Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1886-11-16
0be Cautastrr 1ntelIiosufs1
LAycAsTKR. NOVEMBER Is, Iss6.
Two Recent Supreme Cour, Decisions.


An important decision has just been rem
dered by the supreme court of the United
States In the case of the Fire Association
Of Philadelphia against the state Of New
York. The question was whether New
York could tax Pennsylvania companies
more heavily than New York companies
were taxed, the occasion for the discrimi-
nation being that the tax on insurance
companies in Pennsylvania was heavier
than In New York. a New York law
authorizes the taxation OF. alien companies
at the same rate that is charged New York
companies in the state to which other con- :
panies belong. 1t was contended that this
law was violation Of the Fourteenth
amendment of the constitution which pro-
vides that no state shall "deny any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the law" But the supreme court says
that this clause can not apply to the case
because the company is only admitted to
the state by license, and the state having
power to exclude entirely has power to
change the conditions of admission" and
that by going into New York the company
accepted the conditions imposed.
1t has been but few days since the
supreme court decided that a state was
without power to prescribe TO carrying
company rates of freight to points without
the state. If we, however, understand the
scope of this insurance company decision,
it is that state has the power to exclude
entirely from its border any business cor
poration ; and that, having this power of
exclusion it has the power of imposing con.
ditions of doing business. Wherefore,
then, if it may impose any license tax it
pleases on an insurance company, may it
not impose upon a carrying company a
schedule Of rates for carriage And
wherefore may it not include in this
schedule rates to points without as well as
within the state, its power over the COM
pany being such that II may impose on it
what conditions it phases
The reason given by the supreme court
for its denial to statesof the right TO i'm
pose upon carrier freight rate to a point
without the state was " that this species of
regulation is of a general and national
character, and cannot be safely and wisely
remitted to local rules and local regula-
tions.n
In fine, the supreme court of the United
States undertakes to say that state may
abuse an insurance company as it pleases,
but not a railroad company, which is pro-
tected by its national character. The
distinction may exist; we do not
care to debate whether an insurance
Or railway company is the most
national in its nature. But what we do
want to know is whence the supreme
court of the United States derives its
power to decide questions, not by the law
and the constitution, but by its conception
OF what can be " safely and wisely RENTED
to local rulesaDd local regulations )" which
IS wholly question for the legislature.
Justice Harlan dssented from the in-
surance company decision. He is deter
mined to be consistent as he denied the
state the right to say what railroad COM
pany should charge for carriage, he would
deny it the right to jump on any other
business company with any tax it pleased
to place.