tary Farnfield by Z. P. Clark in 1887. The latter died September 1, 1890, and was succeeded by J. B. Levison. The company's assets, December 31, 1889, amounted to $2,569,552.99. The net cash premiums for the year were: fire, $806,161.62, inland, $86,277.66, making a total of $892,439.28. The total premiums received from organization until December 31, 1889, aggregated $3,442,065. The total losses paid during the same period was $1,851,378. [See Appendix, Caledonian.]

Anti-Compact Laws: Legislation forbidding fire insurance companies or agents to combine in compacts or boards of underwriters for the purpose of fixing, maintaining, and controlling rates of insurance upon property, was introduced in the legislatures of Iowa and Georgia in 1890. The Iowa bills there were three of them - failed and the fate of the bill in the Georgia legislature, over which there was much contention, was undecided when the legislature took a recess until July 1891. The anti-compact idea appears to have had its birth in the Michigan legislature, in its session of 1883. It was said that certain large furniture manufacturing firms at Grand Rapids were behind the bill to prohibit local boards, instigated by a desire to be revenged on their own local board for advancing rates on a number of special hazards in Grand Rapids. The bill which was made to apply only to companies of other states and countries, was presented by Mr. Fletcher of that city, passed by the house by a large majority, and was defeated in the senate near the close of the session. It was re-introduced by the same legislator in the session of 1885, but it failed this time in the house. In the third onset, in the session of 1887, under the auspices of Mr. Cole it passed both houses by a large majority and received the executive approval. In endeavoring to enforce the law the insurance commissioner came in collision with the companies, which protested that it was unconstitutional, and, pending a decision of the supreme court, established an "inspection and rating bureau" under Mr. David Beveridge, with headquarters at Detroit. This the state attorney-general declared to be an evasion of the law, and the supreme court soon after pronounced the law constitutional.

But, two years before this struggle for an anti-compact law had culminated in Michigan, another state had caught up the idea and embodied it in law. It was Ohio, which, in 1885, injected an anticompact provision into the section of the Revised Statutes, which prohibited the removal of insurance suits from state to federal courts. Ohio thus secured the bad eminence of being the first state to adopt an anti-compact law. The bill was introduced into many legislatures in 1885, but with success in only one instance. Following Ohio, later in the year, New Hampshire passed the famous valued-policy-anti-compact law, which drove all the agency companies of other states and countries from the state. Though the bill appeared in a number of legislatures in the three following years, it was passed only in Michigan. It was not until 1889 that anti-compact legislation was again successful. In one form and another four states, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas, passed anti-compact or anti-trust laws in which fire insurance was covered. The Missouri law was declared unconstitutional. Attempts to overthrow the Nebraska and Texas laws failed. There are, therefore, laws now in force in six states prohibiting fire insurance companies or agents to unite for the purpose of controlling the rates of insurance. The following is a statement of these laws:

Ohio (adopted in 1885; Section 3659 Revised Statutes):

If any such company, association, or partnership,' doing business within this state, make an application for a change of venue or to remove any suit or action to which it is a party, heretofore or hereafter, commenced in any court of this state, to the United States district or circuit court, or to any federal court, or shall enter into any compact or combination with other insurance companies, or shall require their agents to enter into any compact or combination with other insurance agents or companies, for the purpose of governing or controlling the rates charged for fire insurance on any property within this state, the superintendent of insurance shall forthwith revoke and recall the license or authority to it to do or transact business within this state, and no renewal of authority shall be granted to it for three years after such revocation; and it shall thereafter be prohibited from transacting any business in this state, until again duly licensed and authorized.

New Hampshire (Laws of 1885, Chapter 39):

SECTION 1. Should any insurance company not organized under the laws but doing an insurance business within this state, make an application to remove any suit or action, to which it is a party, heretofore or hereafter commenced in any court of this state, to the United States district or circuit court, or shall enter into any compact or combination with other insurance companies for the purpose of governing or controlling the rates charged for fire insurance on any property within this state, the insurance commissioner shall forthwith revoke the license or authority of said company to transact business, and no renewal of said license or authority shall be granted for the period of three years from the date of such revocation.

Michigan (Public Acts of 1887, Act No. 285) :

SECTION 1. The people of the state of Michigan enact, That no fire, fire and marine, or marine and inland insurance company or association not organized under the laws of this state shall be permitted to do business therein under the provisions of an act entitled "An act relatíve to the organization and powers of fire and marine insurance companies transacting business in this state," approved April 3, 1869, until in addition to complying with the provisions of said act it has filed with the commissioner of insurance an undertaking duly executed and authenticated by the company, in such form as the commissioner of insurance shall from time to time prescribe, that it will not directly or indirectly enter into any compact, agreement, arrangement, or undertaking of any nature or kind whatever with any other company, companies, association, or associations, the object or effect of which is to prevent open and free competition between it and said company, companies, association, or associations, or the agents of their respective companies or associations in the business transacted in this state or in any part thereof.

Section 2 prescribes that no company of the kind above described shall enter into the compact or agreement forbidden. Section 3 makes the prohibition apply to the agents of such companies. Section 4 forbids agents and brokers to solicit for companies violating the law. Section 5 declares that a person violating the law shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined not less than $50, nor more than $100, in default of which he shall be imprisoned in the county jail not less than three months. Section 6 makes it the duty of the insurance commissioner to furnish a blank form to companies to complete the undertaking required by Section 1, and in case of failure therein by a company for thirty days after the mailing of said blank he must revoke its certificate of authority to do business, and cause the notification thereof to be published in some paper of general circulation in the state for four weeks. Section 7 makes it the duty of the commissioner to investigate all complaints of violation of the law. Section 8 forbids any person to act as agent for a company after its certificate of authority has been revoked, under a penalty of not less than $50, nor more than $100, in default of the payment of which he shall be imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding ninety days.

1 Meaning other states and foreign companies only.

Kansas (Adopted in 1889):

SECTION 1. That all arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts or combinations, between persons or corporations, made with a view, or which tend to prevent full and free competition in the importation, transportation, or sale of articles imported into this state, or in the product, manufacture, or sale of articles of domestic growth or product, or domestic raw material, or for the loan or use of money, or to fix attorneys' or doctors' fees, and all arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts, or combinations, between persons or corporations, designed or which tend to advance, reduce, or control the price or the cost to the producer, or to the consumer, of any such products or articles, or to control the cost or rate of insurance, or which tend to advance or control the rate of interest for the loan or use of money to the borrower, or any other services, are hereby declared to be against public policy, unlawful and void.

The remaining sections prescribe the penalty for violation of the law, and the legal proceedings in connection therewith. Any person entering into the trust or combination forbidden, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be subject to a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000, and to imprisonment not less than thirty days nor more than six months, either or both, in the discretion of the court. The punishment of public officers failing to prosecute violators of the law is provided for.

Nebraska (Adopted in 1889):

SECTION 2. Pooling between persons, partnerships, companies, associations, or corporations, engaged in the same or like business for any purpose whatever, and the formation of combinations or common understanding between two or more persons, companies, partnerships, associations, or corporations, in the nature of what are commonly called trusts for any purpose whatever or the continuance of the same after the taking effect of this act, are hereby prohibited and declared to be unlawful, and each day of the continuance of any such poof or trusts shall constitute a separate offense.

A violation of the law is declared to be a misdemeanor, and a person or company convicted under it shall be fined not exceeding $1,000, or imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding six months, or both, in the discretion of the court.

Texas (Adopted in 1889):

An Act to define trusts, and to provide for penalties and punishment of corporations, persons, firms, and associations of persons connected with them, and to promote free competition in the state of Texas.

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Texas: That a trust is a combination of capital, skill, or acts by two or more persons, firms, corporations, or associations of persons, or of either two or more of them for either, any, or all of the following purposes: First-To create or carry out restrictions in trade. Second-To limit or reduce the production, or increase or reduce the price of merchandise or commodities. Third-To prevent competition in manufacture, making, transportation, sale, or purchase of merchandise, produce, or commodities. Fourth-To fix at any standard or figure, whereby its price to the public shall be in any manner controlled or established, any article or commodity of merchandise, produce, or commerce intended for sale, use, or consumption in this state. Fifth-To make or enter into, or execute or carry out any contract, obligation, or agreement of any kind or description by which they shall bind or have bound themselves not to sell, dispose of, or transport any article or commodity, or article of trade, use, merchandise, commerce, or consumption below a common standard figure, or by which they shall agree in any manner to keep the price of such article, commodity, or transportation at a fixed or graduated figure, or by which they shall in any manner establish or settle the price of any article or commodity or transportation between them or themselves and others to preclude a free and unrestricted competition among themselves or others in the sale or transportation of any such article or commodity, or by which they shall agree to pool, combine, or unite any interest they may have in connection with the sale or transportation of any such article or commodity that its price might in any manner be affected.

Any violation of the provisions of this act is declared a conspiracy against trade. Every foreign corporation guilty of violating its provisions is prohibited from doing any business in the state, and any per

son convicted of violating the law shall be punished by fine not less than $50 nor more than $5,000, and by imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than ten years, or by either such fine or imprisonment. Each day during a violation of this provision shall constitute a separate offense. Any contract or agreement in violation of the provisions of this act shall be absolutely void and not enforceable either in law or equity. Persons out of the state may commit and be liable to indictment and conviction for committing any of the offenses enumerated in this act, which do not in their commission necessarily require a personal presence in this state.

Anti-Rebate Laws: Bills prohibiting the giving of rebates of premiums to the insured by life insurance companies or their agents, appeared in several state legislatures in 1890, and became laws in Iowa and Maryland. The New York law, which was passed in 1889, was amended in 1890.

The first anti-rebate law was passed by Massachusetts in 1887, and its text has been copied almost literally, or in substance, in the antirebate laws of other states. The following is a synopsis of anti-rebate legislation from its beginning in 1887:

Massachusetts: The Massachusetts law is Section 68, of the codified insurance laws of 1887, and is as follows:

SECTION 68, of "An Act to amend and codify the statutes relating to insurance:" No life insurance company doing business in Massachusetts, shall make or permit any distinction or discrimination in favor of individuals, between insurants of the same class and equal expectation of life in the amount or payment of premiums or rates charged for policies of life or endowment insurance, or in the dividends or other benefits payable thereon, or in any other of the terms and conditions of the contracts it makes; nor shall any such company or any agent thereof make any contract of insurance or agreement as to such contract, other than as plainly expressed in the policy issued thereon; nor shall any such company or agent pay or allow or offer to pay or allow as inducement to insurance, any rebate of premium payable on the policy or any special favor or advantage in the dividends or other benefits to accrue thereon, or any valuable consideration or inducement whatever, not specified in the policy contract of insurance.

Vermont Vermont passed the law in 1888, affixing as a penalty for its violation a fine of not more than $500.

Ohio: The Ohio law follows that of Massachusetts with the following additional section:

SECTION 2. Every corporation or officer or agent thereof who shall willfully violate any of the provisions of this act, shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $500, to be recovered by action in the name of the state, and on collection paid into the county treasury for the benefit of the common school fund.

Colorado: The Colorado law also is the same as the Massachusetts law, with an additional section as follows:

The penalty for violating this section shall be a fine of $250; and the superintendent of insurance shall revoke the certificate of authority of any agent convicted of a violation of this act, and shall not grant the agent so convicted a license as agent for the term of three years thereafter.

Michigan: Michigan copies the Massachusetts law, with the following addition :

Any company which shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall forfeit to the state the sum of $500 for each violation, to be recovered by the attorney-general by appropriate action in the court of competent jurisdiction, and any judgment therefor may be collected in the same manner as is herein provided for collecting judgments rendered in favor of policy-holders, and any officer or agent who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail, not exceeding one year or

by a fine of not less than $50 and not exceeding $500, or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.

Connecticut: The Connecticut law varies somewhat in phraseology from that of Massachusetts, so it is printed here in full, being Chapter CXXXIV, Session Laws of 1889:

SECTION 1. No life insurance company doing business in the state of Connecticut shall make or permit any distinction or discrimination in favor of individuals between insurants of the same class and expectation of life in the amount or payment of premiums or rates charged for policies of life or endowment insurance, or in the dividends or other benefits payable thereon, or in any other of the terms and conditions of the contracts it makes; nor shall any such company or any agent, sub-agent, broker, or any other person, make any contract of insurance or agreement as to such contract, other than as plainly expressed in the policy issued theron; nor hall any such company or agent, sub-agent, broker, or any other person, pay or allow, or offer to pay or allow, as inducement to insurance, any rebate of premium payable on the policy, or any special favor or advantage in the dividends or other benefit to accrue thereon, or any valuable consideration or inducement whatever not specified in the policy contract of insurance.

SEC. 2. No person shall act in the solicitation or procurement of applications for, or policies of, insurance for any company or corporation, referred to in this act, without first procuring a certificate of authority as agent from the insurance commissioner. Said certificate of authority must be renewed on April 1 of each year.

SEC. 3. Any person or corporation violating any provision of this act shall be fined not less than $100 nor more than $500, and it is hereby made the duty of the insurance commissioner, on the conviction of any person acting as such agent, sub-agent, or broker, to revoke the certificate of authority issued to him at once, and no such certificate shall be thereafter issued to said convicted person by said commissioner for the term of three years from the date of such conviction.

Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania law is the same as the Massachusetts law, and makes the penalty for violation $500 on each and every violation when the amount of the insurance is $25,000 and under, and for every additional $25,000 or under, an additional penalty of $500.

New York: The New York legislature passed an anti-rebate law in 1889, but as it was evaded in some important respects by some agents, in 1890 the law was amended. The following is the full text of the amended law, which is Chapter 401 of the laws of 1890:

SECTION 1. Life insurance companies doing business in this state shall not make any discrimination in favor of individuals of the same class and of the same expectation of life, either in the amount of premium charged or any return of premium, dividends, or other advantages, and no agent of any such insurance company shall make any contract for insurance, or agreement as to such contract of insurance, other than that which is plainly expressed in the policy issued, nor shall any such company or agent pay or allow, or offer to pay or allow, as inducement to any person to insure, any rebate of premium or any special favor or advantage whatever in the dividends to accrue thereon, or any inducement whatever, not specified in the policy. Whenever it shall appear to the satisfaction of the superintendent of the insurance department, after a hearing held by him upon due notice, that any company is issuing policies or making contracts that are either directly or indirectly a violation of this act, he shall thereupon, with the approval of the attorney-general, in writing, require said company and its officers and agents to refrain within twenty days from making or delivering any such policy or contract, and the making or delivery of any such policy or contract thereafter, shall render such company or person guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable as provided in the third section of the act hereby amended. It is further made the duty of said superintendent, in case of the failure of any company or its officers or agents to comply with said requirements within the twenty days, to publish a notice of the fact in the state newspaper once a week for four weeks.

SEC. 2. No person shall act as agent, sub-agent, or broker in the solicitation or procurement of applications, or policy of insurance, for any company or corporation referred to in this act, without first procuring a certificate of authority from the superintendent of the insurance department. Said certificate of authority must be renewed annually, on the first day of January, or within sixty days thereafter, and a duplicate thereof shall be filed in the office of the said superintendent, provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall relate to agents operating solely on the weekly payment plan of insurance.