New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-02-27
DID NOT TAKE PART IN CONVERSATION
Walter Lindner Says Mr.. Rogers Had Words
with Counsel Arguing on Bill
The Editor Of The Tribune

To the Editor Of The Tribune
Sir In your issue Of the I'D inst. there IS a
dispatch from Albany under the heading Hughes
VIII Have Way" This article contains several
misstatements upon an important subject
First. the colloquy which YOU reported concerning
the anxiety or the chairman OF the Assembly In
surance Committee, to know what the Governor
would think of the bill upon which that committee
then had hearing, did not take place with respect
20 the bill concerning which | argued before the
committee but referred a bill concerning which
a hearing had prior to tho bill relating to in
vcstments of life Insurance companies. The con
versttjon was not between Mr.. Rogers and me. but
between Mr.. Rogers and the counsel who was arsu-
ing with regard To that bill the question which
the committee had under consideration was cues
ton OF the right OF the Legislature matter OF
law 60 grant the relief which sought to be
obtained under the special bill 20 which that col
loquy referred II was not as iisreSpectful in its
tone as your article would imply All that the COM
u.ttcc sought TO know whether 1t could ascer-
tain the attitude Of the Governor his legal aid
wiser upon the question OF law involved. and 1
think the words. ''tue downstairs not
used ii they used, they referred To the ], gal
adviser % the Governor and not TO the Governor.
Second. your article states that the addition 10
the amendment Of the provision, the interest OF
the company bonds ana mortgages given as
collateral security shall be Uncucumbered and su-
pe-iur to every other right interest therein"
forced 10y bitter opposition" This statement
is wrong. That provision inserted voluntarily
before the bin came up Tor hearing, and in open
ms Ily argument / called particular attention 20
1t and stated the committee that the bill to
which 1 invited its consideration not intended
to permit insurance companies TO invest de-
bertures but if there wery any loopholes in tho
bill under which dchenturcS might be let in they
ought To he closed ana the bill clearly made
provide only fcr the tataS wUIcn seems
ana those proposing il TO he Legitimate object.
- wit, permit insurance companies loan
upon bonds adequately secured by- assignment
delivery 10 the insurance company OF bonds and
mortgages, the amount loaned in exceed
ing what the company could lend directly upon
the property, and the company secured by all
the equity which II would nave had behind It II
Z ~ had made the loan directly and I'm addition
cured by the inferior interest OF the person who
( assigns the mortgage collateral
Your correspondent entirely miSapprehenGed MIR
| McKeen's letter which read before the com
mittee He stated IN his letter that he believed
| that life insurance companies had the right to
make Investments OF the kind which 1t is sought
10 authorize by this bill. and made that state
ment although the bill sent TO him was a first
: print and did not contain the matter to which
I have called attention u that be SO, there can,
| be no wicked purpose hidden in the bill, except
/ 20 make clear that which some think doubtful
The gsnsrai solicitor OF OF tho othap insurance