Show MISSOURI FOREIGN CORPORATIONS LAW LA LAU U S Judge Smith McPherson Declares it Void and Unconstitutional FORBADE APPEAL TO COURTS if II Took To One of f Other oher Party Parly Li License l cense Could be b Revoked Appropriating or nc II its lis erty crl Kansas City Tau Jan 20 Judge Smith in tho time United States dis die district dIstrict dietrict court here hare toddy today t d declared void and Ind unconstitutional the statute pO ged by tho the Missouri le in 1907 forbidding foreign corporations from transferring suits suite brought against them from tram the tho lie state lo to the federal I courts upon pain pall at ut forfeiture of oC their thel charters The application of tIme the flock Island time Iho Santa Fe I time tho St Louis Kansas City and amid Colorado the Mil Milwaukee 11 waukee St SI Paul time HIP Chicago Alton Allon Alon for tor tin on Injunction tion ton to prevent John K fi Swanger sec tiec secretary of tho the state enforcing the law Ian was granted by II the court WHAT WHA LAW The Missouri law upon which decision Is la based provides specifically that that It IC any al foreign or railway corporation created and nd ex ax existing under the time laws law of or o any Il other state slate and doing n a railway business from one point in the Iho state to another point within the tho state stalo shall shil without tho the written consent ot of time the other othel party part re to remo mo o a case from tIme the state court to toa ton tomm a n mm United States States court tle or shall Ihal without said written consent Institute any ni suit Hult against a citizen of time the state In any ni federal court then the time of ot tato shall revoke tho the license to do business from ono one point within the state to lo any an other point In tn tho the state either cither in carrying passengers or Ol freight and doing doInG such business shall subject It to a penalty of ot not less than timan Iha and not no more momo molo than 1000 for each elc And such disability shall continue for tor five years year It Is Ia alleged caso 3 that Is about about removing rero a 1 case easo and the tho secretary will wi follow that tat by re rc revoking voIcIng Its Is right to do business The Tho defendant contends that tha this i is in hi 01 of r oct feet nn nfl ln action against the tho state slate in Iii 1 violation of the tho eleventh amendment nt to the tho Constitution The Time complainant I contends that tIme tho act ot of 1907 impairs Impair its 1 contract l with wl wi tho the state stal and Rud denies I It the equal protection of ot time the law If If enforced Judge McPherson In I his hits decision goes Into the Ule law of ot time tho case eso at emit gr ut length anti and quotes freely from front previous decisions to sustain his decision COURTS DECISION The Tho decision In part follows This court is mindful of o tho timo criticism crl cism clini by b many laymen aH mus 1 welt well wel as nl many lawyers to the effect that UnIted Untied Staten Stales court courts have no right nor oven Ito tho Ih power to decree o tho the invalidity of ot state statutes The Tho or sir rather tho the talk Is that lint the people know what they need heed und and that Ihl their representatives In 11 alone alono lole should determine what statutes wo we must have And Amid when so f deter drier determined determined mined and amI evidence by b legislative en emm enactment 01 that tho the courts court not In Interfere 11 interfere by decree and therefore thwart tho legislative o will In other r words that Iha It Is iii well wol to limit tho time pow powers powers powers ers of ot executives and d courts but a written constitution restraining legis legislative bodies Is alt all al wrong and that Great Britain has hns tho the model govern government goen ment mont Officers of the th state contin continued tied led Judge McPherson In his hilts hil decision lun too often oCen decry dery iho thu power pOW r of ot th the na nfl nation 1 tion lon States StatcH rights right Is their shibboleth shibboleth leth ho heade added Tile Tho most monet attractive argument t to torme sonic Bomo lawers of or recent days daYH In Is that thal th lii state slate site courts Ilono In the first ln instance should pass paiS on the question as to the validity ot or stab statutes with the right of ot the defended party to carry cry the casts cose for tor final decree deree to the tho supreme court of at the tho Untied United States Slates Such unu meant are plausible aro Iro convincing to many good gooc people hut but are aro so dan dangerous dangerous 1 as ni to amount to A n heresy It ItIs 1 ItIs Is IR form fonn tho the extreme of or state stale rights In imi 11 a 1 now ew THE TIlE WISCONSIN CASE CASI Judge cited clell n a decision of ot ottha the tho Wisconsin stalo tato court which upheld a n state statute unde which an nn Insurance H charter hud had been revolted revoked for removing a 1 easto to a federal court In this case how however however ever he lie says sYI tho tile company hind had no 10 property In iii II the Iho state and amid had 1151 mado na no I In lii Ii time the case rao at It liar hiLt hii ho lie says Hayw sa H to do business Is 18 not lot thu iho Each Kach I company Invested millions of dol del dollars lars litre and It l Is now muon In iii the state and ami can calm cannot canot not hot ot bo be removed To fo prevent It from from do tin doIng tinI Ing I iii appropriating hug its 1 property or 01 destroy n U It without wl mk nuking j ing Imig filmy any In It I was wan Invited to binD romu lute Into iho thu and amid was told by the th laws 1111 lien thun In iii 11 force that It 11 should havi hu p the tamo 1110 multi and 1111 like Iko us I I companion with n 11 as great rolt 11 with hurd ns no ito 10 greater After Af I the Ihl Investments haul hall hallbe bemm be n mode mimetic 11 de aid amiI hii cannot bo ho with withdrawn drawn ii It I t IK hi I it by ion that thul nu nt kind o uC tiC litigation I I t Khali hal I b 1 hi ott d dal on oil al by hY It I I t In II I n nt ruurt ecu rt other thun II I ii sin 11 coults coultM hut but ut loin Il Inn to Ihu ilium railway corporation l d under tile the 11 of or time thu state stala to nn iyo to in UK ll iii coLitis with 11 UH Its IH litigation f of ot till nil 11 kinds arising time tho laws law m ui I of ut tilt Ihl United Th Tim h statu under IU it hens may mo ma same 10 or 01 orbe orbe be sued d In lii 11 any an aim court Lurl state or Om If It i I lute t In is II u it 1 I question but u 1 for foreign fit r eign elii corporation doing 1 us as 11 a competitor must mUll at iii nil ni 11 HUM b IN bif sub nub uh joeL jort to II Ito tho stilt stute court a or m If Ir It Into Inlo iii to iv it 1 national nat tonal court rt titan then mill all 11 invest ors C lout host all al |