New-York tribune., 1909-01-06
MR.. RUSSELL's VIEWS.

riSdiCtiOn.
MR. RUSSELLS VIEWS.
Speaking of the suit which he has brought,
Mr.. Russell said last night:
THE Washington Life was and is a much
better and safer company for its pocyholders
doing business in New York under the laws Of
New York than the Pittsburg company Is under
the laws of Pennsylvania. AT least. that Is my
opinion The financial condition OF the wash
ington Life is also much better and safer than
that OF the Pittsburg company, as think the
complaint demonstrates.
Il hope that before the matter has gone far
the officers and directors OF both the Washing
ton and Pittsburg companies will realize that
they have proceeded without warrant or au-
thority OF law and in violation of the laws OF
this state and the rights of pohcyhoders, and
that this will result Inc the speedy resumption
and continuance of busiRess by tire Washington
company.
''Propery managed, the Washington Life would
have a great future. writing it does
under the laws of New York participating
policies. which give to men Of moderate incomes
the greatest amount of insurance for the least
amount of money. The Washington company
was perfectly solvent on December 81. II ought
to continue solvent and be successful But this
attempt TO destroy it a New York company
protected by New York laws should be promptly
overturned"
SAYS ASSETS WONT BE RESTORED.
Henry A Rubino said yesterday that there
was no truth in the report that the assets of the
Washington Life would be restored to New York
jurisdiction within the next few days. What his
clients had agreed to do, he said. to trustee
the assets intact pending their application for
permission TO DO business in this state. and they
were now awaiting the decision of the Insurance
Department IN the matter.
In the papers filed by Mr.. Russell he reviews
the history and past transactions Of both the
defendant companies. and offers financial state
uents of both companies to prove his contention
that the Washington Life offers much more
secure financial investment to its policyholders
than does the Pittsburg company. In this con-
nection he points out that during the year 1907
the Washington Life paid dividends to policy
holders amounting TO s112,776 9S while similar
payments of the Pittsburg company during 1907
uere ONLY s7I2 as He also shows that during
1907 the Washington Life paid no dividends to
stockholders while the Pittsburg company paid
dividends to stockholders amounting to $S9,543.
He further offers statements showing that the
expense of obtaining new business during 1907
was approximately 3S Ia per cent more in the
case of the Pittsburg company than in the case
of the Washington Life.
CHARGES OF WATERING REALTY VALUES
The nlaintif alleges. upon information. and
helief" that the Pittsburg company "watered'
its real estate values by adding to the book
vslue" of the real estate the item market value
over book value Of real estate" The purpose Of
this act the plaintiff alleges. was to show the
apparent solvency of the Pittsburg company
with an apparent surplus Of $1I.3SI 81, when
jf said item of market value over book value
o1 Of
burg company, as shown by said statement,
said company instead of having a surplus. had
in fact a deficiency, which plaintiff, on nfOrma-
tion derived from said statements, alleges TO
have been $500 149 o.
Continuing the plaintiff charges the directors
Of the Pittsburg company with fraud and con-
spiracv In merging the Washington Life into the
Pittsburs company and transferring the assets
of the Washington Life to the Pittsburg company.
He further charges that the merging Of the two
companies and the transfer of the assets of the
Washington Life were in violation of the laws
os the state of New York. and of the charter of
,ba washington Life and its contract obligations
The nIaintin also charges that under the laws
of PENNSYLVANIA the policyholders of the Wash
ireton Life will be deprived of the protection of
= largo mart of the legal reserve" TO which they
are entitled under the laws Of New York.
The pIaintif also charges that there is
agreement between the Pittsburg company and
its officers and directors TO convert 10 their own
use and benefit large part of the properties
and assets of the Washington Life He points
ont the futility of az appeal to the officers and
directors of the Washington Life for redress
because they under the dominion and con-
troll of the defendant Pittsburg company" He
then asks that the Pittsburg company be re-
strained from transacting further business of
the washington Life, and that temporary re-
ce.vers be appointed to take over the assets and
conduct the business Of the latter.