurance companies not 20 be construed as an
thOrizing the be computed on premiums ai5
on policies issued prior TO the time the statute look