Opinion of the Court.

Life Ins. Company, 119 N. Y. 450, 454, which was that it was "a contract made and to be executed in the State of New York, and construed only according to the laws of that State." There was a direct provision in respect to the contract itself, and thus incorporated those laws into its terms.

While authorities on this particular question are not numerous, we may properly refer to an opinion of the Supreme Court of Washington, the State in which this action was brought, Griesemer v. Mutual Life Insurance Company, 10 Washington, 202, in which, referring to this special question, and the contention that this very statute of the State of New York became a part of the contract of the company in the State of Washington, the court said, on pages 206, 207:

"It is claimed on the part of the plaintiff that upon its enactment it became attached to the defendant, it being a corporation organized under the laws of New York, and effected a change in its charter; so that every policy thereafter issued by it, whether in the State of New York or elsewhere, became subject to its provisions. On the other hand, it is claimed by the defendant that it only affected policies issued to, or held by, residents of the State of New York; that the evident object of its enactment was to protect such residents; that to give it a broader effect would be to convict the legislature of having discriminated against life insurance companies organized under the laws of the State.

"We are unable to construe the law in accordance with the contention of either party. The construction contended for by the defendant is too narrow. The language used is, that 'No life insurance company doing business in the State of New York shall have power to declare forfeited or lapsed any policy.

This language, construed in its ordinary sense, seems to preclude such a narrow construction. Beside, if it were warranted by the language, it would not be reasonable to suppose that the legislature intended to so limit the effect of the statute. If it had so intended, it would have made use of language which in some manner confined the rights to be affected by the statute to residents of the State, instead of to companies doing business therein. While the construction, contended for by the

Opinion of the Court.

plaintiff, seems to be equally untenable, for the reason that it would convict the legislature of having sought to accomplish something not in its power. So construed the act would apply to all policies of any company which should do business in the State of New York, wherever issued, regardless of the question as to whether or not it was organized under its laws. That the legislature of New York could not control companies not organized under its laws as to their business transacted in other States is too clear for argument. Hence the construction contended for by respondent would convict the legislature of having attempted that which it could not do, or of having deliberately discriminated against its own companies.

"In our opinion the reasonable and ordinary construction of the language used in the statute is such as to make it applicable to business done in the State of New York; and that the question as to whether or not the companies doing such business were organized under its laws, or those of some other State, has no influence upon the question as to whether or not the statute is applicable. This construction is justified by the language used, and will give force to every word, while the other will not do so. And since the well-settled rule as to construction of statutes requires every word to be given force if possible, it follows that the limitations of the act are impressed upon all policies issued in the State of New York by either domestic or foreign companies, and that it has no application to policies not issued therein, even although the companies issuing them were organized under its laws."

The New York cases cited by counsel throw no light on the question. Baxter v. Brooklyn Life Ins. Co., 119 N. Y. 450, contained in the contract, as heretofore stated, an express stipulation of the controlling law. In Carter v. Brooklyn Life Ins. Co., 110 N. Y. 15, the question was as to the significance of the word "renewed" in the section referred to, and it does not appear where the policy was issued. In Phelan v. Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co., 113 N. Y. 147, the statute was held applicable to a foreign insurance company doing business in the State of New York, the notice given was held insufficient, and no question was considered as to the scope of the statute other

Syllabus.

wise. De Frece v. National Life Ins. Co., 136 N. Y. 144, was likewise an action against a foreign insurance company, and involved no question like that before us. Rae's Executors v. National Life Ins. Co., 20 U. S. App. 410, was also an action against a foreign insurance company, and the question was simply as to the sufficiency of the notice.

We conclude, therefore, that the statute of the State of New York does not under the circumstances presented control, and that the rights of the parties are measured alone by the terms of the contract. The insured having failed to pay the premium for years before his death, the policy was forfeited.

The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals will be reversed and the case remanded to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Washington, with instructions to set aside the judgment and overrule the demurrer.

MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA dissented.

MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM took no part in the decision of this case.

WILLIAMS v. FEARS.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA.

No. 287. Argued October 29, 1900.-Decided December 10, 1900.

By a general revenue act of the State of Georgia, a specific tax was levied upon many occupations, including that of "emigrant agent," meaning a person engaged in hiring laborers to be employed beyond the limits of the State. Held that the levy of the tax did not amount to such an interference with the freedom of transit, or of contract, as to violate the Federal Constitution.

Nor was the objection tenable that the equal protection of the laws was denied because the business of hiring persons to labor within the State was not subjected to a like tax.

The imposition of the tax fell within the distinction between interstate commerce, or an instrumentality thereof, and the mere incidents which

Statement of the Case.

may attend the carrying on of such commerce.

These labor contracts

were not in themselves subjects of traffic between the States, nor was the business of hiring laborers so immediately connected with interstate transportation or interstate traffic that it could correctly be said that those who followed it were engaged in interstate commerce, or that the tax on that occupation constituted a burden on such commerce.

R. A. WILLIAMS was arrested on a warrant issued by the county court of Morgan County, Georgia, and placed in the county jail on his failure to give bond pending his trial. Thereupon he made application to the judge of the superior court within and for that county for a writ of habeas corpus by petition alleging that the warrant under which he was arrested charged him with a violation of the tenth paragraph of section two of the General Tax Act of Georgia, of 1898, and that his restraint was illegal because that part of the act was in conflict with clause three of section eight, and with clause five of section nine, of article one, and with section two of article four, of the Constitution of the United States; and also with the Fourteenth Amendment. The writ of habeas corpus was duly issued and the application heard on the return thereto, which resulted in the denial of the petition by the superior court, and the remanding of Williams to custody. The case was then carried to the Supreme Court of Georgia, where, on April 11, 1900, judgment was rendered affirming the judgment of the superior court. 35 S. E. Rep. 699.

The title of the General Tax Act of 1898, (Georgia Laws, 1898, p. 21,) read thus:

"An act to levy and collect a tax for the support of the state government and the public institutions; for educational purposes in instructing children in the elementary branches of an English education only; to pay the interest on the public debt, and to pay maimed Confederate soldiers and widows of Confederate soldiers such amounts as are allowed them by law for each of the fiscal years eighteen hundred and ninety-nine and nineteen hundred; to prescribe what persons, professions and property are liable to taxation; to prescribe the methods of collecting and receiving said taxes; to prescribe the method of ascertaining the property of the State subject to taxation; to

Statement of the Case.

prescribe additional questions to be propounded to taxpayers, and to provide penalties and forfeitures for non-payment of taxes; to prescribe how the oath of taxpayers shall be administered, and provide penalties for violation thereof, and for other purposes."

Section 2 provided "that in addition to the ad valorem tax on real estate and personal property as required by the constitution and provided for in the preceding section, the following specific taxes shall be levied and collected for each of said fiscal years eighteen hundred and ninety-nine and nineteen hundred."

Then followed paragraphs imposing poll taxes, and taxes on lawyers, doctors, photographers, auctioneers, keepers of pool and billiard tables, traveling vendors of patent or proprietary medicines, special nostrums, jewelry, paper, soap or other merchandise, local insurance agents, etc.

Paragraph 10 was as follows:

"Upon each emigrant agent, or employer or employé of such agents, doing business in this State, the sum of five hundred dollars for each county in which such business is conducted." Section 4 was as follows:

"Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the taxes provided for in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of section 2 of this act shall be paid in full for the fiscal years for which they are levied to the tax collectors of the counties where such vocations are carried on at the time of commencing to do business specified in said paragraphs. Before any person taxed by paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of section 2 of this act shall be authorized to carry on said business they shall go before the ordinary of the county in which they propose to do business and register their names, places of business, and at the same time pay their taxes to the tax collector; and it shall be the duty of said ordinary to immediately notify the comptroller general and the tax collector. Any person failing to register with the ordinary, or, having registered, failing to pay the tax as herein required, shall be liable to indictment for misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be