Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-12-08
COURT 5 .O|; ION
A SWEEPING ON[.
Attorney General Mullan Re.
ceiyes Full Text OF Decision
y
In Insurance Case
COMBINATIONS ARE ILLEGAL
Agreement to Fix Rates Is a Violation
of the Statute Which the Court Holds
Was Not in Violation of Constitution
Interest in the Primary Election
Law increasing.

Special to Times Republican.
Des Moilles, Dec. 8.-Attorney Cen.
eral Mullan has received from Wash
ington the full decision and opinion OF
the supreme court of the United States
! in the insurance case appealed from
have not been very clear as to how
sweeping the decision is and the parts
quoted in the newspaper stories told
but little. The decision Is short
being only four printed pages 1t dis
! misses with, a word all questions eS-
cept the claim that section 1854 Of the
Iowa code is invalid under the four
teenth amendment to the constitution
of the United States. Section 1854 ct
the code reads as follows:
/ Sec. 1854. Combinations. 1t shall be
unlawful for two OR more fire insur
ance companies doing business in this
! state, or for the officers, agents CT
employees of such companies, to make
or enter into any combination or
agreement relating to the rates to be
charged for insurance, the amount Of
commissions to be allowed agents for
procuring the same, or the manner CT
| transacting the fire insurance business
within this state; and any such cons
| pany, officer, agent Or employe violat-
| ing this provision shall be guilty. of a
mfsdemearor, and on conviction there
| Of shall pay penalty OF not less than
/ one hundred dollars nor more than
| five hundred dollars for each offenss,
to be recovered in the name of tie
state for the use of the permanent
school furtd. [26 G. A, eh. %, sec. j
The fourteenth amendment says that
no state shall pass or enforce any law
that shall abridge the privileges and
/ immunities of citizers OF the Unit ed
States. Judge Smith Mcpherson held
/ in l1is decision in the federal court
here that section 1854 was not invalid
under the constitution Of the state
but held that the prohibitions Of
agreements as to the amount of conf
missions to be allowed insurance
agents or as to the manner of trans
acting the. fire insurance business in
the state were contrary to the four
teenth amendment of the constitution
of the United States.
The following from the decision If
| the supreme court Of the United Stat es
will more clearly give the sweeping
character of the decision, and email le
/ insurance men to know the full import
Of the decision. After stating that the
court found that section 1854 was the
only one found necessary to consider
the decision says: ""Whatever may oe
thought Of the policy of such
attempts, IL cannot be de-
MED in this court unlass
some of it's decisions are to oe
overruled, that statutes prohibiting
| combinations between possible rivals in
trade may be constitutional. The hill
seems to assume that the Statute fer
bids insurance companies to obtain and
use each others experience, or to enl-
ploy the same person to work out the
results. It does not. It simply forbils
an agreement between the companies
relating to the rates which may De
based upon these results. No doubt
an agreement between the companies
readily would be inferred, If they were
found all to charge the same rates; but
an agreement between the companies
! is the only thing aimed at, and If they
avoid that they escape the law. So 1t
was suggested in argument that they
could not employ the same adjuster in
case of loss. We do not perceive any,
thing to hinder their doing so although
it may be they would have to be careful
about the terms Of his authority. The
object of the law, we assume, until the
Iowa court shall decide otherwise, is
SINGLE to keep up competition and the
general language Is to be restricted by
the specific provision and to the par
tfcuIar end. Limited as we understand
it to be limited, the statute goes no
further than Others which have been
sustained and does not contravene 1he
| constitution Of the United States"
| AS the session of the legislature
draws nearer, the probable action on
| the primary election law is being dis
cussed more. There seems to be a
disposition with a great many to s.s-
sumo that the anti-pass law will be
enacted. There is considerable differ
ence Of opinion on the action on the
primary election law. There are per-
sons positive the law will pass and
others equally positive that it will be
defeated At the last session there
were nineteen voted for the Cross ey
statewide primarily bill and twenty
| five voted against it, There were six
who were. absent OF not voting. In he
house the bill never came to vote,
having been lost in the senate. Thare
have been some claims that the dem
ocratic membership in the Legislature
would be. the controlling force. The
democrats in the senate at the last ses-
| sion to man voted against the me as
ure with the exception of John F.
Wade OF Aredale, who is recorded as
absent or not voting. Seven Of The
eight democrats voted against hs
measure. Eliminating the democratic
vote there was a majority OF one re-
! publican in favor Of the bill. The i've