Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-09-20
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
AGENTS NAME SUPERINTENDENT
OF INSURANCE RESPONDENT.

A petition for writ Of mandamus against
Thomas E. Drake. superintendent of in
surance for the District of Columbia, was
filed today by James A. Bates and E b.
townsend, trading as James A. Bates Il
Co., to compel the issuance to them of a
license to do business as general insurance
agents In the District of Columbia. The
petition was fled by Attorneys Wilton ]
Lambert. Edward Mclean and Rudolph H.
featman. and 1t Is said Is for the purpose
or making test case on behalf of a num-
Der OF agents similarly situated to whom
the superintendent Of insurance has re-
FUSED to grant licenses because of obiec-
tons on the part of the agents to making
certain affidavtts which the superintendent
had seen fit to require, as condition
precedent to the renewing Of licenses for
the current year
1t is set forth that the petitioners have
been engaged in the general insurance bust
ness for number of years. and are gen.
eral agents for the Firemens Insurance
Company, and have annually received
license to do business as general agents.
When it became necessary for them to re-
new their license. 1t is stated, under
ton 654 of the District code. by which 1t Is
provided that licenses shall be issued by
the superintendent of insurance upon the
payment Of a fee of $50 to the collector Of
taxes they were furnished with a form of
affidavit which the superintendent OF in
surance insisted they should sign before he
would issue q license
Form Of Affidavit.
The form OF the affidavit required them
to show with whom the company had done
business during the preceding year and to
set up whether they had paid any commits
sions to any one for the procurement of
business.
This affidavit the petitioners say they re-
fused to sign. the ground that each
company had a number of general agents
and It was impossible for them to state or
know all the business done by the COM
he fllrfh he tI,nt
the information attempted to be extorted, as
to whether they had paid commissions to
parties could only be desired for the pur-
pose of either satisfying the curiosity of
the insurance superintendent to be used
by him for prosecuting them and others
who might be named by them II 1t should
develop that they had paid any such COM
missions for the procurement of business
The effect of the affidavit attempted to be
procured. 1t is claimed is to extort evil
dence by duress. possibly to be used against
the atlantis. which power 1t Is averred, does
not exist. even in court of justice.
Tender and Demand Refused.
After rendering the money to the col
lector OF taxes and demanding the license
of the Superintendent of insurance 1t Is
stated. the petitioners had both the tender
and the demand for the license refused.
and were served with a notice that they
could no longer continue the insurance
business in the District of Columbia. 1t is
claimed that under the law the insurance
superintendent far as furnishing the
licenses to agents Is concerned, has only a
ministerial power to perform, but II Is fur
Their contended that IL 1t Is found that he
has power to make any discriminating laws.
those he has attempted to make in the
carrying out of the policy referred to are
unreasonable. unlawful and arbitrary.
Petitioners have suffered. they claim,
great financial loss by reason of the super
intendene's alleged arbitrary action, and
the court is asked TO issue a writ com
mandins him to grant to petitioners