OCR Text |
Show VITAL CORPORATION CASEISjECID Interstate Concern Need Not Tay Charter Fee for Benefit of State Schools, WESTERN UNION SUIT FINALLY SETTLES POINT Decision by Highest Court of Land; Three Dissenting Opinions. WASHINGTON, Jan. 17. "The Bush act" of tho state of Kansas, which sought to compel outside corporations to pay a charter fco for tho benefit of state schools as a condition of doing buslncos In that state, Is held Invalid by the supremo su-premo court of tho United Slates in a divided decision announced today. The controlling opinion Is by Justice Harlan with a concurring opinion by Justice White; but threo Justices dissent, Chief Justico Fuller and Associate Justices Jus-tices Holmes and McKenna. The caso was that of the Western Union Telegraph company vs. the state of Kansas. The Western Union has fought the law on tho grounds of acquired ac-quired rights and that tho lav was unconstitutional un-constitutional as seeking to impose a burden upon Interstate commerce. Opinion of Harlan. Interpreting his opinion, Justice Harlan said that It was held "that the statutory requirement of a given per cent of the authorized capital of a telegraph company, com-pany, which represented all Its business Interests and property Inside and out of the state', was In Us practical operation a burden on Interstate commerce and a tax on property beyond the limits of Kansas." The opinion closed as follows: "It results that a decree of ouster, such as tho state asks, could not be granted without recognizing the validity of and giving effect to the unconstitutional unconstitu-tional requirement that the telegraph company as a condition of Its being allowed al-lowed to do Intrastate business In Kansas, Kan-sas, should pay Into the state school fund a given per cent of its entire capital cap-ital In the form of a fco based on all its property, business and interests everywhere. every-where. Including both its Interstate and Intrastate business and property. Such a decree Is asked on the ground that the company has refused to pay such fee. Duty of State Court. "The state court ought to havo refused tho affirmative relief asked and dismissed dis-missed tho petition upon the ground that tho condition sought to be enforced by a decree of ouster was In violation of the commerce and due process clauses of tho constitution and of the company's rights under that instrument. The right of tbo telegraph company to continue the transaction of local business in Kansas could not be made to depend upon its submission lo a condition prescribed by that state, which was hostile both to the letter and spirit of tho constitution. "The company was not bound under any circumstances, to surrender Its constitutional con-stitutional exemption from stale taxation, taxa-tion, direct or Indirect, In respect of Its Interstate business and Its property outside out-side of tho state, any more than It would have been bound to surrender any other rlghtt .secured by tho constitution." Dissenting View. In the dissenting opinion. Justice Holmes declared that the state had not undertaken to tax the Westorn Union, but simply had llxcd the condition on which the company could transact state business within the slate. "The whole matter Is left In the Western West-ern Union's hands," he said. "If the license fee Is more than the local business busi-ness can bear, It can stop that business and avoid the fee." Justice While concurred In the (hiding (hid-ing of the majority, but for different reasons, rea-sons, and read an opinion outlining hh views. |