New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-05-06
FOREIGN INSURANCE CONFINES.


There was brisk discussion in the Assembly,
lately. over Mr.. Sheldon's bill 20 compel foreign
insurance companies 10 waive the right to be
sued IN Federal Courts. Mr.. Ayord said A:
Pass il by all means. Our merchants cannot
s. afford appeals to the Supreme Court at Wash
aington." Mr. Dayton and Mr.. Callinan were
sure it would be unconstitutional. ." knew an
insurer said Mr.. Fcnncr " TO whom the COM
-pany offered 30 per cent, threatening to carry
the case to tho Supreme Court. lie fought the
case through and won IL, collected the whole
sum: but the expense ruined him. And
then half a dozen members gave various YER
,ions Of what has been decided on the right Of
"a foreign corporation 10 remove suit against 1t
TO the Circuit Court. No wonder they were
pcrplexed; for the distinction taken in certain
cases carried up from Wisconsin Is too minute
for the naked eye Wisconsin, like other
States. has laws imposing restrictions on FOR
cign companies desiring 70 make lnsuranccs
within her borders. one of these restrictions
was that every such company must subscribe
and lilo a written engagement to waive any
right il might have TO ask that suits brought
against IL ia q Wisconsin court should be re-
moved into Federal one. A company which
had filed such an agreement was sued ana
made application, notwithstanding the writing
il had nlcd, 10 have the suit removed. This
was "a clear breach OF the stipulation but the
Supreme Court said that the stipulation could
NOT be- enforced. Parties have the right to resort
10 the Federal Courts IN the cases allowed by
the National laws, aud "a State statute assuming
10 prevent their doing 30 ia void No doubt It
VIVA this decision which gave rise to the opinion
EXPRESSED in tho Albany debate, that the bill
would be- unconstitutional.
But this decision was not the end Of the
Wisconsin controversy As other companies
seemed disposed to take n similar course ana
repudiatc their written promise, when strong
occasion arose. the Secretary Of State bcthouSht
him of the counter move Of reyoking the
license of one Of the companies, under which
ia Wisconsin business was done by this de-
vice the company, by way Of penalty for break
ing its promise, was forbidden to transact any
more business within the State. Up TO the SUI
preme Court again where the company law
yers argued that, the law requiring the promise
having been pronounced void, TO punish the
company for refusing TO obey 1t must necea-
sarily be unlawful. But tho Court decided that
the State authorities might revoke the license
of the company for any reason deemed satlsiac-
tory or without special reason. A State Is
under no obligation to allow insurance COM
panies chartered elsewhere TO open offices and
issue policies within her limits. On this subject
each State is sovereign. Either may allow for
eign companies TO enter freely, or may impose
conditions; or may exclude them altogether.
And the Supreme Court cannot inquire what
the motive was for an order of State authorities
that such companies shall be excluded
Under this decision there can be no doubt of
the power of State to enforce, by the indirect
method Of ordering the company out OF the
State if it will not comply, an agreement not to
drag suits on policies into the Federal Courts.
She has the same right as a householder in his
dwelling he cannot, perhaps, directly compel
caller to lay aside his hat in the parlor, but
he can summon policeman to walk an intruder
out of the front door who insists on staying
after be has been told 10 leave.