| OCR Text |
Show if HARD BLOW GIVEN 110 STAB HEIR Judge MoPhcrson, U. S. District Court, Kansas City, Decides De-cides Vital Point. MISSOURI STATUTE IS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL Foreign Corporations Have the Same Right to Transfer of I t KANSAS BW, Jan- 20. Jndj?e l Smith McPfaerson, in the United States 1 1 District court hero today, declared void Ha an unconstitutional the statute paasod 'sfw 8SOnr Legislature in 3907, -5,f forbidding foreign corporations from kl transferring suits brought against them tfWl it" from the State to tho Federal courts. M 5 upon pain of forfeiture of their char Ifef. ters. The application of the Rock Island, tho Santa Fe, tho St. Louis, Kansas City & Colorado, the Milwaukee & St. Panl and the Chicago & Alton Railway companies for an injunction to prevent John E. Swanger, Secretary of State, enforcing the law, was granted by tho court. '"The MisEOiiri law upon which today-'s decision is baaed provides, specifically, that if any foreign or non-resident railway rail-way corporation, created and existing under the laws of any other State and doing a railway business from one NWf point in the State to another point, witli-Inv witli-Inv ,n State, s'mll. without the written '.vQfe' consent of the other party, remove a to tw' case from the State court to a United ?f5fc Slates court, or shall, without said writ-' writ-' ten consent, institute any suit, against .55$ a citizen of the State, in auy Federal (jtjj court, then the Secretary of State shall W2 revoke the license to do business, from one point within the State to any other 5 itf point within the State, either in carry-ing carry-ing passengers or freight, and doing ACT suc'1 business shall subject if to a aSM Penalty of not Icfs than $2000 and not utjw more than $1 0,000 for each offense. And 7txflk such disabilit3' shall continue for five vears. Wwi Status of the Caso. ' H ls alleged in this case that coin-plainant coin-plainant is about removing a case and 25 5 tho sei'iotary will follow that by rovok- i ; ing its right to do business. The de- is i . fendant contends that this in effect is an 'action against tho State, in vio- ?jg fl lation of the eleventh amendment to tlw the Constitution. The complainant j - contends that the aci of 1907 impairs ST its contract with the State, and denies 9 it the equal protection of the law if en- forced. ?m lulge !McPherson, in his decision, mft goes into the law of the case at great iu h length and quotes fr.eely from previous Tod f decisions to sustain his decision. jtJ I Tlir decision in part follows: jm j ' This court is remindful of the flff.r . criticism by many laynipu as well as )ti$rnanY law3"ers to the effect, that United 2, States courts have no right, nor even fsi the power, to decree the invalidity of Nffi Slate statutes. The argument, or rather. BSI the talk, ip, that the. pouplo know, what 9 4 tliey need, aud that their represent a- at I tives in Legislature assembled alone jji I tihonid determine what statutes we m I must have. And when so determined 09 I and evidenced by legislative enact- j I ment. that, the courts should not inter- f ierc bv decree, and thereby thwart the legislative will. In other words, that it is well to limit the powerB.of executive execu-tive and courts, but a written constitution consti-tution restraining legislative bodies is all wrong, aud that Great Britain has tho model government." Officers or tho State, continued Judgo McPhcrson in his decision, too ofton decry the power of the Nation. States' rights 5b their shibboleth, ho added. Question of State Eights. "The most attractive argument to some lawyers of? recent days is that the State courts alone in the first instance should pass tho question as to the validity val-idity of State statutes with the right of th defended party to carry tbo case for final decree to the Supreme court of tho United States. Such arguments are plausible, are convincing to niairj' good people, but are so dangerous as to amount to a heresy. It is the extreme of State rights in a new form." Judge McPhersou cited a decision of the Wisconsin state supremo court which uphold a Btato Btatuto nndor which an insurance company's charter char-ter had been revoked for removing a case to a federal court. In this case, however, he says the company had no property in the state and had mado no investments therein. ' 'In the case at bar." ho says, license li-cense to do business is not the question. ques-tion. "Each company invested millions of dollars, and it is now in the state and cannot be removed. To prevent it from doing business mcanB appropriating appropri-ating its property, or destroying it, without making any compensation therefor. there-for. Discrimination Apparent, "It was invited to come into the state and waa told by the laws then in force that it should have the same and like standing as resident companies, com-panies, with benefits as great and with burdens no greater. After these investments in-vestments baa been made, and which can not be withdrawn, it is declared by legislation that no kind of litigation litiga-tion shall be carried on by it in anv court other than the state courts, but leaving to tiio railway corporation organized or-ganized under the laws of tho state the right to go to tho national courts with its litigation of all kinds arising aris-ing under the laws or constitution of the United Stntcs. The state corporation, corpor-ation, organized under its laws, may sue or be sued in nny court, state or national if there is a federal queH-tion, queH-tion, but a foreign corporation doing business as a competitor must at all times be subject to the state courts; or if it ventures into a national court, then all investors lost all." Tn concluding, Judgo McPhersou holds as follows: "The Missouri Btatute of 1907 is void, because it allows a resident company com-pany to sue in tho Federal court, if there is a federal question, and denies de-nies that right to a non-resident company. com-pany. Regardless of the last preceding preced-ing statement, the statute is void because be-cause it scoks to take from the complainant com-plainant its right, to bring or remove a case to the United States court, which right is given by the constitution constitu-tion and tho act of Congress which by article 6 of tho constitution is declared to be the r.uprcmc law of the land, anything any-thing in the constitution or laws of any state to tho contrary notwithstanding. Repudiation of Contract. "The statute is void because it is an effort, to not only impair but to repudiate tho contract or the state made with tho company, by which it was induced to como into tho state, making investments in large sums and was authorized to do a state business, but now declaring that, it shall not do Vucn business, thereby rendering it insolvent, aud taking from the people along its lino the use of the railroad for state business, the company will surrender under coercion rights given it by the national constitution nud valid enactments of Congress. "This court recognizes the rule, that presumptively all legislation is valid but it is oiily a presumption, and in no sense conclusive. "This court recognizes that all doubts ahouluV be solved in favor of uphold- injj legislation, but there arc no doubts in this case. "This court rccojrnir.es that the secretary sec-retary of state will bo en.-jninnd from that, which he is commanded to do bv state legislation. But it is also well knot-n that if this court 13 iu error there can bo a reversal by the Supreme Su-preme court within u year or less time. "There is but a single question presented. pre-sented. Tho complainant asserts rights under the national constitution and laws enacted by Congress. The defendant de-fendant asHerts rights nndor an act of tho Missouri legislature and Insists that there is no conflict. "This court holds that there- is a conflict. And there being a conflict, the one or the other must give way. And tho constitution aud laws of Congress Con-gress being the supreme law of the land, of course these enactments of the state must yield. "The application for an injunction is sustained." |
