New-York tribune., 1906-12-04
NEW YORK LIFE UPHELD
CHARGES DISPROVED.
7uStice Do7Uling Says EUidence of
Electioneering Is Weak.

Justice Dowling in the Supreme Court, yes
ber6ay denied the application OF Stephen Far
RELY for an injunction 20 restrain the New
York Life Insurance Company from conducting
campaign on behalf OF Ito administration ticket
n the pending election OF trustees Mr.. Far
rely is a policyholder IN the New York Life
sn6 member OF the international policyhOlders'
committee, which is running an opposition
ticket HIS name IS on that ticket Samuel
cntermyer chief counsel for the committee.
Argued for Mr. Farrellys application. while
william Nelson Cromwell represented the com
pany IN opposing the application before the
court
In his application for an injunction, Mr.. Far
RELY alleged that the money OF the policyholders
was being spent IN circulating literature IN sup
port OF the administration ticket and that en-
ployes OF the company were spending their time
sn the same cause, acting under the orders Of
rhe compauys officials These charges Justice
Dowling asserts IN denying the application. are
not sustained by any direct proof. and are di-
rectly controrerted by the answer Of the COM
pRny.
on these points Justice DowIing says:
Plaintiff has been unable TO substantiate these
charges by proof. The allegations OF his COM
plant are IN large part made on information
and belief. and entirely so as TO the charges OF
Improper conduct On the part OF defendant cor
porarion Many Of the statements in his afh-
.n form statements of fact in reality
only statements # his conclusions. surInises or
opinions In his affidavit plaintiff says In
view Of the fact that the defendant corporation
has upward Of 6o0.o0O pOlicyholders, q large
portion Of whOm residents of the United
St6tes ana Canada Il Is Impossible 10 be4leNe
that agents Of the company are carrying on a
campaign Al their own expense. or otherwise
shan Al the expense Of the company Yet no
evidence s. addUced by him. OF on his behalf.
thai the company has spent any Of its funds IN
shis so-called campaign.
on the contrary, il afiirmaJlvely appears that
the defendant corporation has opened IN It's
hooks a special account for the expenses in
CURED in complying with the law governing This
election which IS the first one hello by TINS com
pany under the law Of 1905. A statement in full
Of the items appearing II said account has been
made 10y the Controller. with the date ana pur-
pose Of every payment. Nowhere in said state
xnent is there an item which could properly be
Terroed an expense for campaigning. nor for
assisting in the success Of the administration
1icket Large numbers Of circulars have been
introduced in evidence as exhibits which were
sent our in various states 10 pohcyholders by
agents Of the defendant company. sollcltihg
votes for the administration ticket and inclosils
what IS called by Dlatnt Il. a marked DaLot f:
(which means q ballot p-Npared LOT NolLIS III
favor Of the admin EIratiOn ticket II IS afilrTn-
Rrfvely established that so far from being sent
out al the expense OF the company, those circu-
lars ar being sent out by agents on thelr own
initiative and al their own expense ,.-.
Plaintiff charges on information and bellet
that these ~circulars were printed at the home
rf5ce of thsAaefendaut company. but this IS dis
rroved by -the affidavit OF Van WaTt. IN charge
n Re SHOWING
the circulars complained Of was printed therein
Furthermore. II is established from the af1-
dayits submitted that neither the money or me
defendant company nor the time Of its employees
during business hours has been devoted IN any
manner. shape or form 10 the election Of the ad-
rninisrraLiOn TICKET 10 the distribution OF So
called marked ballots IN aid thereof 70
the solicitation Of votes proxies for the said
ticket nor have advances 70 agents been made
20 induce their activity therefor. This is over
whelmingly demonstrated by the afnoaVits of
six executive officers OF the defendant company
Of rweuTy-fOur heads Of departments thereof, of
TWO inspectors OF agencies. OF five agency direc-
tors. OF lhirry-tvO cashiers and OF elEhty-six
soliciting agents located in some ten different
states.
NJ Cromwell said last evening that he New
York Life had welcomed the opportunity of
meeting the charges. and had placed before the
Courr more than one hundred af1davits. cover
tng every department Of its business He added:
While il ie naturally gratifying 10 the COM
pauy and itF counsel thar the court should fnd
shat the Iaign charges made against II and
Us asTi-S nd NAoliy La-lel- Il Is OF Tar greater
policyholders the world over 10 know that The
pending election Is being conducted by the COM
pauy with strict regularity, and THAI the com
psny is observing the letter and the spirit Of
the new Insurance law
Samuel I-nter-nyer general counsel for the
International policyholders' committee said last
night:
The only effect of the decision. coming at this
late date VIII be hat the Mutual company win
have 10 protest against aIl ballots furnished 70
policyholde-s by agents and bearing poIicy
nun eers. IL violation Of the Armstrong law.
M Untermyer ADDED that the company had
sried 10 avoid liability by making IT appear that
che agents put numbers on ballots, whereas they
were put on in the corupsny's Office.