Statement of the Case.

233 U. S.

protest, and reserving the rights which it had under the law, comply with the provisions of the order.

The risks included in the order and not excepted therefrom, comprise all ordinary mercantile risks in the State and that the reduction of 12% will result in a rate which is much less than the cost of carrying the risks.

Respondent is threatening to make further reductions and it is proposed to revoke the license of any fire insurance company which may violate the provisions of the act, even though the rates fixed by him may be so low as to be confiscatory and to inflict upon the officers of the company, including complainant, the penalties prescribed for such violation, and such companies and complainant, unless defendant be restrained by injunction, will be obliged to comply with the requirements of the act to their irreparable damage and injury.

Complainant finally alleges that it is not its purpose to attack the orders of respondent on the ground that they were not made in strict compliance with the provisions of the act, but to have the act in its entirety declared to be unconstitutional and void for the reasons alleged, and to have respondent restrained and orders made by him under the provisions of the act enjoined. And such an injunction is prayed.

Respondent filed a demurrer stating that he demurred to so much of the bill as charges the act of the State of Kansas to be repugnant to the constitution of Kansas and the Constitution of the United States. The demurrer was sustained. Subsequently, upon the bill being amended, a general demurrer was filed, which was also sustained by the court, and the bill dismissed. Prior, however, to this action, it having been suggested that the term of office of Charles W. Barnes as superintendent of insurance had expired and that Ike Lewis had succeeded to that office and to all of its duties and powers, he was made defendant in the place and stead of Charles W. Barnes.

233 U.S.

Argument for Appellant.

Mr. Thomas Bates and Mr. John G. Johnson, with whom Mr. Seymour Edgerton was on the brief, for appellant:

The business of fire insurance is a private business and the public has no legal right to demand its service. Am. Surety Co. v. Shallenberger, 183 Fed. Rep. 636; Hunt v. Simmons, 19 Missouri, 583; Orr v. Home Ins. Co., 12 La. Ann. 255; Queen Ins. Co. v. State, 86 Texas, 250.

The State has not the power to fix the rates charged to the public either by corporations or individuals engaged in a private business, and the test as to whether a use is public or not is whether a public trust is imposed upon the property, and whether the public has a legal right to the use which cannot be denied. Allen v. Jay, 60 Maine, 124; Am. L. S. C. Co. v. Chi. Live Stock Exch., 143 Illinois, 210; Arnsperger v. Crawford, 101 Maryland, 247; Avery v. Vermont El. Co., 75 Vermont, 235; Brown v. Gerald, 100 Maine, 351; Burlington v. Beasley, 94 U. S. 310; Ches. & Pot. Tel. Co. v. Manning, 186 U. S. 238; Citizens Savings Assn. v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655; Collister v. Hayman, 183 N. Y. 250; Dutton v. Strong, 1 Black, 1; Ex parte Quarg, 149 California, 79; Fallsberg Co. v. Alexander, 101 Virginia, 98; Farmers' Market Co. v. P. & R. T. Ry. Co., 142 Pa. St. 580; Gaylord v. Sanitary Dist., 204 Illinois, 576; Howard Mills v. Schwartz Lumber Co., 77 Kansas, 599; Horney v. Nixon, 213 Pa. St. 20; Hurley v. Eddingfield, 156 Indiana, 416; Jacobs v. Water Sup. Co., 220 Pa. St. 388; L. & N. R. Co. v. West Coast Co., 198 U. S. 483; Ladd v. Southern Cotton Co., 53 Texas, 172; Pearce v. Spalding, 12 Mo. App. 141; People v. Steel, 231 Illinois, 340; Purcell v. Daly, 19 Abb. N. C. 301; Queen Ins. Co. v. State, 86 Texas, 250; Ryan v. Terminal Co., 102 Tennessee, 111; Shasta Power Co. v. Walker, 149 Fed. Rep. 568; Sholl v. German C. Co., 118 Illinois, 427; Stock Exchange v. Board of Trade, 127 Illinois, 153; State v. Associated Press, 159 Missouri, 410; Tyler v. Beacher, 44 Vermont, 648; Ulmer v. Ry. Co., 98

Argument for Appellant.

233 U.S.

Maine, 579; Weems Steamboat Co. v. People's Steamboat Co., 214 U. S. 345.

The regulation of rates and charges in a private business is not within the police power of the State. Adair v. United States, 208 U. S. 175; Coffeyville Co. v. Perry, 69 Kansas, 297; Connolly v. Union Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540; Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223; Ex parte Dicky, 144 California, 234; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366; Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 535; In re Berger, 195 Missouri, 16; Kreibohm v. Yansey, 154 Missouri, 67; Lawton v. Steel, 152 U. S. 133; Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623; Muller v. Oregon, 208 U. S. 412; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; People v. Steele, 231 Illinois, 340; People v. Coler, 166 N. Y. 1; State v. Associated Press, 159 Missouri, 410; Street v. Varney El. Sup. Co., 160 Indiana, 338; West Branch Ex. v. McCormick, 1 Pa. Dist. Rep. 542.

The Kansas rate law of 1909 cannot be sustained as a condition precedent to the right of a foreign corporation to do business in the State. Etna Ins. Co. v. Jones, 78 So. Car. 445; American Co. v. Shallenberger, 183 Fed. Rep. 636; Cargill v. Minnesota, 180 U. S. 452; Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 199 U. S. 401; Connolly v. Union Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540; Ins. Co. v. Prewitt, 202 U. S. 246; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404; Nat. Council v. State Council, 203 U. S. 151; Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 557; So. Pac. Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 202; WatersPierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S. 28; West. Un. Tel. Co. V. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1.

The law cannot be sustained on the ground that it is within the power of the legislature of a State to impose such conditions as it likes upon corporations which derive their right to exist from the State. Lake Shore &c. R. Co. v. Smith, 173 U. S. 684; People v. Budd, 117 N. Y. 1;

State v. Associated Press, 159 Missouri, 410.

す

The business of fire insurance is not a monopoly.

Herriman v. Menzies, 115 California, 16; United States v. American Tobacco Co., 164 Fed. Rep. 700.

The business of fire insurance is not a proper function of government, nor does it receive special privileges from the State. Etna Life Ins. Co. v. Coulter, 115 Kentucky, 787; Ohio v. Guilbert, 56 Oh. St. 575; Opinion of the Justices, 155 Massachusetts, 598; Id. 182 Massachusetts, 605; § 4091, Gen. Stat. Kansas, 1909.

A general public interest is not equivalent to a public use. Lowell v. Boston, 111 Massachusetts, 454; Matter of Mayor of New York, 135 N. Y. 253; Matter of Niagara Falls Co., 108 N. Y. 375.

The power to regulate rates and charges is simply the power to take private property for public use. Charles River Bridge Case, 11 Peters, 420; Cole v. La Grange, 113 U. S. 1; Dodge v. Michigan Twp., 107 Fed. Rep. 827; 2 Kent's Comm. 333; Lowell v. Boston, 111 Massachusetts, 454; Opinion of the Justices, 155 Massachusetts, 598. See also, as bearing on this subject: Allnutt v. Inglis, 12 East, 527; Brass v. North Dakota, 153 U. S. 391; Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 517, S. C., 117 N. Y. 1; State v. Edwards, 86 Maine, 102; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; Spring Valley Co. v. Schottler, 110 U. S. 347; Burlington v. Beasley, 94 U. S. 310; Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680; Wabash &c. Ry. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557; German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Hale, 219 U. S. 307; Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104 and 575; Dodge v. Mission Township, 107 Fed. Rep. 827; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168.

Mr. John S. Dawson, Attorney General of the State of Kansas, with whom Mr. S. N. Hawks, Mr. F. S. Jackson and Mr. C. B. Smith were on the brief, for appellee:

The act complained of is within the police power of the State. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 112 and 575; German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Hale, 219 U. S. 307; Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 199 U. S. 401, 411; Jacobson v. MasVOL. CCXXXIII-26

Argument for Appellee.

233 U.S.

sachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 27, 31; Lake Shore &c. R. R. v. Ohio, 173 U. S. 285, 297; Citizens Ins. Co. v. Clay, 197 Fed. Rep. 435; German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Barnes, 189 Fed. Rep. 769.

The act is not repugnant to § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, as the State has full power of classification. Hays v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68; Railroad Co. v. Mackey, 127 U. S. 205; Walston v. Nevin, 128 U. S. 578; Bell's Gap R. R. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232; Pacific Exp. Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339; Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U. S. 657; Columbia Southern Ry. v. Wright, 151 U. S. 470; Marchant v. Penna. R. R., 153 U. S. 380; St. Louis & S. F. Ry. v. Mathews, 165 U. S. 1; Railroad Co. v. Matthews, 174 U. S. 99; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27; St. Louis &c. Ry. Co. v. Paul, 173 U. S. 404.

The act is not repugnant to either the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or to the equal protection clause. Magoun v. Illinois Trust Co., 170 U. S. 283; Railway Co. v. Mackey, 127 U. S. 204, 208; Minn. & St. L. Ry. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 26; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 389; Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 179; Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410, 415; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566, 573; Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 561; Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239; Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac., 118 U. S. 394; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466; Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727; Phila. Fire Assn. v. New York, 119 U. S. 110; Fritts v. Palmer, 132 U. S. 282; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Mackey, 127 U. S. 209; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 32; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U: S. 703; Railway Tax Cases, 115 U. S. 322; Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 606; Pac. Exp. Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339; New York &c. v. Bristow, 151 U. S. 571.