Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1880-10-28
INSURANCE. lMBROGLIO.
The LONG ARGUMENTS COMMENCED
By Attorney General White Before Judge
Crsnmer-The Line Of Defense
Briefly Set Forth and Several
Good Points Made.


Good Points Made.
The Municipal Court room was pretty
well filled yesterday morning with Jaw
yers, insurance agents and business
men generally, vino had gathered Tor
the PURPOSE of hearing the arguments
on the insurance tax question. IL WEI
be recall ed to mind that at Police Court
Monday morning, wien the case o. A.
n Beach was called, the counsel Tor The
insurance cgeEts requested an oppor;u'
nity 10 argue the matter. 1t Was dc.
cided that "Wednesday morning should
be .he time and the Municipal Court
room the place.
THE civ Was represented by Messrs.
rr.kirc and Allison, wIile Attorney
General White and Daniel Lamb and Il.
q. Barr, Esqs were there Tor The Ge'
Tense. W. 4. Hubbard, E,q, was also
with these gentlemen, and immediately
after the court had been called To
order. he arose and stated that
he appeared for L. 7. Phillips, who was
on Monday served with twenty pro-
cesses, and lie wished these processes or
eases, continued until the first ones had
been disposed Of, as he claimed that
these OF his client were OF different
nature. Mr. Phillips is one OF the two
agents who paid the tax, but when he
insured certain mill IL this city he
placed part of the insurance in the COM
panies OF another agent, and he thus he
came a broker, and the ordinance specl-
fies that a broker is also subject TO ar
rest ami fine unless he take out a license
for every company he may work Tor.
Attorney White and Lis associates
thought that these cases should 20 with
the rest, but raised no objection and
thew were contiaucd. Mr.. Hubbard re-
maiEed during the entire argument and
was a very attentive listener, often
making notes.
4 few moments after 10 O'Clock Attor-
ney General White commenced his
argument and continu d speaking until
II. An ALBUMIN: MT was then had
until > r. ~, nj which time he resumed,
and dill nO;'rlusc until after 1 O'Clock.
His argument was q very exhaustive one,
and was backed by numerous decisions
and references. He, among other
wo Ks referred TO Cody ON CODs,itu-
ito .al Limitation and on Taxation, and
decisions from the supreme Courts oil
the United States, Connecticut, Ne"
York, Michigan, Pennsylvania and In
diana. lie showed by the WAY he
handled the subject, that he had studied
hari omit. His principal points were
these
lie first moved to quash the processes
issued: lst That it does not make any
one a plaintiff or defendant on liz face.
ri. Because it merely, by way OF recital,
sets forth that complaint has been
made OF the violation OF the or
dinance, but it does not charge
upon its face, against he de
PENDANT any violation thereof. 81. Be-
cause the ordinance imposes the penalty
against an individual iDr acting rs Ils'tr-
onc, aren't. The process seeks to'punish
simply for transdc;ing business as agent
Of a company; in other words, it does
not charge the act done as done by the
defendant, Is an insurance agent.
Again, the defendants insist that the
city being municipal corporation 1t has
no inherent power TO require license
or the payment Of tax. IL can only do
80 when authorized by legislative action.
The Legislature only authorized the
City Council to assess and collect Ii
cense on insurance agencies of foreign
companies doing business ,rdhin the
city. a city ordinance is not valid un-
less it is strictly in accordance with leg
islativc authority. The defendants ill.,
sist that the ordinance i'll question ~
not thus in accorCa ice with such aG-
thority.
Firs,-Bccause it seeks To impose a
tax on the indiriinpi agent and not
upon the agencies of foreign 60 npanies,
and il also seeks To- hold the Individual
agent semi criminaily responsible for
the non-paymcnt of license which the
Legislature has alone authorized 20 be
imposed upon agencies.
Second-Becausc the legislative au-
thority is 10 the COtWci To assess the
license. The ordinance makes il unlaw-
iul to transact business without a license
issued by the Ci,rk OF the city.
Third Because the license Is author
lied to be imposed on Insurance agen-
cies OF foreign companies doiHJbus"TsS IN
the city. The ordinance declares It uE-
lawful for any person 10 do business "a
insurance agent until such license IL Oh.
tanned In other words, il is insisted
that the Legislature on authorizes Il
tax TO he levied upon lawful business.
whilst the ordinance on the other hand
declares the business TO he unlawful un-
Ill the tax is paid.
Again, il is insisted that even ii Tic
ordinance is not'illegal upon its face for
the reasons given, still the tax imposed
hy il is an improper AMI Illegal tax, be-
cause license tax ia either one for rev.
enue or one authorized to be- imposed
for the regulation OF business in a city.
II this is TO be considered n tax Tor
revenue" then the amount Of tax being
$50 for each company an agent
represents, it is practically a tax So
great as to prohibit the business. a
revenue tax, it is claimed, cannot he
levied To SO great an amount as TO
prohibit the carrying on OF lawful
business. Ii il is to be treated rs 4 tax
for regulation, then it is void, because Ii
snse fees for regulation cannot legally
b, made greater than an amount nrces'
sary to pay for tie expense AMI trouble
caused by providing for the regulation
OF the business.
Again il is insisted that the insnr-
ance companies having in January, lSI",
paid the tax required by law In author
lie them to do business in the State, the
Legislature could not in March follow
in: impose an additional burden by way
ot taxation upon the companies.
These were some ot the most import
ant points in the Colcnel's argument.
The Court adjourned until Friday
morning at 10 O'Clock, at which time