panies have any complaint against the decision in the case of Paul z's. Virginia, the source of that complaint is not in the desire to be regulated by Congress, but to escape regulation and surveillance altogether. And yet it may be claimed, not without reason, that something of the strength of the great companies represented here to-day is due to that system of supervision and surveillance under which policy-holders may have been made to feel that the laws of the State have secured to them safe and solvent institutions, to which they may confidently look for indemnity fairly purchased.

Furthermore, had the court declared that insurance is commerce, it would by no means follow that all insurance is interstate commerce. The control of the Congress could be extended only to those insurances which are strictly interstate, and the range, I take it, would be narrow, unless the domicile alone of the contracting parties determined the matter. But following the analogies of contracts of transportation, the question is not one of domicile alone. Thus, transportation of goods within the State, though the carrier be a foreign corporation, is not regarded as an act of interstate commerce. And where the entire transaction is carried on within the State, the same might be said of insurance. If the matter were to be determined from the nature and status of the property to which the insurance attaches, it would seem that the term interstate would apply only to insurance attaching to property in transit between States, or put up and stored for exportation, and to the vehicles of transport, but not to real property, nor to personal property having a habitat or ascertained place within the State.

Again, if insurance companies were placed in the position of railroad companies, whose business is admitted to be commerce, they should only have one more account to render. Our noses would be tweaked by the State Superintendents and our ears pulled by the Interstate Commission. We would be punched in the ribs by one and poked in the back by the other. There is no reason to suppose we should fare any better under one supervising authority than under the other. We might, indeed, be relieved by some general law in respect to garnishments and some other matters needing uniform regulation; but, on the whole, the present situation is not without its redeeming features. We may measure up the good against the evil, seize upon the best that the present system affords and be thankful that we have escaped a worse. Continuing to build up, by a fair and honorable course of dealing, an institution which will command the respect and support of legislators

and the commercial world, we may find in that which has been deemed a restraint and a misfortune, a veritable source of benefit and advantage. In such event we may say with but little reservation, as Madam de la Tours exclaimed of the original Paul and Virginia: "You are the cause of my affliction, my children, but you are also the only source of my delight."

Mr. T. H. Smith

At this late hour it perhaps is not best to go into much of a discussion of a paper, and yet I have heard with a great deal of interest the latter part, at least, of Mr. Williams' paper, and without any intention to reflect upon the earlier papers presented to the convention, I must say that it reminds me of the old saying of the Scripture about keeping the good wine until the last. There is much in that paper which we shall be glad to think of, and I feel that the very warm thanks of this Association are especially due to Mr. Williams for his address. I move that our appreciation be expressed to him by a rising vote of thanks.

Motion unanimously carried.

The President

We have never before had a programme so interesting as to keep the gentlemen in constant attendance, as they have been, for so many hours in one day. I regret that Mr. Williams' paper was not listened to by a much larger audience, but there is much satisfaction, at least, in the thought that it will be published in full in the Proceedings and thereby be given a larger circulation. It was a very interesting and very instructive paper, and we are very glad to have it go into the archives of our Association.

Mr. W. F. Fox

I wish to express my appreciation of the fidelity with which Mr. Williams followed the case of Paul vs. Virginia. I have had occasion to look that case up in times gone by, and the resume of it that he has given is strictly correct. The case turned upon whether the State of Virginia had the right to exact conformity to its laws before an agent could do business, whether he should receive a license from the State prior to his right to do business as a local insurance agent. The agent did comply with all the requirements of the laws of the State of Virginia at the time, except that relating to a deposit, which he was unable to comply with; that was for the company to attend to, and not him.

The company not putting up the deposit, he went on and issued a policy, and for doing so was fined, and the case was appealed and became noted in the annals of insurance litigation. But the doctrine laid down in this case is an old one. It was stated previously in the case cited by Mr. Williams, in the Bank of Augusta vs. Earl, and in two cases in Wisconsin, and there are numerous other instances that might be cited where the doctrine has been laid down that insurance corporations have no standing in other States except as given by courtesy. A natural person has a natural right. A corporation is simply an artificial person, and has no rights outside the commonwealth wherein created. That is a recognized principle of law, established by a long line of decisions which it is not worth while to undertake to overturn. Now, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that insurance is not commerce. On that point I see Mr. Williams is inclined to differ in opinion. If I understand correctly, commerce involves a thing, a thing in esse, and transportation, the exchange of a thing by the hand, or by rail, or by ship. A contract is not and cannot be commerce, in the nature of things. A promissory note is not commerce; a mortgage is not commerce; an insurance policy is not commerce, it is simply a contract to do a thing in a certain contingency. It is related to commerce just as notes or exchange are. All things are more or less related to commerce, but they are not commerce per se. The Supreme Court has held that doctrine clearly, and until the Constitution of the United States shall be enlarged so as to give Congress the right to legislate upon insurance as it does upon commerce, it is utterly futile to attempt to enlarge the jurisdiction of Congress in that direction. The States are supreme over corporations, because they are created by the States by virtue of special State laws. A corporation is a thing of artificial construction, and it has no standing outside its own home. Commerce grew out of the conditions of trade long before insurance was born. In no sense can an insurance policy claim to be part and parcel of commerce. There is nothing in common between the policy contract and commerce except its indemnifying feature-undertaking to indemnify a person for the loss of a thing, which thing enters into commerce. In all other respects I think Mr. Williams' paper is most admirable. On that point I take issue.

Mr. Hine

A brick is not a house, a door is not a house; but a brick is part of a house and a door is part of a house, and if, when I buy a cargo of

corn or wheat in Chicago, I purchase a tarpaulin to protect my cargo from the rain as it is in transit, that transaction is a part of the transportation of that cargo. And if, in addition to that, I purchase and pay for a policy of insurance to protect my cargo from other dangers which it has to run, then my purchase of the policy of insurance is also a part of the transaction and of the transportation, just as much as the bill of lading, just as necessarily as any other contract for the labor of stevedores, or anything else. I say that insurance is a part of

commerce.

Mr. Hine, as chairman of the memorial committee on the death of Mr. Whiting, submitted the following report:

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON THE DEATH OF
MR. J. H. C. WHITING.

Not all the stalwart friends of this Association are on its roll of membership. Outside its immediate working force it probably has no stronger body of admirers, supporters, friends, than the journalists, and among all of these there was no more steady, cheery, outspoken champion than John H. C. Whiting, of the American Exchange and Review. Dear Jack Whiting we loved to call him living, and still love to call him dead.

All men have their individualities, more or less pronounced. Probably no man of our generation illustrated the power of concentrated will and heroic endurance more finely than the lamented J. B. Bennett, whose eulogy was so eloquently pronounced on this floor last year. The lovely life of Chas. Marshall, the scholarly industry of A. J. Waters, and the characteristics of others who have rested from their earthly labors and whose works do follow them, and whose memories we love to keep fresh and green, come up in sad procession as thought runs back over the necrology of the past few years.

We add another name to the lengthening list, and we speak a word of honest admiration for a noble soul to-day. Jack Whiting was so unselfish that he could not seek distinction save as it might come to him along the path of honest, every-day well-going. His goodness, and kindliness, and cheery, encouraging words were so natural and so con

stant that they were as little noted while he was with us as the sunshine or the free air, or any other blessing that we accept and enjoy as a matter of course, but whose loss makes us suddenly and painfully sensible of its unspeakable value.

Combined with his frankness and friendliness, however, there was a fearlessness and a sense of honor, right and justice, that made him as quick and as vehement in detecting and denouncing wrong, as he was unreserved in his friendships or open in his confidences. It was the privilege of some of your committee to meet him frequently and know him intimately, and they bear willing and loving testimony to his worth as a citizen, a journalist, a student of insurance, a husband, father and friend.

The world is better, men's paths are smoother, their loads are easier and their lives more sunny, because such men as Whiting live. In our hearts we say, softly and sadly, Dear Jack Whiting. As we study his life and better understand the atmosphere which surrounded him, we may add, appreciatingly and admiringly, Rare Jack Whiting.

C. C. HINE,

J. S. BLOOMINGSTON,
C. A. HEWITT,

Committee.

On motion, the meeting adjourned until 10 A. M. Friday,

October 9th.