88
THE GREEN BAG
Again, it is a current belief among the mestic corporations. In confirming this people that the great corporations bear right to the state, the court unequivocallymore than an equal hand in shaping Con declared that insurance against fire was not gressional legislation, and there exists a interstate commerce. This holding was ap well grounded fear that if these corpora proved and followed in a number of sub tions were wholly freed from the control sequent decisions. In Hooper v. California,1 now exercised by the state, and allowed to which came before the court in 1895, it was turn their whole attention toward Congress, contended that the rule laid down in Paul with a probable readiness to use for the v. Virginia applied only to fire insurance, purpose of securing favorable legislation the and that marine insurance should be con same amounts of money, which they now sidered as interstate commerce, since the pay to official blackmailers, or even more, contract directly concerned ships, which the people might learn too late that national were unquestionably vehicles of commerce. control of corporations will result in national But the court declined to adopt this view. control by corporations. Hence we conr Mr. Justice White, who delivered the opinion elude that however expedient Federal con of the court, using this language: "The contention here is, that inasmuch trol of insurance corporations may be from the standpoint of the corporations, it is at as the contract was one for marine insur least questionable from the standpoint of ance, it was a matter of interstate com merce, and as such beyond the reach of the people. We now come to consider the last and state authority, and included among the most important phase of this proposed na exceptions to the general rule. This prop tional control of insurance. Is it legally osition involves an erroneous conception of possible under our form of government? what constitutes interstate commerce. That The Federal government has nothing to do the business of insurance does not generiwith the business transacted wholly within cally appertain to such commerce has been the limits of the state, even though the par settled since the case of Paul v. Virginia. ties to the transaction are residents of dif The business of insurance is not commerce. ferent states. In order for Congress to The contract of insurance is not an instru exercise, under the constitution, any power mentality of commerce. The making of such of regulation over business transactions, they a contract is a mere incident of commercial must involve commerce between two or intercourse, and in this respect there is no more states; and such commerce consists difference whatever between insurance in the transportation of commodities or against fire and insurance against 'the persons from one state to another. That perils of the sea.'" The dissent of Justices Harían, Brewer, the insurance business, in all its forms and incidents, involves merely intra-state trans and Jackson from the decision in this case actions, and not interstate commerce, seems was on another point. Notwithstanding the broad language just clearly settled by the decisions of the Su preme Court of the United States. The quoted from the opinion of Mr. Justice question first came before the court in 1869 White, counsel took occasion to argue in in the case of Paul v. Virginia,1 which in the case of New York Life Insurance Co. v. volved the right of the state of Virginia to Cravens,2 which came up for decision in demand from agents of foreign insurance 1900, that the right of a resident of Missouri corporations doing business within the state to make with a New York Life Insurance license fees not required of agents of do1155 U.S. 648. 3 178 U. S. 389. 1 8 Wall. 1 6 8.
