HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
On motion of Mr. Branham, the bill [S. 254] to amend section 60 of the general city corporation law of March 14, '67 (the bill which the Governor vetoed, shorn of its objectionable provisions), was taken up, read the first time and referred to the Committee on Cities and Towns.
STATE HOUSE ESTIMATES.
He also submitted a concurrent resolution, which was adopted, that there be a joint committee of seven appointed, four on the part of the House and three on the part of the Senate, who shall prepare a bill with estimates of the cost of a new State House, which shall be presented at this session.
Mr. Jones presented a petition for the abolition of capital punishment, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
INSURANCE LAWS.
The Speaker now returned to the unfinished business, viz., the Committee Insurance bill [H. R. 350] to organized Insurance companies, and to regulate the business of insurance, etc. The question being on the motion of Mr. Wilson of Ripley to strike out section 53.
Mr. Shirley knew something about the effect of this taking money out of the State by New York Insurance Companies. There is a mistake about it. Those insurance laws of New York are having no effect here. The money which these company's agents get here goes to New York, thence into the hands of brokers, and it is immediately brought back and loaned out here. It is so done in his country, and he was informed that it has been done extensively in this city recently. We should take this twist out of the hands of New York. It was weakness to say that Indianians can't live without the money of New York Insurance Companies.
Mr. Wilson. Do you state that they do loan, or that they can loan ?
Mr. Shirley. While the Company can't do it in their own name, they do loan such money to brokers and the brokers loan it here, and we pay the brokers' premium of about three per cent.
Mr. Miller. What we want is security. If this section will give us security we should retain it; if not, we should not retain it. It is conceded that it will debar the New York companies from loaning their reserves here - and he gave illustrations of its operations. As the law is, I can sue the company's agent in my own county: but if this section is retained I would have to go to the State of New York to serve the process before I could institute suit and obtain judgment. Again: to have cheap insurance we must have competition. And to vote for this section will be to increase the price we will have to pay for insurance, because it will destroy competition.
Mr. Smith opposed the section because it is not free trade. The tax will come upon the people by indirection, and this is a dangerous principle. It will materially raise the rates of insurance, and we would be compelled to do business with home insurance companies.
Mr. Walker. This section does not compel them to loan their reserves in this State.
Mr. Smith. Then I was mistaken. But we are proposing to compel these companies to loan money where we have the worst collection laws perhaps in the Union. We ought not to discriminate by legislation against the State of New York. Those companies who do the best insurance business ought to have a fair field.
The section 53 was then stricken out - yeas 46, nays 39.
The question recurred on Mr. Wilson, of Ripley's next amendment, to amend section 54 by striking out these words, "and shall pay the same into the State Treasury to the credit of the insurance fund." Mr. W. said the section now provides that these fees "shall be paid into the State Treasury to the credit of the insurance fund, out of which the expenses of the department are to be paid." Since the amendments which have been made to the bill, that is not applicable. I think that these fees should be given to the Auditor of State, and whatever we give him should be well defined. This bill requires examinations by the Auditor, involving much labor: and if we leave the compensation undefined, it will be almost impossible to tell what it will amount to. This section is not for revenue, but for the expenses of the Auditor; and as all the expenses in the department are to go to the Auditor, it seems to me entirely unnecessary to put it into the treasury and thcu pay it back again to the Auditor.
Mr Shirley was in favor of so framing the bill that we may know exactly what the Auditor gets.
Mr. Kimball. Does not the bill as it stands determine exactly what the Auditor shall have? two dollars for every license, and $1,000 in addition to his regular salary? If there is any surplus after paying the expenses of the department, are not the people entitled to it?
Mr. Woolen found that these specifications gave the Auditor for filing a statement $25. This filing simply could not be as compensation for service, for if it were, the pay might be about five cents or ten cents. Then there was for his examination of an annual statement $50, which would require but a few hours time. This was a tax for the purpose of sustaining officers - was wrong in principal.
Mr. Wilson. There are a great many things page: 213[View Page 213] which the Auditor has to do under this bill for which he gets no compensation.
Mr. Brett. The insurance companies wouldprefer that the law remain as it is now, and the law now gives the Auditor more money than the combined salaries of the three Judges of the Supreme Court. Should that be done? He would say, let the Auditor have a just and established compensation.
After further debate by Messrs. Wilson, of Ripley, Rumsey and Kimball, the amendment was rejected.
The next question was on the motion of Mr. Wilson of Ripley to strike out section 55. Mr. W. said: This section makes a special law of the State of Indiana for every different insurance company doing business here which is organized under the laws of any other State in the Union. It is just simply to bring the insurance laws of every other State into our own. It is not competent for the Legislature to bring in the laws of Kentucky to govern one insurance company, and the laws of Massachusetts to govern another, for our Constitution requires general laws.
Mr. Woollen. This section requires these companies to come under the laws of this State. Shall we kneel down humbly before the legislation of other States discriminating against us? The Scripture doctrine of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" has a fair application here.
After debate by Messrs. Gregory and Miller, the amendment was rejected.
The Speaker announced the next amendment Mr. Wilson, of Ripley, whereupon Mr. W. asked by and obtained leave to withdraw it; and he then submitted other amendments to the bill to this effect: Strike out the enacting clause; strike out sections 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42; insert a provision requiring every life Insurance company doing business in the State to file a yearly statement of its business with the Auditor of State on or before the first day of December; insert section 26. prescribing the time (December 31) when the receivers shall report to the Auditor; striking out sections 1 to 13, 16, 19, 20, 21, and inserting voluminous matter.
Mr. Kimball. If I am not mistaken, that sounds very much like the report which the gentleman from Ripley made the other day.
Mr. Wilson denied the alleged identity, and debate followed by Messrs. Walker, Kimball, and others.
Mr. Gregory moved that all these amendments be indefinitely postponed, the vote thereon being urged by the previous question, and determined by yeas and nays, resulted in rejecting the motion to postpone on three branches of the amendment, when the House took the recess till two o'clock P. M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Speaker resumed the unfinished business, and the force of the previous, question was exhausted by the House refusing to indefinitely postpone the motion to strike out section 26 of the bill No. 350 - yeas 42, nays 45.
Mr. Wilson of Ripley now demanded the previous question on the adoption of his amendments, and there was a second; whereupon, there being demanded a division or the question on the several amendments, the House refused to strike out the enacting clause of the bill, by yeas 45, nays 47.
The House refused to strike out section 25, which requires the Auditor to examine the accounts of receivers of insurance and "report errors to the courts, which are required to make such orders thereon as to law and justice may appertain," by yeas 31, nays 49.
Mr. Wilson of Ripley claimed that the force of the previous question is now exhausted; and then -
Mr. Mellett moved to recommit the bill to the Committee on Insurance; with instructions; which was agreed to - yeas 48, nays 45.
The Speaker laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of State, transmitting the response of the Secretary of the Chicago Law Institute to the concurrent resolution of the General Assembly confirming the donation by the Governor of certain books to their library, which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
RAILROAD LAW.
The Speaker now took up the special order, to wit: The consideration of the report of the Committee on the Judiciary, returning the railroad bill [S, 115] with amendments heretofore described; and thereupon debate followed (under the impediments of the five minutes rule), in which Messrs. Hatch, Walker, Buskirk, Branham, Cowgill, Miller, Offutt, Woodard, and others, participated [see App. Brev. Reps.]; and the voting following resulted in the adoption of the several amendments reported from the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Branham submitting at proper stages two of the amendments heretofore reported from the railroad committee, which were severally laid on the table; and then, after futher debate, Mr. Buskirk, further to test the sense of the House, moved to lay the bill [S. 114], as amended, on the table, with notice of a motion to take up the bill [S. 6]; and his motion was rejected - yeas, 19; nays, 66.
On motion of Mr. Offutt, it was ordered that the amendments be considered as engrossed, and the bill read the third time now.
The House then adjourned.
