nates against nor substantially obstructs interstate commerce. California v. Thompson, 313 U. S. 109. P. 447.

2. Considered apart from other provisions of the Code, the requirements for issuance of a surplus line broker's license-that the Commissioner shall find the applicant to be trustworthy and competent to transact an insurance brokerage business in such manner as to safeguard the interest of the insured; payment of a $50 filing fee; and posting of a $5,000 fidelity bond-were not in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution. P. 450.

3. Even though the Code provisions regulating the admission of foreign insurance companies to do business within the State, together with provisions regulating activities of surplus line brokers, operated to forbid either foreign or domestic companies to do within the State a life insurance business on other than a legal reserve basis, except as to companies engaged in doing such business there prior to January 1, 1940, no unconstitutional discrimination against interstate commerce was involved, and the result is not precluded by the South-Eastern decision. P. 455.

(a) The conditions prescribed apply alike to domestic and foreign corporations. P. 456.

(b) The provision differentiating between companies organized or admitted to do business within the State prior to January 1, 1940, and others, does not involve any discrimination as between domestic and foreign or interstate and intrastate insurers. P. 456.

(c) The distinction does not become discriminatory, in any sense now pertinent, merely because the preexisting companies are allowed to continue their business under somewhat less burdensome reserve requirements than those under which new companies are permitted to enter. P. 456.

4. For failure to meet its reserve requirements, a State may exclude foreign insurance companies, or their agents, from doing business within the State. P. 458.

(a) State regulation of interstate business done within the State's borders is not rendered invalid by the mere fact that the regulation is in form a "license." P. 458.

(b) The Commerce Clause is not a guaranty of the right to import into a State whatever one may please, absent a prohibition by Congress, regardless of the effects of the importation upon the local community. P. 458.

(c) The reserve requirements of the State can not be deemed, either on the face of the statute or by any showing that has been made in this case, to be excessive for the protection of the local

interest affected; nor designed or effective either to discriminate against foreign or interstate insurers or to forbid or exclude their activities. P. 459.

5. Appellant's objections founded on the provisions relating to the placing of surplus line insurance with nonadmitted insurers lack merit, in view of the power of the State, through its reserve requirements for admission and related prohibitions, to forbid entirely the placing of insurance of the sort here involved, whether with domestic, admitted or nonadmitted companies. P. 460.

6. The requirements of the state law do not operate to regulate activities of the appellant or the foreign insurer beyond the borders of the State, and do not on this score violate the due process or equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 461.

7. The result in this case is reached independently of the Act of March 9, 1945; wherefore no question as to possible ex post facto operation of that Act is involved. P. 461.

Affirmed.

Appellant was convicted in a state court of violating certain provisions of the California Insurance Code, which he challenged as being contrary to the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. The conviction was affirmed by an intermediate state court, which was the highest state court to which an appeal could be taken. Ins. L. J., May, 1945, p. 273. Appellant appealed to this Court. Affirmed, p. 462.

Robert R. Weaver and Earl Blodgett argued the cause for appellant. With Mr. Weaver on the brief was Allen K. Perry.

T. A. Westphal, Jr., Deputy Attorney General of California, and M. Arthur Waite argued the cause for appellee. With them on the brief were Robert W. Kenny, Attorney General, Julien G. Hathaway and H. F. Orr.

Briefs were filed as amici curiae by Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney General of New York, Orrin G. Judd, Solicitor General, and Saul A. Shames, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of New York, and by Francis V.

Keesling, Sr. and Francis V. Keesling, Jr. for the California Association of Insurance Agents et al., in support of appellee.

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case differs from Prudential Insurance Co. v. Benjamin, ante, p. 408, in three respects. It is a criminal cause; the statutes involved regulate, rather than simply tax, the business of insurance; and appellant's acts held to violate them were done before the McCarran Act's1 effective date.

Appellant was convicted in a state court for violating §§ 703 (a) and 1642 of the California Insurance Code and the conviction was sustained on appeal to the Superior Court of Ventura County. Appellant now urges here primarily that the application which has been made of those sections is a regulation of interstate commerce forbidden by the commerce clause of the Constitution, Article I, § 8, in view of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn., 322 U. S. 533. He also puts forward due process and equal protection arguments, resting on his conception of the applicability of those provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.3

1 Act of March 9, 1945, 59 Stat. 33; 15 U. S. C. §§ 1011-1015. See text infra, following note 32:

2 The conviction was obtained in the Justice's Court of Ventura Township, California. The Superior Court of Ventura County was the highest court of the state to which appeal could be taken. Its opinion is not reported. The penalty was a fine of $100 imposed for violating each count.

3 In the Statement of Appeal filed in the Superior Court the grounds relied upon, apart from commerce clause and local law objections, were only that appellant's acts "were, if true, done by him in accordance with the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States . . ." and that §§ 703 (a) and 1642 "are unconstitutional and in violation of ... the Fourteenth Amendment

"

The California Insurance Code provisions are as follows:

"703. Except when performed by a surplus line broker, the following acts are misdemeanors when done in this State:

"(a) Acting as agent for a nonadmitted insurer in the transaction of insurance business in this State."

"1642. A person shall not act as an insurance agent, broker, or solicitor until a license is obtained from the commissioner, authorizing such person so to act."

The complaint charged in two counts that appellant had (1) acted without a license as an agent for a nonadmitted insurer in soliciting and selling a policy contrary to § 703 (a), and (2) solicited and sold a policy of insurance without being licensed as required by § 1642.

The evidence, which is undisputed, disclosed the following facts. The First National Benefit Society is an Arizona corporation, conducting from Phoenix a mutual benefit type of insurance business. Its method of operation must be inferred from the facts of record, in the absence of other evidence. One O'Lein, then an elderly resident of Ventura, California, had difficulty in securing insurance on account of his age. Prior to August 28, 1944, he had learned of the Society's "Gold Seal" policy, by radio and through "literature." This apparently was mailed from the home office and included a printed form of return postal card marked, presumably pursuant to postal permit, "Postage will be Paid by Addressee," the Society. O'Lein filled in and returned the card to the

* Deering's California Codes, Insurance Code of California, §§ 703, 1642. These sections are part of California's comprehensive regulatory scheme for the business of insurance; and are directly related, in the case of § 703, to the requirements laid by other sections for acting as surplus line broker, see text infra; and in that of § 1642 to such requirements for securing a license to act in the specified representative capacities, see text infra.

Society in Phoenix, asking it to "send me, without obligation, details of 'GOLD SEAL' POLICIES." A few days later, on August 28, 1944, appellant called at O'Lein's home with the card, stating he represented the First National Benefit Society. Thereupon he explained to O'Lein the terms of the policy, its benefits, and costs, soliciting and persuading the prospect to take out a policy for himself and one also for his wife. No medical examination was required. Appellant filled in the application forms, procured the signatures, accepted from O'Lein a check made out in appellant's name in payment of the first quarterly premiums, gave receipts, later cashed the check at a local bank, and received the proceeds. A few days later the O'Leins received policies by mail from the Society's office in Phoenix.

The evidence further showed that the Society was not admitted to do business in California and that appellant had no license of any kind to act as an insurance agent, broker or solicitor there.

5

We may deal first exclusively with the objections founded on the commerce clause, since each of the others would be obviously without merit but for the supposed effects of the South-Eastern decision not only in relation to the prohibitory consequences of that clause but also, apparently, to resurrect other limitations upon state power long since settled adversely to such claims in reference to the business of insurance."

5 But see 322 U. S. 533, 547 ff.

6 Thus, it was long settled, under the doctrine of Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, that neither due process nor equal protection of the laws forbids the kind of state regulation of the business of insurance imposed by §§ 703 (a) and 1642. Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648; Nutting v. Massachusetts, 183 U. S. 553. See also Hoopeston Co. v. Cullen, 318 U. S. 313, and text infra at note 32.

As to the dangers of blurring the due process and equal protection limitations with commerce clause ideas, and the consequent necessity for separate treatment in disposing of these problems, see Ribble,