PLATE GLASS INSURANCE.
The bill [S. 368] supplemental to an act regulating foreign Insurance Companies, was read the second time.
Mr. FURNAS moved to amend the bill by adding to Section 1, Provided that nothing in this act shall effect or control the prosecutions for violation of law and of the provisions of the foreign insurance laws of the State prior to the passage of this act.
Mr. EDWINS was opposed to this amendment, for the reason that this Plate Glass Insurance Company about a year ago got a certificate from the officers of State, certifying that they could do business in the State with $100,000 capital. The Company is not strictly responsible, therefore he thought the amendment should not be adopted.
Mr. RYAN said this Insurance Company knew when they commenced doing business in this State that they were doing so in violation of law--a well-established, recognized statute of the State, and that they were seeking and willing to take its chances of slipping through, and transact business in the manner in which they did without proseution. It would be an unjust discrimination against other organizations were the page: 15[1][View Page 15[1]]Legislature to step in and legalize the acts after having been visited with the consequence of violation of law. These laws were supposed to have been instituted to protect the rights of the people, and if this Insurance Company takes its chances in the violation of the law, I say it is small business for this body to pass a law exempting them from the consequences of this penal offense. This amendment is one which ought to prevail. I am utterly opposed to this thing of legalized statutes, and this Legislature has run entirely mad upon that subject. Corporations, Insurance Companies, Notaries Public and officers of all kinds have been in here during the session with legalizing acts. The Legislature had better organize itself into a different sort of an Institution or stop legalizing any corporation or individual which has violated the law. Any horse thief has as good a right to come in here and say that the Auditor of the State gave him the priviledge to steal that horse, and that the Legislature should pass a law relieving him of the penalty. I hope the amendment will prevail.
Mr. FRAZIER--This bill, by its first section, changes the amount of capital required to be held by Plate Glass Insurance Companies from $200,000 to $100,000. This is as it should be. Life and Fire Insurance Companies are liable at any time to suffer large losses, even beyond the amount of the capital required; but the business of insuring plate glass is small. The loss liable to be sustained is small compared with the loss which may befall a Fire Insurance Company; and if $200,000 is sufficient for a Fire or Life Insurance Company, $100,000 is certainly sufficient for a Plate Glass Company. No Plate Glass Company in the country has more that $100,000 capital, and to require more is to exclude them from doing business in the State. The second section makes all associations and partnerships not incorporated under Indiana laws and engaged in the business of insuring plate glass foreign Insurance Companies within the meaning of the act, This is certainly right. We require incorporated Companies to have certain qualifications or they can not do business in the State, and yet a firm without capital can, under the law, do business here and pay no taxes, be governed by no laws, have no agent here upon whom summons can be served, pay their losses if they see fit, and if they fail our citizens are compelled to go out of the State to sue. I can not see the consistency of making certain requirements of a corporation and at the same time permitting partnerships to transact the same business without any of these requirements. The second section puts all, whether corporations, associations or partnerships, upon an equality, and makes the same requirements of all.
The amendment of the gentleman from Marion is for the purpose of permitting one of these partnerships, which is amenable to no law of the State, to persecute and harrass in the Courts a corporation which seeks to comply with the law, pays taxes, has the requisite capital, and can be sued in this State. The adoption of the amendment would be an injunction, and it should not be adopted.
Mr. KENNER--There is one fundamental section in the bill of rights which says the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen previlege which shall not be extended to other citizens. If this Company has violated the law--if they have got into the State of Indiana and conducted their business with $100,000 or less capital, when the law says a Company of this kind shall have $200,000 capital, they have violated the law, and the question with us is: Shall we settle this matter here after the Court has held her amenable to the law for violation and say they are exonerated? I believe the law is unconstitutional on the merits of the bill itself. It says there is an Insurance Company which came into the State, issued policies, with a capital of only $100,000 capital when other Companies must have $200,000 capital, thus giving them a right which we deny every other Company in this broad land. I do not want to go that far. I say, let the amendment prevail.
Mr. MOODY--I insist it was no fault of the Company that they did business in this State with a capital of only $100,000 instead of $200,000, for the authority of our own State, issued under seal of the Auditor of State, said they might takes risks in this State with their capital stock, and now are we to say that the door shall stand open for these New York gentlemen to satisfy their malice by bringing a criminal prosecution against this Company for each and every policy they have issued in this State. If you gentlmen think this is just, then vote for the amendment; but if you think and I think, and I believe you do--that this would be an act of injustice on the part of the State of Indiana toward this Company--then vote the amendment down.
Mr. WRIGHT--I undertake to say that under the circumstances there is nothing done but what ought to be legalized. The question is, is $100,000 sufficient for a Company of this kind? A Life and Fire Insurance requireds $200,000 capital stock. The simple question for the members to decide is should this Plate Glass Company be required to have as much stock as Life and Fire Insurance Companies? I undertake to say not, because I believe the business of Life and Fire Insurance Companies may have ten times as much capital involved, and ten times as many losses as Plate Glass Companies. One hundred thousand dollars is ample security to every man who insures his plate glass in such a corporation.
Mr. FULLER--From what I understand of this amendment, I am in favor of it. The law knows nothing that excuses violation by a corporation or person on account of ignorance. If I violate a law, I am amenable to the law, whether the law is known to me or not, and a corporation has to abide by the law as an individual party. If there is nothing wrong, there is nothing to harm them. I do not think the Legislature ought to amend a law so as to excuse parties, and especially great corporations, governed by attorneys that are able to tell them what is lawful. We have no right to undo what the Courts have done.
Mr. MEREDITH thought it only a matter of good faith. They come in here and do business, as they thought, in a legitimate way. They have violated the law. It is a question whether we shall keep good faith with these officers and the persons doing business with them.
The amendment was rejected--yeas, 38; nays, 44--and the bill was ordered engrossed.
