The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1914-05-06
T. REINSURANCE coMMERcE2

EgTshe~gupreme court of the United
tstaAes has just rendered a decision.
with the dissent OF three of the nine
Judges. UNFOLDING a law OF the state OF
kansas regulating fire insurance n
Sustaining the action of the state in
lsurancs companies in fixing the limit
lot the rate to be charged in the state
hbyaaAc company organized outside of its
Jurisdiction 1t is argued in the ma
fior4ty opinion, read by Justice Nc
Vienna, that while the insurance con
tract may be personal between the
Epolcyholder and the underwater, its
personal character does not preclude
REGULATION, for there are nan ex-
'aznpIes Of governmental regulation of
personal contracts, and in the statutes
of every state in the union superin-
,tendence and control over the business
of insurance are exercised, varying in
details Inc extent" It is said that
"the business Of insurance a very
definite characteristics with a reach
OF influence and consequence beyond
nj different from that Of the ordinary
business OF the commercial world"
which make it a proper subject Of
regulation, etc.
This suggests, If it does-not directly
raise, the question, whether insurance
in its modern development is not to be
regarded as commerce, or an tnstru-
mentality Of commerce, and subject to
ejaculation o~ eJV~h T. -. ~N~-,I-4oI -
states and the supreme court upholds
the power of any state to regulate it
even to the extent of prescribing the
rates which ma be charged within it's
jurisdiction. BY the same tribunal held
more than forty years ago that the
Operations of life insurance, with con-
Etracts made and executed in different
states were not subject to regulation
10y federal authority, because they do
not constitute commerce within the
fmeaning OF the constitution. That has
been the accepted doctrine since.
The minority of the court in the
Kansas case. consisting OF Chief Jus
tttee white and Justices Lamar and
FNsn Deventer, base their dissent in
Ip2RtsupOn~ the later. decision in the case
Foe the New York Life Insurance Co,
@gaanSt Deer Lodge that insurance
hcnRad no be considered interstate
fcoraRneros. In the opinion, written by
Hartans itis said that insurance is not
production nor manufacture. nor
transportation, nor merchandise" In
hsfGect It is argued that as a personal
IcontEact TOR indemnity. the charge
for 1t cannot be regulated by
asw. The inference seems to be that
Ef it can be regulated by state law
within a state, it may be regulated by
national law when carried on between
states.
There is evident in the position
reached by the majority of the Judges
Hstendency away from the old adiudi-
cation with reference to insurance as
"a business" that when carried on
between states it is not subject, to
regulation as interstate commences;
flor, if 1t is a business within a state,
Subject not only to supervision but to
regulation as to the terms Of its con-
tracts. there would seem to be an in
consistency in maintaining that it
cannot be subjected to regulation in
tits interstate operation. The serious
difficulty Is raised that the operations
of a single company may be subjected
Ito different conditions and require
@r1ents in forty-eight different jurisdic-
tons with no authority that can
harmonic or supersede the conflicting
cancellations