The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1913-07-03

insurance companies doing bust.
ness in Missouri must stand trial
on the charge preferred by the At.
torney General OF combining to
withdraw from business in this
State on account of the Orr law.
This law, broadly construed, pro-
hibits any fire insurance company
from doing business on a fixed or
prepared schedule of rates by the
various companies, and makes it
prima facie evidence of violation
of the antitrust law for any COM
pany to adhere to such a system of
rates in writing insurance. The
court, however, recognizes the
right, which is incoRtrovertible, OF
any company of its own volition to
suspend business, but that the de.
fendaut companies in combining to
withdraw rendered themselves
amenable to the antitrust law of
the State.
The companies hold that it
would be impossible under the Orr
law for them to do business safely in
this State; that any duplication of
the rates Of one company by an.
other would subject it to suspicion
of collision or combining and
prosecution under the antitrust
law. That business transactions
would be greatly embarrassed by
the withdrawal Of the fire insur-
ance companies from the State is
recognized in all commercial in
dustries, for without insurance
every loan for any enterprise would
be hazardous, aud when the insur-
ance companies began to protest
against the Orr law and threaten
to suspend business in the State be.
cause of it, there was aroused a
public opinion OF more or less gem
eral character that they were hold
ing this club over the State in an
effort to shape or dictate whatever
laws the Legislature might enact to
regulate them.
But there is this other side of
the question. The business done
by foreign fire insurance compan'
les in the State is immense, and
although they claim that profits
have been small by reason Of fire
losses, they would not voluntarily
give up this business except for
cause. And although they have
been assured by the Governor, the
Attorney General and the State In
surance Commissioner that they
could do business under this law
without fear of technical interfer-
ence or embarrassment, still the
drastic letter of the law on the
statute books, as it may be con-
strued, is a menace that they APP
parently are not disposed to face.
1t must be said that the law.
with the Interpretation that may be
and is placed upon it in a general
way, is drastic. and leaves the
proof of innocence of its violation
in any case Of duplication of rates
on the companies in the event of
prosecution under its provisions.
And does not this interfere with
the very purpose for which it is
supposed the law was enacted
that of producing competition in
the insurance business' For il
one company makes a reduction to
duplicate the rates of another to
get business, it at once renders it
self liable to the suspicion or charge
of combining with the competing
company to make rates.
We don't believe the Legisla-
ture intended to work q hardship
on foreign fire insurance compan-
les doing business in this State by
too restrictive laws or regulations,
but that they didn't 20 into the
subject deep enough to compre-
bend the disturbance and menace
TO business generally that the Orr
law seems to have wrought. II
the purpose was to guard against
excessive rates of insurance, q