not constitute a part of the commerce between the States any more than a contract for the purchase and sale of goods in Virginia by a citizen of New York whilst in Virginia would constitute a portion of such commerce."

The doctrine announced, that insurance was not commerce but a personal contract, was emphasized by illustrations. Nathan v. Louisiana, 8 How. 73, was cited, where a tax on money and exchange brokers who dealt in the purchase and sale of foreign bills of exchange was sustained as not conflicting with the constitutional power of Congress to regulate commerce. The individual thus using his. money, it was said (quoting the cited case), "is not engaged in commerce, but in supplying an instrument of commerce. He is less connected with it than the ship-builder, without whose labor foreign commerce could not be carried on." The doctrine was further illustrated by bills of exchange foreign and domestic, which it was said were subject to the regulating and taxing laws of the States. And it was pointed out that the Federal Government taxed not only foreign bills but domestic bills and promissory notes, whether issued by individuals or banks, a power the Government could not have, it was said, if bills and notes were commerce. It was finally said: "If foreign bills of exchange may thus be the subject of state regulation, much more so may contracts of insurance against loss by fire."

We have taken the trouble to make this long excerpt from the opinion because, as we have said, the case is the primary one and because its argument is really exhaustive of the general principle. We shall consider presently whether there is anything in the case at bar which takes it out of the principle.

In Ducat v. Chicago, a law of Illinois came up for review. It was a regulation of insurance companies not incorporated by the State, and required their agents to be licensed upon the performance of certain conditions.

Subsequently by the act incorporating Chicago the legislature imposed on all foreign insurance a tax of $2 upon the $100 and at that rate upon the amount of all premiums which should be received. It was made unlawful for any company to transact business until the payment was made. The State Supreme Court sustained the tax and this court affirmed its action, resting the decision on Paul v. Virginia, the reasoning of which, it was said, it was not necessary to repeat.

Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts. The subject came up again for consideration in passing upon a statute of Massachusetts which levied a tax upon all premiums charged or received by any fire, marine and fire and marine insurance company not incorporated under the laws of the State. The law was sustained. It was said: "The case of Paul v. Virginia decided that the business of insurance, as ordinarily conducted, was not commerce, and that a corporation of one State, having an agency by which it conducted that business in another State, was not engaged in commerce between the States."

Philadelphia Fire Ass'n v. New York. A statute of New York imposing taxes and conditions upon insurance companies of other States was considered and sustained. Paul v. Virginia was cited for the view that "issuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce.'

We may say here that Paul v. Virginia was also cited for the proposition that the right of a foreign corporation to do business in a State other than that of its creation depends wholly upon the will of such other State. This proposition, it was said, was sustained by previous cases and it has been sustained by many subsequent cases. Necessarily it could not be applied to foreign insurance companies if the business of insurance is commerce. In other words, that right exists and has only an exception, as was said in Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, "where a corporation created by one State rests its right to enter

another and to engage in business therein upon the Federal nature of its business." And that was the contention in Hooper v. California, asserting the invalidity of the statute of the State making it a misdemeanor for any person in that State to procure insurance for a resident in the State from an insurance company not incorporated under its laws. The argument was that in as much as the contract involved was one for marine insurance, it was a matter of interstate commerce, and as such beyond the reach of state authority and included among the exceptions to the rule. It was replied by the court: "This proposition involves an erroneous conception of what constitutes interstate commerce. That the business of insurance does not generically appertain to such commerce has been settled since the case of Paul v. Virginia." To the attempt to distinguish between policies of marine insurance and policies of fire insurance, and thus take the former out of the rule of Paul v. Virginia, it was answered, "It ignores the real distinction upon which the general rule and its exceptions are based, and which consists in the difference between interstate commerce or an instrumentality thereof on the one side and the mere incidents which may attend the carrying on of such commerce on the other." And it was pointed out that if the power to regulate interstate commerce applied to all of the incidents of such commerce 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 trade between the States; and would exclude state control over many contracts purely domestic in their nature." And then, sweeping away the distinction between the different subject-matters of insurance contracts, and the different events indemnified against, and declaring the principle applicable to all and determinative of the regulating power of the States over all, it was said, "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.

This declaration was repeated and applied in Noble v. Mitchell, 164 U. S. 367, and in New York Life Insurance Co. v. Cravens, 178 U. S. 389. The latter case has special application, for the plaintiff in error here was the plaintiff in error there and the case concerned life insurance companies and their policies. In that case it was contended that a policy of mutual life insurance was an interstate contract and the parties might choose its "applicatory law." The contention was made in many ways and with great amplitude of argument and illustration. It was urged that on account of the mutual character of the company it was the administrator of a fund collected from its policy-holders in different States and countries for their benefit. And the extent of the business was displayed by a stipulation of the parties as follows: "That during the year 1886 and prior to the issuance of the policy sued upon, the amount of policies issued by defendant to citizens of Missouri was $1,617,985.00, and the amount of insurance in force on the lives of citizens of Missouri on December 31st, 1886, was $8,886,542.00, and the total amount, of policies issued by defendant in said year 1886 was $85,178,294.00, and the total amount of policies in force on December 31st, 1886, issued by defendant was $304,373,540.00."

It was also urged that modern life insurance had taken on essentially a national and international character, and that when Paul v. Virginia was decided the business was "to a great extent, local, that is, conducted through the domestic contracts by stock companies. The great and commanding organizations of the present day had hardly begun the amazing development which has made them

the greatest associations of administrative trusts in the business world."

These contentions were earnestly made; the reply to them deliberately meditated and its extent fully appreciated. The ruling in Paul v. Virginia and other cases was applied. We omitted the reasoning by which they demonstrated, we said, the correctness of their conclusion. We, however, repeated that "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 added, "or against the uncertainty of man's mortality."

In Nutting v. Massachusetts a statute of the State was sustained which required a licensing of the agent of a foreign insurance company not admitted to do business in the State and made it a crime to solicit insurance of a resident in violation of the statute. The principle of the prior cases which we have referred to was affirmed.

This detail shows what the cases decided. Were they rightly decided? The reasoning of the cases anticipate and answer the question, and it would rack ingenuity to attempt to vary its expression or more aptly illustrate it. A policy of insurance, the cases declare, is a personal contract, a mere indemnity, for a consideration, against the happening of some contingent event, which may bring detriment to life or property, and its character is the same no matter what the event insured against, whether fire or hurricane, acts of man or acts of God, storms on land or storms on sea, death or lesser accident. The same event may involve both life and property, precipitating the obligation of the policies. Nor does the character of the contracts change by their numbers or the residence of the parties. The latter is made much of in this case. It