The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-02-20

1olk, VINO represent the associations ana
both of whom has looked into tho law
carefully. It is bill rc-enactine an old
statute Inadvertently repealed The mat
ter was fully discussed and carefully in.
vestigated and substitute bill was of
fered so as to meet all objections. "A
subcommittee OF the Committee on
General Laws passed upon the bill and
the Committee on General Laws itself
then favored 1t. The bill was also con-
s!dercd by the House Committee. The
substitute measure was laid beforc Col
onel Cation. of the House of Delegates.
author Of the general insurance bill, and
it met with his approval. Every oppor-.
tunitS was given for a full and free dis
cussion of the measure which, as stated,
was finally reported only after thorough
Inquiries. had been made and various
amendments proposed
What Others Said.
When Mr.. Shackelford sat down the in
cident was apparently closed and the
clerk proceeded with the reading of bills.
Quite number of other Senators. how
ever had something TO say, and for a few
minutes the fraternnl bill was the sub
ject of half-dozen brief but pointed
speeches. In the absence of the General
Laws Committee Mr.. Sale, of Norfolk, a
member of the committee, explained that
the measure had been examined with
great care and unanimously reported with
favorable recommendation. Similar state
ment was made by Judge Sims. of
Louisa, who said he had been requested
by Mr.. Shackelford himself to look into
the bill which he did.
II took this DILL said Judge Sims.
"and with the enrolling clerk compared
it word for word with the old law which
had been inadvertently repealed.
found them practically the same The
changes made were unmaterial. / was
satisfied that there was nothing inn
proper in the bill and 80 reported to Mr..
Shackelford."
Calling attention to the fact that his
name was mentioned In the article Judge
Phlegar of Montgomery. declared thai
he had certainly not criticised or referred
! disrespectfully In any way to any Scna-
|, tor in connection with the bill. Any re-
mark he had made concerning the matter
! referred to the bill itself.
"I did say" declared the Montgomery
Senator, land 1 repeat that found the
bill very objectionable
"Have you read the substituted" inquls-
| ed Mr. Shackclford.
NO" replied Judge Phlegar. in effect,
"I had nothing before me but the printed
| bill when looked into the matter Satur-
day night. This printed bill 1 found to
|
! dorse, and which do not think the sena-
tor from Orange will endorse
| Practically the same thing was said by
Mr.. Thomas. of Lynchburg. who Joined
with Judge Phlegar In declaring that he
had said nothing referring to any senator.
but had simply inquired into the bill
itself. to which both had objections.
I'VE were discussing principles and not
! people," said Mr.. Thomas. Eve went
over this bill and looked into its provi-
sions. Both of us reached the conclu-
sion that 1t was bad bill. In fact 1t is
my opinion that under this bill q mutual
life assurance society could come into the
State and do business without being sub
| ject to the laws of the State. This Is my
| opinion, and 1 have no apology to offer
| for having expressed It."
did the senator from Lynchburg take
note OF this amendment to the blll?".
asked Mr.. Shackelford, reading the
amendment. 9
| I'VE dealt with the printed bill Alone
| said Mr.. Thomas. IL II
| At this point the chair ruled that the
discussion was getting beyond the ques-i
ton of privilege, and the debate, which
| was beginning to involve the details. Of
the measure proposed, was checked.
Misrepresentation Removed.
| ~ HlSdppIelicuSloll OIL UOlIl SlueS us
sisted in complicatlng the Consideration
of the matter. and when this had, been
| removed the situation was relieved OF It's
| strain, Mr.. Shackelford assumed that
there was some implication that he was
trying to slip In a dangerous bill.
This was In no respect the intent OF
the publication with reference to Mr..
! Shackelford or anybody else. and If the
article created this impression. notwitll-
standing the attempt 20 guard against it,
| 1t was unfortunately worded. The sole
purpose OF the article was to outline the
objections raised by certain senators to
certain provisions of the bill, and the
statement of their position with reference
| to tho matter was scrupulously correct.
! In discussing the bill with the Tines
l.Dispatch representative these gentement
| REFERRED us Mr.. Thomas said. to no per-
son or persons whatsoever, but simply ex-
| pressed their opinion az to the bill Itself.
On tho other hand these gcntlement
! were unaware that n substitute and sew,
ernl amendments had been offered. and
were referring to the printed bill. Mr..
| Shackelford said yesterday that the sub
| stitute removed all objections SO far as
:, the advocates Of the bill We're Informed
| of them and that important changes had
| been made from the printed bill. One OF
| the amendments proposed Is as follows:
| nProvIded, however, that nothing In
this section shall be construed to ex,
empt such associations, orders or So
| cletes from this operation OF any law
ooyernng pleading and evidence, IN
| suits or actions on Insurance policies
or certificates, nor to exempt such as
aocatIons, orders or socIetles from the
Jurisdiction of any insurance depart
/ H. tar I1a H0 IA.