The Columbus dispatch. (Columbus, Miss.) 19??-1922, 1920-06-30

the report of the Law Committee of
che Sovereign Camp was not intro
ducad until the fifth day of the con
vention because the members of the
convention had not been ready for
the report When pinned down upon
this proposition and when he was
asked to point e anything in the
record Of the convention which indi-
Gated this state Of facts, he could not
do So, but, on the contrary, every
statement IN the record clearly show
ed that the committee was not ready
70 report and did rot make It's re-
port until the fifth day Of the conven-
ticn, absolutely contrary TO the laws
OF the society. That was another
place where the Sovereign Command
eT in his testimony misrepresented the
facts. ID Is hard to believe that one
who occupies position Of 80 much
responsibility would stoop SO low as
tie deliberately testify falsely OH the
witness stand.
The facts just stated can easily
be verified by going to the records
Of the trial. do not know how these
matters will impress the judge before
whom the case is being tried. 1t
took four days to put in all the evil
dcnce. An abundance Of testimony
was given from the acturial stand
point. Figures were presented Of
such magnitude that would have a
tendency to battle the mind Of a high
ly competent person when undertake
ing to decipher the same.
Judge Button was called into the
ease and in all probability had never
heard CT it before. The chances are
a motion will be filed requesting the
judge to make special findings. In
case this Is done it will simply mean
that tho Judge will have to go into
every phase of the case, analyze it
carefully and make a special finding
upon every question involved. In or
der to do this he will have to famili-
arize himself from an actuarial point
Of view in regard to the reasonable
ness, necessity, and many other
things concerning the rates.
! remember that practically every
actuary testifying for the defense was
asked the following question, or a
question similar to the following: A
man go years old under the new rate
will pay on $1,000 insurance and 500
monument, the sum Of $73.6S per
year; that same man, who joined the
society in 1897 pays $l5.04 per year
for the same amount Of insurance.
Now, say that that man elects to ac-
cept the lien against his policy and
pay his old rate and per cent in
terest on the amount Ct the lien of
$500, which would be $3.50, making
him pay S23.S4 on $3.50 worth Of in
surance per annaum. Now, how do
you account for the fact that this
man 60 years Of age would pay 1884
for $3.50 insurance and, in case he
elected to pay the new rate. would
pay an additional $49.84 on the addi-
tional $500 worth of insurance? How
do you account for the fact that 1920
worth of insurance costs this man
$49.S4 per year and $3.50 worth Of
insurance costs some other man, or
this man If he should elect to take
that particular option, only S23,64
per annum? ask you If state Of
facts of that kind is not a discrim-
nation between the men who, not
understanding elect 20 take separate
options, one man taking one optior
f and the other man taking the other
7 option? ls it not a discrimination
to charge one man $49.S4 for S32t
worth of insurance and the other mar
/ $23.S4 for $3.50 worth of insurance
Is this not discrimination Thi,
question or a question similar to tn,
one just propounded was asked ever!
actuary testifying on behalf of tn,
defendant and there was not singh,
actuary who could answer the ques
tion in an intelligent manner, /
simply baffled them to the extent tina
they remained dumfounded and the!
could not find any reasonable solution
! for the proposition.
! have undertaken in this article t
relate TO you what, to date, has tran
spired in the trial Of this case. il
relating this to you ! have taken tn
evidence as it was given before tn
court on behalf of the defense. | hav
not undertaken to present to you tn
evidence OF. plaintiffs.
Dealing generally with the plain
tiffs' evidence from an actuarial poin
of view, | will only say this Tha
the testimony of John f. Higdon.
noted actuary Of Kansas City, Mis-
souri,, and Mr.. Signenhorst, of Waco
Il Texas, another noted actuary. men q
! great competency, was TO the effec
that the rates demanded by the Soy
ereign Camp were unreasonable, eS
orhitant and unjust, and that the pla
as proposed is entirely arbitrary j
its operation, and that same is ne
equitable; that it is necessary for tn
society to increase its rates TO cen
tain extent, but that increase need nc
be out of reason, and that it can b
arrived at in such manner as wi
not cause an undue burden TO be plat
ed upon a single member, and the
they can formulate rates which wi
make our society practically solver
and at the same time do justice [
all members in such way to kee
absolute harmony in the society, elm
mate all shock as a result OF sue
increase ard make conditions nor
satisfactory all the way round. Thi
was the evidence introduced by til
plaintiffs. They showed clearly /
their testimony that it was possibl
to comply with the New York Coz
ference Act, which only requires tn
society to maintain the same pea
centage of solvency every trienni;
period. They clearly showed, in s
far as the acts Of the Severeig