of Insurance, whom I refused to continue in office.  Mr. McCall had written me a very strong letter urging that he be retained, and had done everything he could to aid Senator Platt in securing his retention.  The Mutual Life and Equitable people had openly followed the same course, but in private had hedged.  They were both backing the proposed bill.  Mr. McCall was opposed to it; he was in California, and just before starting thither he had been told by the Mutual Life and Equitable that the Limitation Bill was favored by me and would be put through if such a thing were possible.  Mr. McCall did not know me, and on leaving for California told Mr. Perkins that from all he could learn he was sure I was bent on putting this bill through, and that nothing he could say to me would change my view; in fact, because he had fought so hard to retain the old Insurance Superintendent, he felt that I would be particularly opposed to anything he might wish done.

As a matter of fact, I had no such feeling.  I had been carefully studying the question.  I had talked with the Mutual Life and Equitable people about it, but was not committed to any particular course, and had grave doubts as to whether it was well to draw the line on size instead of on conduct.  I was therefore very glad to see Perkins and get a new point of view.  I went over the matter with a great deal of care and at considerable length, and after we had thrashed the matter out pretty fully and Perkins had laid before me in detail the methods employed by Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and other European countries to handle their large insurance companies, I took the position that there undoubtedly were evils in the insurance business, but that they did not consist in insuring people’s lives, for that certainly was not an evil; and I did not see how the real evils could be eradicated by limiting or suppressing a company’s ability to protect an additional number of lives with insurance.  I therefore announced that I would not favor a bill that limited volume of business, and would not sign it if it were passed; but that I favored legislation that would make it impossible to place, through agents, policies that were ambiguous and misleading, or to pay exorbitant prices to agents for business, or to invest policy-holders’ money in improper securities, or to give power to officers to use the company’s funds for their own personal profit.  In reaching this determination I was helped by Mr. Loeb, then merely a stenographer in my office, but who had already attracted my attention both by his efficiency and by his loyalty to his former employers, who were for the most part my political opponents.  Mr. Loeb gave me much information about various improper practices in the insurance business.  I began to gather data on the subject, with the intention of bringing about corrective legislation, for at that time I expected to continue in office as Governor.  But in a few weeks I was nominated as Vice-President, and my successor did nothing about the matter.