The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-08-11

He claims that every courtesy possible
has been given and extended to the
company.
winds up with a short paragraph on
the threat of the surety company to
move from the state He can hardly
fg1Ire out how a nonresident company
can secure a certificate to do business
in Kansas more easily than d ooIneStIc
corporation u =.
Mr.. Jackson's statement in full is
as follows:
ent Barnes refusal to issue a certih-
cate to the surety company which
seeks to guarantee bank deposits in
Kansas, stated that Mr.. Barnes as
signed as one of his reasons for re-
that the attorney general had advised
hmi that there was a question about
the corporate power OF this company
to guarantee bank deposits. This
opinion to Mr.. Barnes I advised him
that the company has this power;
and not only that but the charter
board consisting of Mr.. Denton, Mr.
sued a charter to the company, con-
tanning the specific power to transact
this business The suggestion lndt
Mr.. Barnes assigned this as one of the
causes for refusing to issue a cert1h-
cate to the company, came from per-
sons representing the company and not
from Mr.. Barnes or myself, for the
reason that they wished to test this
question before the courts Tor the
benefit of it's stockholders and patrons
'I wish it distinctly understood that
this objection to the company's GER
tificate does not accord with my view
of the law or my opinion to Mr..
Barnes which has not been made pub
lie So far as I have anything to do
with Mr.. Barnes answer to the suit,
this point will be admitted, except in
sofar as it is necessary to secure a de-
cision of the court on the questions
which the company desires determined
by the court.
same day the repreSe SentatiVeS of the
company were attempting to arrange
friendly suit to test this law and the
legality of this company's organlzatSon
Mr. Burrow, one of its principal o.
fcers gave out a statement to lhe ell
feet that the state officers were en-
deavorine to drive the company from
the state by refusing 1t a certificate &c
transact business. This statement was
as unfounded in fact as the other. |
Every courtesy has been eXLehoeo TO
the company by the state officers ana
every possible care taken to give the |
national banks the same rights as state
banks concerning the matter OF guar
anteeing bank deposits. The state OF |
dcers have repeatedly urged Ihdt tne
company as nearly as possible, issue
its policies on the same DaSlS as the
Insurance under the state guaranty |
fund is written, so that each pIah va
operate equitably and neither have the
advantage of the other This suggeS-
ton has included the limiting OF inter
est on deposits to three per cent IN the
banks joinigg either plan; Ean,C This 1sah9a has
hat the national bankers, led In a |
large measure by Mr.. Burrow, forced |
the same limitation into the state
guaranty law during the last session |
Of the legislature. If It was a good
thing then. it is a good thing now.
ssThe threat of the surr+-- company 10 |
,vithdrav to Missouri disturbs no one. |
It has that privilege If il desires to exo
see how a. nonresident company will Sc
cure certificate to transact business
in Kansas more easily than domestic
one and the laws concerning the trans |
action of business by foreign companies
in this state will be strictly enforced |
against any surety company which at
tempts to transact business in Kan |
sas whether it seeks to guaranty bank
or to transact any other busl-
nPSS''