The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Proponents of the bill are also bring-- ing a lot of pressure to bear upon doubtful--minded members, and when the bill comes before the Committee on Municipal Law the argument it will precipitate will undoubtedly be strenu-- ous as well as lengthy. Hon. Harry C. Nixon's resolution ask-- ing the Legislature to affirm its adher-- ence to the principle of the plebiscite and the referendum, in connection with public voting on the liquor question, will, it is understood, be called by Premier CGeorges S. HMHenry next Wednes-- day. The Liberal group, headed by William E. N. Sinclair, intends, it is said, to line up solidly behind Mr. Nixon, de-- spite the "no--referendum" policy of the recent Provincial Liberal Convention. During the past few days there have been rumors around Queen's Park that one or two members of Mr. Sinclair's following might oppose the resolution,| but this was denied to The Globe last night. Another question which is much to the fore in Legislative corridors at the present time is the abolition of munici-- pal income tax proposal embodied in the Assessment Act amendment of Ar-- thur Ellis, Conservative, South Ottawa. A great deal of lobbying is said to be going on in connection with this meas-- ure, and Toronto members--all opposed to the bill, it is said, with perhaps a single exception--are "huddling" re-- peatedly on the matter. Mr. Nixon proposes, it is understood, to divide the House on the resolution, and thereby secure the registered vote of every member. * !~|\l-\--\u\ul\ot\l'\nfi\ot\-l\.O\d OF HOUSE ON MOTION FAVORING PLEBISCITE NIXON PLANS DIVISION [ Supprementary Memorandam _ COMING UP WEDNESDAY i m l e Sm P co O U ; Progress at Parley _ ' _ With City Legislators Liberal Group Behind Him, Despite Convention Policy "I feel we have made some prog-- ress," said Mayor Stewart after he returned from the conferences. tion of all level crossings, a mu-- nicipal airport, a bridge to the Island, income tax and other mat-- ters of importance to the city. After the conference the Mayor expressed the opinion that some progress had been made in so far as the city was concorned. He stated also that the Board of Control and members of the House of Commons would meet on Tuesday to discuss these matters again, and to shape policy. of Commons to discuss with them Beaches development, protection of the Island shores, the elimina-- Mayor Stewart, members of the Board of Control, and Aldermen from Wards 1 and 2 yesterday held a private conference with members of the Legislature and of the House losses in the year 1929 were estimated and only claimed to be $69,489 (Ex-- hibit 225) on Bureau--insured cars and only $40,488 on all cars insured by Bureau and non--Bureau companies, the difference being due to the fact that the non--Bureau companies apparently made a profit of $29,001 (see Exhibiis 224 and 225). The following are the particulars shown in Exhibt 224 of how the $40,-- 488 is calculated by coverages : I was unable to arrive at any satis-- factory conclusion as to the rates on commercial cars and fleets, public vehicles, etc., owing to the fact that no adequate record of experience existed (see report, page 47), so that I only dealt with that part of these totals which represented the losses on private passenger cars, i.e., $614,820 and $576,-- 756. These are the figures for the three years 1927, 1928 and 1929, com-- bined. The increased rates did not be-- come effective until Feb. 1, 1929. The $1,538,567 The comparable figures for the year 1929 only are $255,210 and $276,700, which indicates that more than four-- fiiths of the aggregate losses developed in the years 1927 and 1928 at the old lower rate level during a period when "rate--cutting" was general. And the second Private passenger Commercial cars Tleets ........... made up: Private passenger cars Commercial cars .... T reeks .;.............s. The losses which the bureau com-- panies claimed to have suffered in 1927, 1928 and 1929, amounting to $1,421,892, and those said to be suffered by all companies (including the above), name-- 1y, $1,538,567, are taken from the bureau's exhibit No. 224. They include the losses on all classes of cars, i.e., private passenger and commercial cars, fleets, public vehicles, etc., and on all five coverages, i.c., public liability, prop-- erty damage, collision, fire and theft. The first total, $1,421,892, is thus In furtherance of your request, this memorandum gives a short explanation of some of the facts and figures in my report on automobile insurance pre-- mium rates, drawn from what is con-- tained in the report itself, As figures and sometimes facts, out of their proper relation to other figures and facts, are apt to mislead, it is convenient to re-- state the explanation in such a way that what the figures really mean and the facts establish may be readily un-- derstood and thceir importance appre-- clated. Attorney--General William H. Price released for publication, over the week-- end, the supplementary memorandum which was filed with him on Jan. 16, in connection with the Royal Commission Inquiry into the automobile insurance rates auestion by Hon. Mr. Justice Frank Hodgins, Commissioner. To the Honorable the Attorney-- General: The memorandum, whicn was refer-- red to in the Legislature by the At-- torney--General on March 6, is issued by way of explanation of certain points in Justice Hodgins's main report of his inquiry. The memorandum follows in its en-- tirety : ® * * 4 'INO\.NNNN'\CNWNNWMNNNNNW l second total ($1,538,567) thus: In Auto Insurance Rates Probe +« $576,.756 329,534 632,277 $1,421,.892 $614,820 280,108 526,964 arch cent. or 10 per cent., gets no reduction in the Bureau rates, nor did any one, so far as I have heard, get any benefit by was unable to accept the figures of $69,489 and $40,488 at their face value, or as being the actual financial loss, and I so stated in my report at pages 31-- 32 and 50--51. The ordinary owner of a single cer, unless he is willing to take enough coverages to get the discount of 5 per crease over the 1928 rates) on the whole body of 1929 premiums for private pas-- senger cars, commercial cars, fleets, etc., viz., $8,272.684, yielded the sum of $978,829. 'This additional expense pro-- vision (page 8 of the report) was not defended before me, and no basis of justification whatever was shown to me for any such addition. Of course, a large proportion of it went to ageonts and increased the amount of their com-- mission (because the rate of com-- mission remained the same notwith-- standing the drastic increase in pre-- mium rates), but no explanation was forthcoming as to what became of the large additional sum provided for gen-- eral administration and claim expenses, ie., whether it was absorbed in the ex-- penses of doing business or applied on losses. For these and other reasons I Further, the Bureau companies (do-- ing in 1929 80 per cent. of the total business at Bureau rates, page 24) fail-- ed to account for what was done with the additional allowance for expenses in the 1929 rates provided by the 50 per cent. and 25 per cent. jump in rates on the public liability, property damage and collision coverages. This amount-- ed, for example, to $2.48 on each public liability $16 premium, and to larger or smaller amounts on greater or lesser premiums, and produced a very large amount which, when calculated on the basis of 31 per cent. (the average in-- : $40.488 _ It is to be observed that these figures were calculated by the Bureau's actuary by comparing the "losses incurred" with the "loss provision in earned premiums" and not with the "loss provision in 1923 manual rates." While these premiums were stated to me to have been in fact collected by the Bureau com-- panies at "Bureau rates," they woere not of course collected by all the non-- Bureau companies, most of which charged 10 or 15 per cent. Tess than the Bureau -- rates. Accordingly, the so-- called loss of $40,488 established nothing so far as the reasonableness of the 1929 rates fixed by the Bureau is concerned. Rebates or discounts of 5 and 10 per cent. were allowed by the Bureau com-- panies in case the insured took three or five coverages, respectively, which re-- bates or discounts, stated on page 69 of the report, amounted to $125,564, or 3.4 per cent. of the premiums which would have been charged if no discount had been given, i.e., the companies would have received $3,701,853 in premiums, whereas they received $3,576,289. These discounts, in my opinion, represented unfair discrimination against the small policyholders. In the aggregate, they total almost double the loss claimed to be sufiecred by the Bureau companies in 1929. Public liability . Property damage Collisiony ....... FIYC .:.srsss*sss Thertl EK EETETYT «8 # 8 # 4 % Private Passenger Cars $72,226 33.1738 $11,883 40 .642 21,701 $33,138 $19,354 Profit 14.384