FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY SUITS
On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, the special order was taken up, being his bill [S. 42j to repeal an act of March 15, 1879, touching foreign Insurance Companies, with a favorable majority report from the Insurance Committee and a report from the minority recommending that the bill be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. LANGDON moved to substitute the minority for the majority report.
Mr. CHAPMAN opposed this motion. The bill simply seeks to wipe out that portion of the act rererred to, which provides in some cases that foreign Insurance Companies shall forfeit all right to hold real property, and rights on one side which are not on the other. This bill is in the interest of the people and not in the interest of any Loan Corporation. The passage of this bill would allow our citizens to borrow money from older communities at the lowest price for which money will be lent. Since the passage of this act of 1879 a number of foreign Loan Incorporations have suspended all business in Indiana. The act sought to be repealed acts as a deterrent to those possessing capital from loaning it in this State. This act page: 117[View Page 117] of 1879 forbids the transfer or institution of suits by foreign Corporations in the Federal Courts, and this bill proposes to repeal that clause, leaving it optional whether such cases shall be tried in the Federal Courts or in the local Courts. Our people need cheap money to develop our abundant possibilities. The way to bring capital here is to extend a friendly and just hand to those who have money to lend.
Mr. BROWN favored the substitution of the minority report. If the argument of the Senator is correct, these foreign Insurance Companies lie under the same disadvantages with his amendment as without it, if they obey the law. Not a single valid reason has been advanced why this amendment should be made. The only question is: Shall the Insurance Companies foreclose their mortgages in Indianapolis, or in the County where the mortgaged property is situated? To require the mortgagee living in Counties outside of this to defend his suit in this city would be imposing a burden unnecessary and unjust to the citizens of Indiana. It would be wise to discourage the people from recklessness in making laws. He opposed a high protective tariff that builds a wall around the city of Indianapolis to prevent country lawyers from coming in.
Mr. CHAPMAN insisted the existing law operates as a deterrent to money seeking borrowers coming into this State. If he could have his way he would not rob a County Attorney of a single foreclosure case brought by a foreign Insurance Company. He did not think the Court expenses are very much increased unless it be right at the threshold of the Federal Court, than in local Courts. The act of 1879 covers every contention that can possibly arise--not foreclosures solely. He never would encourage borrowing, but when one believes he can make money by borrowing money, he does not take the contrary advice with much kindness. While many will be reckless, many others in the end are benefited.
The motion was agreed to, and so the bill was indefinitely postponed.
