Evening Republican, Volume 16, Number 264, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 November 1912 — The Progressive Issue [ARTICLE]

The Progressive Issue

Contributed and paid for by tho Progressive Party of Jasper County

FROM T&E PROGRESSIVE PRESS BUREAU, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA. Indianapolis, Nov. 4. —Col. W. T. Durbin, Republican nominee for governor, makes his plea as a “business man,” and says that “business” is bigger than “politics,” and must “assert” itself for Durbin. On what does Durbin base his “business” plea? Is it on his record as president of the Federal Union Surety company, oi Indianapolis?., That is a semi-public company, and Durbin’s showing made there is open to inspection, for that showing is on the records of the state and nation. Durbin has succeeded as director of the bipartisan legislative lobby in Indiana. How has he succeeded, beyond enriching himself, in the conduct of a great enterprise such as a surety company? Voters will be glad to get the facts. Mr. Durbin was made president of the Federal Union Surety company, September 11, 1908. He demanded $25,000 a year in return for his magical business ability. He “compromised” with the indignant stockholders at SIO,OOO a year, which shows his keen ability to look out for Durbin. He succeeded Hugh Dougherty, who drew $2,400 a year. This Was “business’ asserting itself. In 9 months of 1909, one year after Durbin took charge of the surety company, that concern’s report showed a decrease in business of $63*000, and an increase of general expenses amounting to $13,000, as compared with the same period of 1908. This big increase in expenses was all in the home office of the company, the showing for the home office being $27,000 in 1908 and $40,000 in 1909. In that first year, instead of helping the company, Durbin apparently cost the concern a large sum. Besides SIO,OOO a year, he got his expenses between Anderson, his home, and the Indianapolis, office, and he got traveling expenses elsewhere. His “secretary,” Col. W. W. Huffman, was made a traveling agent at $l5O a mpnth and expenses, and whereas former agents had covered the country, Huffman confined his activities almost exclusively to Indiana and incidentally was spared by his chief, Durbin, to serve as a lobbyist at the 1909 and 1911 sessions of the Indiana legislature. The charge has been made by stockholders of the wurety company that Huffman traveled largely to work politics for his master, Durbin, and that this was the reason he left Indiana so seldom. It is known to all men that Huffman worked politics constantly in Indiana and in Durbin’s behalf, the game being the governorship with a possible senatorship. As" to the stockholders’ charges, there is no way of judging them. The Federal Union Surety company hired Durbin as president at a time when a good business man was needed. At that time, 1908, the company showed a decrease in expenses over the preceding year of $1,500. With Durbin in, the expenses increased in a year, in the home office, $13,000, and the business fell off alarmingly. In 1909 the premiums in force ir the company amounted to $273,000. In 1910 the premiums in force amounted to $286,000. The auditor of state’s report for 1911 Shows the total premiums in force amounted to only $252,000, a figure lower than before Durbin took charge, while liabilities had increased and assets admitted showed a large decrease. While this was going on there were other troubles. Examiners from the New York and Michigan insurance departments reported on Durbin’s business methors. Their reports are enlightening. Herman F. Kleibackeir, examiner for the Michigan insurance department, reported January 26, 1912, and this report was sent to the auditor of state of Indiana. Mr. O’Brien says the report is unfair to the Federal Union Surety company. As to certain facts stated in the report relating to Durbin’s business methods, however, nothing is said. It is true the Federal Union Surety company got an unfair deal. But whether from the insurance officers of other states, or from Durbin, its president, and his friends, must be judged by the reports. The official report of January, 1912, said: “The financial statements rendered to the state and federal authorities yearly and quarterly did not in the last three years reflect the true condition of the company.” These were Durbin years. Follow the official report. It says: “Not only has the company underestimated its liabilities for losses incurred and computed its unearned premiums on a wrong method, but in addition thereto it has carried out certain transactions at the end of each period when it was required to submit sworn statements.” As shown one method of supplying a surplus for official inspection, the record is important It shows that according to entries made on the company’s books the stockholders contributed the sum of $60,000 to the surplus of the corporation on March 31, 1911, THE DATE OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT TO THE UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT. Such book entries also show THE CONTRIBUTION- WAS RETURNED ON MAY 20, 1911. Durbin and others borrowed money atvthe Indiana National Bank on notea payable to the company. The iSMO was included in the company’s to the government as part of its surplus. In May, the 18th, these notes were taken up, and the company paid $166.67 interest for the temporary use of the money. As one result of these and other transactions the federal government revoked the license ofthe Federal Union Surety company to write bonds on government business.

that the man Vhose semi-public business record as did the Durbin record It is submitted in all seriousness as president of a surety company, is not in a position to go to the people with any plea for votes on the ground of his commanding ability as a business man. The man who gains wealth for himself is not always the best tyje of business man for public service, or for president of a semi-public concern. lit is not necessary to quote the inaugural address of former Governor J. Frank Hanly as to the business methods of the Durbin administration as governor. Hanly, shouldering a little overdraft of $541,000 or thereabouts, left to his administration by the Durbin administration, expressed himself very forcibly on Durbin’s methods of paying oft the mortgage and letting current bills pile up; paying the foreign debt and building up a debt at home at the same time. Durbin’s foes have given the Hanly statement wide circulation, and the people are familiar with that record. It is up to the voter to study Durbin’s business record. ' The details can be had from the reports. There is no hearsay about it. The official reports speak for themselves.