El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1899-05-05
INSURANCE CASE; DECIDED.
Against Attorney General In Ar
kansas Antitrust Case.

Against Attorney General In Ar
kansas Antitrust Case.
A Little Rock dispatch to the Globe
Democrat, dated April 81, says: Cir
cult Judge Joseph W. Martin today
handed down his opinion in the cele-
brated insurance antitrust case, sus-
tanning the demurrer filed by the in
surance people and dismissing the
complaint of the attorney general.
The attorney general appealed the
case to the supreme court. The court
held that the complaints OF the state
do not allege facts sufficient to con-
stitute an offense, and that his con-
struction of the Rector anti-cOmpact
law is extra territorial and not borne
out by the statutes itself. Among
other things the court said:
| WOULD EXCEED AUTHORITY.
On the 9Th of March, 1899, the act
commonly known as the ANTITRUST
act' was approved. The attorney
general brought number OF suits
against certain insurance companies
under this act on March 81, to which
general demurrers have been filed In
most of them, and this court Is called
upon to rule on these demurrers, that
is to say. in each case, whether the
complaint Estates facts sufficient TO
constitute q cause OF action The
determination of this question depends
upon what is the proper construction
to be placed on the act This court 1s
hard pre- ssed by. the state with this
proposition, that the word "any" pool
or trust anywhere and everywhere,
and several cases are cited in which 1t
is used in the broad sense.
Now, in this act there is perfect
harmony between the two clauses as to
corporations and private citizens when
you adopt the fair and reasonable con-
struction that the act in no part at
tempts to confer extra-territorisl juris-
diction, but where it reads "shall
create, enter into or become member
or a party to any pool, trust or combi-
nation. etc." it simply means what 1t
does in perhaps q thousand repetitions
of the word ''any" in our criminal law;
that is, any pool, trust or com binatlon
created or entered into inside the |
the legislative jurisdiction properly |
and legally extends. Thus understood,
the parts of the act are all in perfect |
harmony.
TO GIVE THE LAW EFFECT.
statute such q construction as will en-
able it to have effect. That is only
saying that the court must construe
the statute in accordance with the leg
islative intent. since it Is always to be
presumed the legislature designed the
statutes to take effect and not to be
nullity
According to these rules, the courts
,an never eliminate part OF statute
as being unconstitutional if it can rea-
corstrue the whole act as con-
Now, it will be observed
hat not only corporations are named,
put also in the same sentence "any
or individual %. other as h
ISOLATION or persons whatsoever, who
hall create, enter into or become q
member or party to any pool. trust,
yuilty of a conspiracy to defraud."
There is, then, in the body of The
Ict and in immediate connection with
he corporations named, an extended
of mere individuals, priv
tie citizens, who are declared subject
o the psins and penalties of the act.
am not aware of any case in the books
7here it has been held that state
ould exercise such extra-territorial !
as to declare the acts of q
rivate person committed outside of it's
Ounds q violation of its penal OR GRIM
1sl law.
Nor has the attorney general sug-
ested that he could find any such case
r offered to present such. But he in
mate in the argument that he was
illing to let individuals go, and that
e was only after the corporations.
By no rule of law known to this
ourt is there vested in even the high
lice of attorney general any authority
cut out or omit from solemn act of
le general assembly single word,
.ntence or clause.
EVERY WORD SHOULD BE WEIGHED.
The legislature, when it makes a
W, especially one which creates q new -
ime and declares heavy pains and 4
'nalties against private citizens. or
EN- corporations, is presumed to
sigh every word, sentence and clause
I'd attach some meaning to such.
A fair, deliberate and common-sense
ew of the statute, it seems to me,
ads to the inevitable conviction that
g contention of the attorney general
mot possibly be main tained. It ia
the very teeth of every rule and
inciple of construction in criminal
d penal statutes to so extend the
gaming of the word ANY" to pools
d trusts beyond the borders of our
tie for the purpose of conviction; to
ye it such extra territorial inter-
citation would certainly render it
constitutions and void as TO indi-
luals, and at best e very
lbtful constitutional validity as
corporations. if they alone -
re named. And even ii it we're
:sible to uphold such a construction, q
to the corporations separately con-
cred, it could not be done in this
e without contravening that other w
binding rule of Interpretation that We
cry sentence, word and clause must, we
possible, be retained. For in such wv
e, the clause in regard to indivi-
ais and associations of persons would -
va N on ont