The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1916-08-10
GOVERNOR MANNING'S VIEWS.
Next legislature Shonld Revise lnsur
ance Acts to Meet Requirements.

ance Acts to Meet Requirements.
{The following letter from Cover
nor Manning to Mr.. James A. Conelo'
a leading insurance man of Spartan
burg. was given to the Spartanburg
Herald by Mr.. Cofeld for publication
and appeared in the Herald of recent
date.)
Mr. Jas. A. Cofeld, Spartanburg'
8. C.-Dear Sir: In reply to your
inquiry about the fire insurance sit
nation of South Carolina and my at
titude in respect to same, beg to ad-
wise that prior to the convenlng OF
the last legislature we heard quite
a lot of discussion relative to the hre
insurance rates in South Carolina.
During the session Of the general as
aembly this discussion took the form
of bills introduced in the house and
senate. It was claimed by great
many people that fire insurance rates
in South Carolina were excessive anu
that discrimination was practlceo.
The cause of this alleged discrimlna-
tion and excessive rates was said TO
have been because of an alleged COM
bination among the companies SELL
ing this protection, and that THIS
combination had entered into COM
nact to control the fire insurance
business in South Carolina. These
discussions and statements resulted
in the passage by the legislature OF
what is known as the Laney-Odom
anti-compact law. The journal Oh
the house shows that this bill passed
the house by vote of 81 to 81; ana
in the senate on final passage the
vote. according to the senate journal
was 3S to 8, This bill was then sent
to me for approval.
Given Hearing.
Having been requested by interest
ed parties that they be given an op-
portunity to present arguments 1or
and against the approval of this act'
i fixed a date for this hearing. quite
q number of gentlemen interested IN
the insurance business appeared at
my Office and presented their argu-
ments against the approval of the
act. On the other hand, the 1nsur-
ance commissioner, who is especially
) charged with the conduct of the in
surance department Of the State, pre-.
sented arguments favoring the ap-
proyal of the act. I listened to all
arguments with an open mind. l
learned that practically the same ar
ruments presented to me against the
approval of this act had been pre-
,yiously presented to the members OIL
the legislative committee before its
passage. It was stated that in case
! the act was approved, it was general
& Nv believed that the companies would
withdraw from the State. The in
surance commissioner gave it as his
opinion that this would not happen,
but In case the companies did with
draw he thought that other COM
panies could be induced to enter the
State for business and that there
would be no serious interruption
along this line. I did not deem 1t
my duty to decide whether or not
the companies would withdraw. The
only question before me was whether
or. not some valid reason for disap-
proval had been presented to me that
WAS not known at the time the act
was passed. The legislative depart
ment enacted the law, and unless it
could be clearly shown that the act
was unconstitutional beyond any
question or that the members of the
general assembly we're not in posses
sion Of the facts that were presented
to me, it was clearly my duty to &C
cept the judgment of the large ma
FORTY of the members of the general
assembly and sign the act.
4 I did not deem the arguments
against the approval of this act of
such nature and strength as to con-
vince me that it would be improper
ss for me to sign same.
His Idea of Veto Power.
I do not deem it proper for the
governor to refuse to approve an act
because of his personal opinion as to
its wisdom. The governor should
have due regard for the wisdom and
action of the peoples representatives
( in the general assembly, regard
less of what might have been my per-
sonal feelings to influence me in the
performance of my official duty.
Since the approval of this act,
have found that the predictions of a
number of people that the companies