Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-04-14
DRYDEN TELLS Of
FIGHT TO CHARTER
The PRUDENTIAL
CONTINUED from First Pase.)

-
that were written by President Dryden
and Professor Clark IN June. 1875. Rob-
ert H. McCarter objected to the read
ing, contending that letters written by
Mr.. Dryden and Professor Clark IN
1875 had no bearing IN the present
suit. .
THE letters related to the table or
rates, then under discussion" said Mr..
Lindabury, were submitted to n ap.
proved by the board of directors, and
it is this table of high rates which
enabled the company to accumulate an
enormous surplus
The vic~e-chancellor decided in favor
1f Mr.. L~indabury, who then read letters
from Professor Clark to Mr.. Dryden
Professor Clark wrote that If rates
were high enough the company would
he enabled In time to give policy-hold-
ers some equitable return on the
money they had paid on policies. One
long letter treated o. the questions of
renewal of lapsed policies, that Is,
where policy holders failed to pay their
premiums.
In reply to- a question, Mr.. Dryden
said there was no company in America
doing an industrial insurance business
when the Prudential was organized.
He said the distinguishing features OF
industrial insurance were weekly premi-
uns. the small amounts paid by the
insured and the collections of the week
" payments at the homes and Offices
| of the insured. He said that in 1854
the Prudential Company OF London
England. inaugurated the system of in
dlstriaI insurance. He told of going to
London twenty-three years after the
Prudential of that city introduced in
| dustrial insurance. and how he gotrfn-
formation from insurance men in Lon
don to help in the work of h Pru-
Dental Company here.
Mr.. L~indabury- said to the court that
In 1875 the officers and directors of the
Prudential decided hat when h COM
pany was a success and could afford to
do it, a fair return should be paid to
the policy-holders on the money that
had been paid to the company.
Mr.. McCarter contended that what
an officer or director may have said or
done in 1876 had no effect now. Per-
sons who invested their money in stock
were entitled to a share OF the profits
of the concern.
The v~ice-ehancellor said the suit was
a judicial inquiry and therefore he
| would allow Mr.. Lindabury to get from
the witness all information as to the
! early history of the company and what
the officers and directors agreed to do
for the p~olicy-holders If the company
became a success.
Mr.. Dryden said that at a meeting
of the directors on January 90, 1880. the
first large concessions to policy-holders,
added benefits, were voted and notice Of
this was given to the policy-holders by
the feld force, who called at the homes.
A small concession had been given be-
fore. Mr.. Dryden said II; had always
been the aim of the directors to make
some return In the form of added hene-
fits to policy-holders. A notice of the
1880 concession was sent to Leon T..
| Blanchard, the chief complainant in
the present suit, witness said he
thought, because in the regular course
of business the notices were sent to all
parts of this country.
Mr.. Dryden said that in 1896 the
executive committee of the company
voted to pay dividends on new policies
and, to a certain extent. on the old
policies, and in January, 1897. the board
of directors confirmed this action of the
committee.
Mr.. L~indabury said he wanted to
know all the circumstances that lee up
! to the important action. Mr.. McCarter
objected. The vice-chancellor over
ruled the objection.
Mr.. Dryden said the Metropolitan In
surance Company, the John Hancock
Company n smaller companies had
begun to pay dividends to policy
holders and it was good business for
the Prudential to do the same. Mr..
Dryden also told of attempts to pass
legislation in many States to regulate
and perhaps destroy industrial in
urance, in which poor people are the
most interested. and he went to sew
eral States to explain what harm the
proposed regulations would do.
Mr.. Dryden read a letter from Mr..
Fackler, ar actuary, to the actuary
of the Prudential, in which Mr.. Fack-
Ter said that if ever public opinion
was right in opposing legislation 1t
was in opposing the proposed in
surance legislation in New Jersey at
that time.