The writing, selling, and transmission of insurance policies has been held not to be commerce.

That the business of fire insurance is not interstate commerce was decided in Paul v. Virginia.15 interstate and foreign bills of exchange might in time fall within the federal commercial power. Where such bills represent payment for articles brought from other States, they may perhaps be considered to bear the same relation to the purchase, sale and exchange of commodities that freights and fares bear to their transportation. From another standpoint, bills of exchange may be said, in their relation to transportation of money, to bear some analogy to the relation which a system of free interchange of cars would bear to railroad traffic conducted in the absence of such a system. It is true, both of bills of exchange and of such a system of interchange of cars, that their relation to interstate transportation is in that they make such transportation to some extent unnecessary; and yet a State may not forbid this free interchange of cars, because to do so would place a new-burden upon commerce among the States. To say that an interstate bill of exchange is merely evidence of the transfer of title to personal property located in another State is not only to ignore the fact that money, as the circulating medium, is essential to all commerce, but when sustained the argument seems to prove too much. If the bill of exchange be merely evidence of indebtedness in another State, it may be taxed at the discretion of the State within which it is drawn (Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491; 25 L. ed. 558); and it might, therefore, be prohibited by the State; for 'questions of power do not depend on the degree to which it may be exercised ' (Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wh. 419; 6 L. ed. 678). If this could be done, the statement that no burden could be placed upon interstate commerce by a State would be subject to substantial modification. It seems possible that the rule which would be applied in such a case would be stated in Erie Railway Co. v. State (31 N. J. L. 531), where it was held that 'whenever the taxation of a commodity would amount to a regulation of commerce, within the prohibition of the Constitution, so will the taxation of an inseparable incident or necessary concomitant of such commerce.' In People v. Raymond (34 Cal. 492), an act providing for the raising of revenue from a tax upon foreign and inland bills, and passengers, was held not to be in the nature of a police regulation, but an attempt at the regulation of commerce, and therefore void. On the other hand, in Ex parte Martin (7 Nev. 140) a statute requiring the fixing of revenue stamps to foreign bills of exchange was held to be a legitimate exercise by the State of its power of taxation." Commerce Clause of the Constitution, p. 48.

15 8 Wall. 168; 19 L. ed. 357. See also Liverpool & L. L. & Fire Ins. Co. v. Mass., 10 Wall. 566; 19 L. ed. 1029; Philadelphia Fire Assn. v. New York, 119 U. S. 110; 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 108; 30 L. ed. 342.

That the business of marine insurance is not interstate commerce was held in Hooper v. California.16

In New York Life Ins. Co. v. Craven17 these cases are cited with approval and applied to life insurance, the court saying: "We repeat, the business of insurance is not commerce. The contract of insurance is not an instrumentality of commerce. The making of such a contract is a mere incident of commercial intercourse, and in this respect there is no difference whatever between insurance against fire and insurance against the perils of the sea. And we add, or against the uncertainty of man's mortality."

In Paul v. Virginia a state law which forbade any insurance company not incorporated by the State, from doing business in the State without a license, was held valid as not a regulation of, or restraint upon, interstate commerce. To the argument that insurance is intercourse for the purpose of exchanging sums of money for promises of indemnity against losses, Justice Field, who rendered the majority opinion of the court, said: "The defect of the argument lies in the character of the business. Issuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce. The policies are simply contracts of indemnity against loss by fire, entered into between the corporations and the assured, for a consideration paid by the latter. These contracts are not articles of commerce, in any proper meaning of the word. They are not subjects of trade and barter offered in the market as something having an existence and value independent of the parties to them. They are not commodities to be shipped or forwarded from one State to another, and then put up for sale. They are like other personal contracts between parties which are completed by their natures and the transfer of the consideration. Such contracts are not interstate transactions, though the parties may be domiciled in different States. The policies do not take effect - are not executed contracts - until delivered by the agent in Virginia.

16 155 U. S. 648; 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 207; 39 L. ed. 297. 17 178 U. S. 389; 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 962; 44 L. ed. 1116.

They are, then, local transactions and are governed by the local law. They do not constitute a part of the commerce between the States any more than a contract for the purchase and sale of good in Virginia by a citizen of New York whilst in Virginia would constitute a portion of such commerce."

In Hooper v. California the court emphasizes the distinction between interstate commerce or an instrumentality thereof, and the mere incidents of which insurance is one which may attend the carrying on of such commerce. "This distinction," the court declares, " has always been carefully observed, and is clearly defined by the authorities cited. If the power to regulate interstate commerce applied to all the incidents to which said commerce might give rise and to all contracts which might be made in the course of its transaction, that power would embrace the entire sphere of mercantile activity in any way connected with the trade between the States; and would exclude state control over many contracts purely domestic in their nature."

These decisions of the court in Paul v. Virginia and Hooper v. California, which have since served as the basis of decisions with reference to other forms of insurance, have, since their rendition, been severely criticized. And, especially during recent years, when, with the enormous growth of insurance companies doing a business national in character, the need for federal regulation has seemed urgent to many, arguments have been put forth to show why the doctrine of the Supreme Court should be overruled, and companies doing an insurance business in more than one State be held to be engaged in interstate commerce.

The act of 1903 which created the Department of Commerce and Labor provides that the Department shall have the power " to gather, compile, publish and supply useful information concerning corporations doing business within the limits of the United States as shall engage in interstate commerce or in commerce between the United States and any foreign country, including corporations engaged in insurance."In Congress an effort was made to have a separate bureau of insurance provided for, and this project was abandoned only in the conference committee to which the bill went. In his annual message of December, 1004, ident Roosevelt declared: "The business of insurance vitally affects the great mass of the people of the United States, and is national, and not local, in its application. It involves a multitude of transactions among the people of the different States and between American companies and foreign governments. I urge that Congress carefully consider whether the power of the Bureau of Corporations cannot constitutionally be extended to cover interstate transactions in insurance."

That the force of the cases already decided may be weakened, it has been argued that in each of them the validity of a state law was involved and not the constitutionality of a federal statute. Should an act of Congress, regulative of insurance, be passed and questioned in the courts, it is argued that a presumption in favor of its validity would exist which does not exist as to the invalidity of state laws claimed to be in violation of the commerce clause.

Furthermore, it is argued that the reasoning of the court in these decided cases has been defective in so far as it is based on the fact that a contract of insurance is not, in itself, an article of commerce. This of course is true, except in so far as it is treated as a piece of paper: but though not an article of commerce it is, it is argued, an instrument of commerce. Thus, for example, it is said, "Every contract of insurance is an agreement to pay, for which there is a sufficient consideration. Such being the substance of the contract, the final object of insurance, or of the insurance business, is an exchange of property. This fact stands out most clearly, perhaps, in life insurance, where A delivers annually to B a certain amount of property, and B, in return, at a given date, or upon the happening of a given event delivers to A or his appointee, a certain amount of property. The property usually consists of money."18