The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-05-30
TUESDAY. MAY 80. 1850.
ARKANSAS LAW BNCONSIlIt.
TEONAJ,

Another antitrust law has been brought
low BY the Supreme Court. This time it
Is the famous antitrust law Of the state
OF Arkansas. through the enforcement or
which. under the construction Of the At
torney-General. the insurance companies
were practically prohibited from doing
business In Arkansas. The statute III
question provided that any corporation
organized under the laws of the state
or am other State or country. and trans
acting or conducting any kind Of business
I'm the state Of Arkansas. or any part
nership or individuals who shall create or
enter into or become a party TO any pool.
agreement contract combination. assoeli-
ZION or confederation 90 tax or limit the
price and premium to be paid for the in
surance Of property against loss or dam
age by fire shall b. deemed and adiudged
guilty Of a conspiracy to defraud and sub
ject to the penalties as provided by the
act.
Under this law an action was brought
against a foreign insurance company In
which the state through her Attorney
General. claimed a penalty Of $500. The
question considered by the court was
whether foreign corporations doing q fire
insurance business in the State subjected
itself TO a penalty under this statute hy
entering into an agreement with other
insurance companies for the purpose OF
fixing rates az insurance In foreign cOun-
tries. when such am agreement was
neither made IN the State nor intended
in any way TO affect the prices or pre-
miums to be paid for insuring property in
the state.
The contention Of the Attorney-General
was that any insurance company which
was a part OF am insurance combination
in any other State or I'm any foreign
country was subject TO the penalty The
Supreme Court emphaucally declared that
such construction Of the law was harsh
ana unreasonable and would not stand
The court went on to say that under ms
construction n the defendant company
which Is an English company while DONG
business I'm Arkansas. should. at its Office
in England. enter into an agreement with
other foreign countries for the purpose
OF fixing rates for fire Insurance in Hong
Kong II would. under the Aitorney-6en-
erals construction, at once become liable
IN the penalty afnxcd 10y the statute. The
court says that this would bring on end
less litigation. and IN effect says that It
would bring the law into ridicule.
More interesting still the court says
that such construction might result IA
Debating the main purpose Of the act
namely. 10 encourage competition Cor by
preventing competition AN companies be-
longing 10 such a combination I'm any
foreign country would be shut out from
doing business and competition might
be iessened and prices increased thereby
The conclusion of the court Is that the
statute does not apply 10 pools or comei-
nations formed outside OF the state ana
which do not AFFECT persons. property or
prices OF insurance I'm the state
Acknowledgement Davis. when asked
FOR his opinion concerning the decision OF
The court. replied that the construction
placed by the court upon the act rem
ders 10 absolutely impossible for the state
q make out case. because the statute
thus becomes discrimination IN favor
OF corporations which may combine
against State corporations which may
not combine so as 20 affect prices.
And SO we have another illustration Of
the contention so often made by The
Times that antitrust laws are not worth
the paper they are written upon. once
admit the corporate principle. and IL is
impossible 10 discriminate between what
are admitted 10 be legitimate corporations
and those corporations which are called
trusts. our contention Is that antitrust
laws-that IL laws hat are designed 10
prohibit corporations from doing BUSH
ness-are In this age impracticable, but
laws 70 control corporations 10 prevent
them from expressing the people and 70
make them. within reason, serve the in
fersst OF the people, axe altogether prae-