84
THE GREEN BAG
tion that he " had distinguished those cases." That the Court does not propose to enlarge the scope of that opinion is clear from Francis v. United States (188 U. S., 375), announced on the same day. Mr. Justice Holmes, who concurred in the Champion case, draws this opinion, where it is held that the same statute did not apply to the agent of a lottery company who carried to the company from Kentucky to Ohio a slip on which the purchaser of a chance had noted the numbers selected by him, keeping a duplicate as his voucher for his selection; the slip held by the company's agent and transported, being the property of the company, was not a ticket and did not represent a ticket, and, therefore, the statute did not apply. The statutes thus far construed have been State statutes, and it is said the Courts have not been required to pass upon a Federal statute declaring insurance to be interstate commerce, and in that case a different result might be expected. This proceeds upon the theory that a Federal statute is attended with more solemnity, entitled to greater respect, and is more likely to deter the Court in the discharge of its duty, suggestions not warranted by experience, and that have no support, either in reason or authority. The sugges tion degrades the Court, and is a gratuitous insult to forty-five independent States, each of which, within its sphere, speaks with as much authority, and is as supreme as the United States itself. That there are vastly more policies issued, and that the aggregate is now enormous, does not change in the slightest the legal situation. Bigness and volume do not change the Constitution. The size of the controversy does not affect its legal char acter. The report of a majority of the Committee on Insurance to the American Bar Association endorsing the proposed Federal legislation is one of the most recent legal expressions on the subject. They seem to have had a conference with the
President, not confidential in its character. They say he looked to the Association to keep the people properly informed on the legal phases of all public questions, and declared it "exerted a strong influence in molding public opinion," and that he was in favor of Federal supervision of insurance. The Committee began at once to "mold public opinion" by making its long and exhaustive report, favoring Federal super vision. Among other things, they quote approv ingly the remarks of Congressman Hepburn. A few days since, on the floor of the House, with an air of invoking an authority entitled to great weight, Congressman Hepburn cited this same report, made up, in part, of his own remarks. They endorse each other. How pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. The cheerful, mutual, inspiring, and approving enthusiasm evinced by these distinguished gentlemen for the opinions of each other, while adding nothing perceptible to the weight of the argument, no doubt contributes in a prodigious degree to the "molding of public opinion," and the intellectual effort involved therein is to some extent utilized. It would be unprofitable to follow them through all the detail of theii report. They seem to think if a carload of flour, which is interstate commerce, is insured, then the insurance thereof is interstate commerce, not because it facilitates or has anything to do with the act of transportation, but because in case of loss it aids the owner to continue in business by making good his losses and thus aids "interstate commerce, 'f and hence is "interstate commerce." If so, then whatever aids or facilitates interstate commerce, in that sense, is interstate com merce, and the banker who loans the money on the property upon which the insurance is placed for his protection, is also engaged in interstate commerce, as he not only facilitates it, but in that financial sense is indispensable thereto. They say that the telegraph and telephone,.
