The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1914-05-07
THE STATES RIGHT.

Gente0 In the Lftefofy INCEST on inc
recent decision Of the United States
supreme court unfolding the validity
of the Kansas statute regulating the
rates of fire insurance. The Digest
points out that In the opinion Of three
of the members Of this court, this
decision supplies the entering wedge
for the assertion Of "the right to fix by
Legislative action the price Of all COM
modities. including labor" And the
Digest continues: The majority opin-
ion of the courts. it is true. upholds
the Kansas law on the specific ground
that insurance is "a business SO far
affected with public interest as to
justify Legislative regulation OF its
rates." But in the dissenting opinion
of Justice Lamar. Chief Justice White
and Justice Van Devanter. 1t IL argued
that ~ IL
Insurance is not production. nor
manufacture. nor transportation, nor
merchandise. The fact that insurance
is strictly a private and personal con-
tract Of indemnity puts 1t on the ex-
treme outside rim and removes it Al
that are in their nature public. So
sonal contract of Indemnity can be
regulated, II the price OF q choice In
action can be fixed, then the price Of
everything within the circle Of its
transactions can be regulated.
considering, therefore, the nature
of the subject treated and the reason
On which the courts opinion il based.
it is evident that the decision is not q
mere entering wedge. but reaches the
end from the beginning and announces
the principle which points inevitably
to the conclusion that the price of
every article sold and the price Of
every service offered can be regulated
by statute"
This minority opinion. as quoted in
the New York Sun, goes on to say that
in the. early days OF the Colonies prices
were fixed by law, but that since the
Declaration Of Independence at has
been commonly supposed that the gem
eral power in the state to regulate
prices was inconsistent with constitu-
tional liberty" The constitution, ac-
cording to this view, not only recog-
nizes the right Of private contract to
acquire property, but the right to fix
the price of its use and of its sale. Say
the three Justices:
ITO deprive any person Of either is
to take his property, since there can
ownership if the price Of Its use or it's
sale is fixed by law. That right is the
attribute Of ownership"
On the other hand, it is argued in
the majority opinion. handed down by
Justice McKenna, that
1.-The price of insurance is not fixed
over the counters of the companies, by
what Adam Smith called the higgling
of the market, but forms in the coun-
ellis of the underwriters. promulgated
in schedules of practically controlling
constancy, which the applicant for in
surance Is powerless to oppose, and
which therefore has led to the asser-
ton that the business Of insurance il
Of monopolistic character and that it
IL illusory to speak of liberty Of
contract
The New York Times finds the view
of the majority less convincing than
that Of the minority. but in the New
York Tribune we read:
1.-THE progressive spirit of the su-
preme court Of the United States has
again prevailed. Against a wealth of
argument it has upheld the state of
Kansas in its regulation Of insurance
companies.
I'VE think the country will approve
the decision in this case without ac-
cepting the radical differences drawn
from it by the minority. II any busi-
ness has become affected with pub
lie interest it is the business of insur-
ance as today organized. Justice Nc
Kenna, in the majority opinion, point
ed out the striking characteristics
which differentiate it from other bust
nesses and necessitate it's regulation.
The interdependence of insurance con-
tracts is one point. the fortunes of
thousands scattered over q wide ter
ritory being bound up in one COM
mon fund. The monopolistic. charac-
ter Of the business Is another, for un-
der the present system. whereby rates
and contracts are fixed in the councils
OF the underwriters, the public has no
actual liberty OF contract whatever. A
| third point is the public necessity OF
insurance.
I'm drawing these distinctions the
majority opinion clearly intends to
disclaim any such radical intention Al
the minority seeks to place upon the
decision"
A CHANCE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL.