Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-04-02
THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER.
STATE INSURANCE

~ By RITcHIK & DUNSAsANI
= fFRiDAY. APRIL 2, 1883,
= STATE INSURANCE
- IA reeklpr constitutional objection to State lnsu
rsoee ths .Sou.h.Side Democrat" assumes two pre-
u,:.e, neither of which will bear the test Of scrutiny
Il rat as,arts tha. the business Of insurance in Vrg
nj. ,s now left open to individual! competition. 1t re
ou;res some,a.Y: more to substan,a;s this assump
ton, than mere reference 10 the fact that the law
does no. positively prohibit indviduas from issuing
policies |, 10 enough that lesisation has interersd,
ed ishtfully in,erfsred, to the business Of
insurance beyond the reach CT individual compsti-
.A!on. The incorporation of companies with a1sd
amounts Of capital, 10 issue policies under express
,tive regulations, creates facilities and SAFE
guards for insurers and insured which operate una
yoidably to oentrslize the business OF insurance IN
THE hands of such corporations. 1t 10 useless 70 %
duoe the fact that permits an Individual
10 become an insurer, If he can, while the same gov
erpment efects system Of insurance with which ne
eansos compete. =,
Tos, individual competition ought to be prevented
il equally apparent. If individuals were enabled 10
i.sue policies at will, there would be no guaranty to
the Insured except individual credit, there would oe
70 Limitation to the relative amounts of Insurance and
Of capital pledged to the payment Of lossss, all the
safeguards would DO removed, all the risks increased
beyond computation, and Insurance would become
caly aleealised sor. Of desperate gambling.
When the Democrat" inveighs against monopoly
Ia iosuranes- argues against insurance altogsner'
Insurance can be safely exercised only by mesas OF
monopoly. At present that monopoly is paced In
ths hands OF incorporated companies. 1t Is impo'
.ble TO destroy tie monopoly, consistently with pub
liza safsty The question for consideration Is. shall
this monopoly be replaced by another monopoly
which will afford cheaper rate Of Insurance and sp-
ply the profit to the general wefarsf
IN tho next place, the democrat" assumes that
taxation 10y which We suppose it means merely di.
REQ. and involuntary tsxstonl Is the only means Of
revenue contemplated by the spirit Of the Constitu.
tion; that the Constitution especially, though not ex-
p,es,y rspudstss the policy Of securing revenue BY
means Of commercial nature. 1t is attempted to
draw broad line Of distinction between taxation
and the exercise Of commercial functions, a. If the
latter esnno, be rendered Legitimate means of taxa
,,ou We are told that postal CONTROLS government.
raj sttributs-iusuranoe q commercial business.
Mara po.tal control cannot indeed be described as
,hs sxsroiss of commercial function but the actual
carriage and delivery of mails by government agents
!. an operation more purely commercial than insu
rance can be rendered under any system whatever
It constitutes monopoly Of one branch OF the car
ryng trade.
Let rs examine still more particularly the broad
assertion Of the Democrat" Wis: that the spirit OIL
the Constitution entirely preeludee the government
O. Virginia from exercising commercial functions 70,
the purpose of facilitating i,s arrangements fol
finance and revenue.
To refue this position, We need simply refer 10
several instances Of ordinary legislation. the const
nationality of which has never once been disputed.
The State loans money to certain companies and
Institutions. The State Ia a money lender.
The State holds Back stock. The State carries on
the business Of discount, e1char!;" and deposit
The State holds stock in canals and rail- roads
The State engages in the carrying trade.
The State stores tobacco, ipsurss H. and Der agents
s.l IT, The State supplies storage and performs the
functions OF al insurer and a commission merchant
Here are eight branches of commerce in which tn
State Of Virginia 10 at this moment actively engaged
each of which 10 employed for purposes OF revenue
And vat il N dsnisd thar che lsSisiusfAis ss~'
Il business which usage may denomins,s commercial
bat which Is merely financial Institution in the na
ture Of lottery.
Having ,hus fairly met the objections to State in'
surunce, which rely on presumed aversion 10 mono
poly and immunity of commercial pursuits, We may
i;naiiy consider the only remaining objection urged
by the "Dernocrst," viz: that the State has parted
with her right to control the commercial intercourse
..axesu herself aud her sister States. undenlably
she has. But does the regulation Of the business OF
insurance IL Aer oes Hmts within the letter or
spirit of this restriction imposed by the Federal Con-
ssl.r.io", wo do SO regard it. Neither doesthe
aIistiBg legislation Of Virginia. which already pro
v,te. that no sgent Of foreign insurance company
shall iesue license in Virginia, except he shsl fret
osy tar and procure license from the State. And
challenge reference to any decision of the Supreme
Court which at all favors such latitudlnsran
structon that adopted by the Democrat" Again:
Can |: be pretended that the existing Law which probi
h,. he buying and selling Of lottery tickets home or
lin Virginia all conflicts with the Constitution
Of the United States
here 10 case a. nearly similar as can be imagined.
Insurance is only species Of lottery Ordinary lot.
series have been made the subject Of State monopoly
10 dSeren: States Of the Union. and the monop.
ely lie still employed by other governments as means
Of voluntary taxation. Virginia has prohibited such
lotteries entirely, on the ground of public policy
Why may she not, then, on the same ground, monop.
olise the lottery Of insurance,