Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 11.pdf/617

 578

suit of happiness." (See Butcher's Union that it deprives the defendants of their lib Company v. Crescent City Company, 11 1 erty without due process of law. The statute which forbids such act does not U. S., 765.) In the Allgeyer case {supra) the State become due process of law, because it is of Louisiana had enacted that no person, inconsistent with the provisions of the Con firm or corporation should " fill up, sign stitution of the Union. . . . To deprive the or issue in this State any certificate of in citizen of such a right as herein described surance under any open marine policy," or without due process of law is illegal. Such in any manner do any " act in this State a statute as this in question is not due pro to effect, for himself or for another, insur cess of law, because it prohibits an act which ance on property, then in this State, in any under the Federal Constitution the defen marine insurance company which has not dants had a right to perform." complied in all respects with the laws of Keeping in mind the fact that the plain this State," under a penalty of $1,000 for tiff in the Swan case {supra) was a citizen each offense. The action was brought to both of the United States and of the State recover this penalty from E. Allgeyer & Co., of New York; that he was guaranteed by who were alleged to have violated the pro the constitutions of both the privilege of visions of this act in writing a letter from making contracts; that the State constitu the State of Louisiana to the Atlantic tion provided for a supreme court with gen Mutual Insurance Company of New York, eral jurisdiction in law and equity, and that advising that company of the shipment of this provision of law entered into and be one hundred bales of cotton to foreign ports came a part of the contract; that the de in accordance with the terms of an open fendant was a private corporation, created marine policy. The defendants filed an an for the express purpose of entering into swer, alleging that the act was in deroga these contracts of insurance, and was en tion of their rights under the provisions of dowed by the Constitution with the right the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the to sue and be sued in all courts in like cases contract was a New York contract, where as natural persons, we will consider the rights the premiums were paid and where the of property which the plaintiff had, and the losses, if any, were to be adjusted. The protection which the Fourteenth amendment defendants urged that under the provisions gives him. If the plaintiff had a right to of the Constitution the State of Louisiana make the contract, he had a right to enforce had no power to impose a penalty upon it in the tribunals which were in existence, them, as citizens of the United States, in and which had jurisdiction of the subjectentering into any lawful contract. Com matter at the time of making the contract, menting upon this case, Mr. Justice Peck- or in a tribunal which should offer him the ham, in delivering the opinion of the court, same opportunities for securing the rights says : " The supreme court of Louisana says stipulated in the contract. The supreme that the act of writing within that State, the court is still in existence; the Constitution letter of notification, was an act therein done still declares that it shall have " general to effect an insurance on property then in jurisdiction in law and equity," but the the State, in a marine insurance company legislature has stepped in and declared that which had not complied with its laws, and this court, with general jurisdiction, shall such act was, therefore, prohibited by the have no power to make that jurisdiction statute. As so construed we think the effectual, unless the attorney-general shall statute is a violation of the Fourteenth ask for such interference. Can there be any Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in doubt that this is violating the obligation of