Pine Bluff daily graphic. (Pine Bluff, Ark.) 1893-1942, 1905-05-12
W[W I00Ul nAl0lU
RAISED BY THE ATTORNEYS FOR
DEFENSE IN THE ANTI
TRUST SUITS.
Can Arkansas Impose Penalty fof
Something Done Outside the
State?
POINT ARGUED At LENGTH

Little Rock May 12.-The main is
sue involved in the suits against the
Hartford and German Alliance Insur-
ance companies under the new anti
IL st law was brought cut yesterday
in the arguments of attorneys for the
state and insurance companies on the
demurrer of the state to the Hart
fard's answer. This hearing which
is likely. to be decisive one, was
begun yesterday morning and will not
be concluded before tonight. While
the case is before Judge Winfield in
the second division Of the circuit
court. the latter has invited Judge
Lea Of the first division and Chan
cellor Hart to sit with him in this
hearing
The argument of the attorneys yes
lerday was chiefly upon the question
CT the power of the general assembly
10 impose a penalty for acts commit
ted outside the state which have no
effect upon the residents of this state,
and it hinged chiefly upon the differ
ent constructions placed upon the act
by the attorneys for the state and in-
s1rance companies The attorneys for
the companies contended that the act
was intended to impose a penalty up
en- the companies for acts done out.
side the state and having no effect
On the citizens OF the state, and they
declared the legislature had no right
to pass such a law The attorneys
for the state contended. however, that
the intent of the law was not to i'm
pose penalty for acts done outside
the state, but to impose a penalty for
the transaction of business in this
state by companies which have per-
formed the acts complained Of in 9th
er states. The state contends that
the law does not impose a penalty up,
on insurance companies for being
members of a pool or trust outside the
state, but does impose a penalty for
the transaction Of business in this
state if the company is at the same
time member of any such pool c"
trust.
Judge House, in his argument,
went intc this question at length
holding that the power Of the lagisla
ture to admit the company or exclude
it from the state is one thing and the
power to impose penalty for acts
done outside the state is another
He declared that this law was not
intended to exclude the companies
from the state, but was intended to
impose a penalty for acts done out
side the state. Special emphasis was
laid upon the fact that the insurance
companies involved are net members
of q trust or pool anywhere to fix
rates in Arkansas, and that they are
not members Of pool Or combination
in Arkansas to fix rates anywhere.
These facts. it was contended, are
conceded by the demurrer Of the
state.
Judge House also contended that
under the power of police regulations,
brought up by attorneys for the state,
the legislature had nc right to ~
such a law as the acts for which a
penalty is imposed are harmless in
! themselves, SO far as this state is
concerned and the state Of Arkausa )
and the people have no concern or in
terest in them.
Morris M. Cchn also went into thi )
question at length, reading from the
first section of the act to show that l.
old not provide that corporation
which was a member Of a pcol or
combination outside the state should
not do business in this state but that
it provides that such corporation :,
shall be subject to penalty for such
acts outside the state.