The Forrest City times., 1899-06-02

Judge Martin In the Antitrust
Insurance Casss.
The Supreme Court rendered its de.
cision in the famous insurance cases
brought by the attorney-g general under
the antitrust law Saturday. The
opinion Of the court Is given below:
The question presented is whether foreign
corporation doing q lre-insurance business In
this state subjects itself to a penalty. under
the recent statute against trusts and corpora
tions, by entering into an agreement with
other insurance companies for the purpose OF
fixing rates OF insurance in other foreign
countries when such an agreement is neither
made in the state nor intended in any way to
AFFECT the prices or premiums to be paid for in
curing property In the state,
As the legislature has the power to entirely
exclude foreign insurance companies from do
ing business in this state 1t can OF course die
tate the terms upon which such companies
may do business here. The whole matter rests
In the discretion Of the legislature. There is
no controversy on this point, but the attorney
general contends that no insurance company
while member Of a trust or combination to
hx rates in any portion OF the world can do
business here without becoming liable to
penalty under our statute The question be-
fore US has reference not to the power OF the
legislature, for that is conceded but to the
proper construction and meaning OF the stat
ute. Whatever the legislature may have in
tended. such intention can have no effect un
less expressed In the statute, for 1t would be
In the highest degree unjust to punish conduct
not claerly forbidden by the law itself The
words OF the statute to which counsel for state
attach such q wide meaning are any corpora
tion, and partnership or individual. any pool,
agreement contract. combination" 1t will be
mott aA1 hat wArIe
statute nowhere expressly says that it was in
tended to have the wide and territorial effect
which the construction OF counsel for the state
necessarily imputes to 1t.
Now. in determining the meaning OF this
statute we will apply to 1t certain wel-known
rules of construction, based on reason and SO
we'll settled that members Of the legislature
must be supposed to have been familiar with
them and to have them in mind In framing the
law. One Of these rules is that this being
penal statute must be strictly construed and
cannot be extended by implication to cases
not clearly within its meaning.
Another rule equally we'll settled is that the
legislature is presumed to intend that its
statutes shall not apply to acts or contracts
done or effected beyond the limits Of the state.
and having no reference to or effect upon the
persons or property in this state
1t is common for penal statutes to contain
general words such as any or all in order to
cover ali persons OF tue kluu Tt1eTFeu 10 III tnc
state when the legislature assembled. but
these general words must necessarily be
treated as limited in some respects, otherwise
innumerable conflicts between the laws OF diff
ferent states and countries would result and
unutterable confusion be brought into the law.
Among the vast number Of cases constituting
such statutes it is doubtful il one can be found
in which general words have been treated as
limited to some extent, for 1t Is unusual for q
legislature to intend that its statutes shall APP
ply over the whole world. For these reasons
we think the words ''any pool or combination"
used in the statute here must also be treated
as limited and we cannot adopt the broad
construction contended for by the states
counsel.
The defendant company is an English cor
poration engaged in the business Of fre insur-
ance 1t may and probably does carry on such
business not only in America. but also in Eu-
rope and Asia. Now, under the construction
which the counsel for the state seeks to have
placed on this statute, II this English company
while doing business here should ut It's once
in England enter into an agreement with other
foreign companies for the purpose Of fixing
rates for tre insurance In Hong Kong or IN the
city OF Canton. China 1t would at once become
liable to a penalty under our statute. For
counsel for state contends that the words any
pool or combination" used in the statute en-
braced such combination in any portion of the
world This. we admit is the logical result OF
their construction OF the law. There Is no
middle ground. Either the act applies only to
combinations affecting persons. property or
prices in this STATE, or its scope Is unlimited.
IL this be the meaning Of the statute, then II
the attorney-general was informed that . COM
pany doing business here had entered into .
combination in Japan or South Africa fixing
rates of fire insurance in those countries. he
would be required to institute an inquiry and
| perhaps to take proof. II is easy to see that
lax ft0a ri0hf al a vii ia
range for the field Of evidence would be as
the habitable globe. Investigations OF that
kind would be expensive. The time OF the at
torpey general and the courts OF the state
would often be consumed by controversies
concerning trusts and combinations in differ
ent parts of the world having a reference to or
effect upon the people OF this state. II the leg
islature intended the statute to have such q
broad scope 1t should have expressly said so In
plain words. 1t is so unusual for Legislature
| to intend that its acts shall have such world
wide effect that courts are never justified in
putting such construction upon them il their
language admits Of any other reasonable inter-
probation.
Again this statute not only forbids corpora
| tions from entering into pools and combina-
tions but IL also forbids individuals persons
| and partnerships. and they are subject to like
| terms upon which corporations may do busi-
| ness here 1t does not have such control of the
| citizen. So il we adopt the construction con-
tended for by the encouragement 1t necessar-
lily results that portion OF the statute must
| be treated rs unconstitutional
The presumption is that the legislature IN
tended the whole OF the act TO take effect
This furnishes another reason why the con
struction contended for by counsel for the
state should not be adopted.
Our conclusion is that the statute does moi
apply to pools or combinations formed outside
| OF this state and not intended to affect and
which do not affect. persons, property or price
of insurance In this state. In other words. We
| are OF opinion that the legislature by this
statute did not intend to prohibit or punish
acts done or agreements made In foreign coun-
| tries by corporations doing business here when
such acts or agreements have reference only
| TO persons, property prices In such foreign
countries The decision OF the circuit court is
therefore affirmed.
The French girls do not en- inv thai,