The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-07-02

5S6. Therefore if a foreign corporation
is required by the laws of North Caro-
liha. before doing business w!thin her
laprders. to become Il domestic corpora
ton (which she may require), such cor
pbraton at once. upon complying win
that statute becomes Il citizen of Nartl
Carolina Then if it sue or be sued by
III citizen of North Carolina in the courts
III North Carolina, it is sued as corpo-
ration--a citizen--of North Carolina, and
there is no diversity of citizenship.
Whereby. under the rules of practice. re-
Iaoyal may be had to the Federal coutrs,
III citizen of another State were to sue
Il 'domesticated' corporation of North
Carolina. say Il railroad company III the
State courts for injuries sustained III
North Carolina. the railroad company
gould. lunder the practice. mhnd yo'p,
remove on account of diverse citizen
ship. But | do not agree that the prac-
flee as followed by the Federal courts
On account of diverse citizenship Is war
rented by the Constitution, Article Ill,
Section 2 That gives States and Fede-
raj courts concurrent jurisdiction when
there is diverse citizenship. | go so far
as to saw that, where no Federal ques-
tion is involved. this right to resort to
the Federal courts is based on Comfy.
and applies only to the higher officers
and offices. if a fair Interpretation be
given it. This very broad Interpretation
is no doubt due to the failure of the
Federal Judge to recognize the sOver-
egnty of the several States composing
the Union. We are drifting dangerously
far Shall this country try govern
ment under and by the judges. and then
ask for Il king? Jefferson once said, "A
frequent recurrence to the fundamental
principles is absolutely necessary to.
preserve the blessing of liberty" Shall
I'VE continue TO drift. or shall we come
back once again to the true merriam of
Il fair and proper construction of the
Constitution! 1t is well recognized by all
the courts of last resort that where
there is concurrent jurisdiction the court
first obtaining jurisdiction retains it.
8The only proper ground for such re-
moval is where, OH account of local feel-
ing and lrejudiceS. a fair trial could not
be had Says Judge Cooley in his Con-
stitutional Law, .'As suits may lie instI-
tutcd i'll State courts i'll all cases Ill
which the jurisdiction of the Federal
courts is not made exclusive Tin this
case ii is not exclusive,. the purpose had
in view in comforting the Federal power
would often he defeated if there were
not some provision under which IL cause
brought in State court might not be
removed to Federal court For ex-
ample, if Il citizen of one State should
bring suit in one of its courts against
Il citizen of another State. the case
would be one which by the Constitution
is embraced in the grant of the Federal
power. And the reason why it was in
euded is. that it may sometimes happen
ssshat local feelings, sentiments, preju-
dices or prepossessions may preclude II
fair trial in the State court, or at least
give rise to fears or suspicious that
such may be the case. But it may he
entirely proper to allow the suit to be
thus brought in the first instance Tin the
State courtsl. because i'll most cases no
such influence will be suspected or
feared. and the parties would go to trial
in the State courts without objection.
But. the question does not arise from the
question | am attempting to answer, for
here there is no diversity of citizenship.
| think | have shown by citations
supra "a That a State has the right
to impose limitations on corporations
seeking to do business within its jurisdic
ton. for they are not citizens i'll con-
temptation OF the United States Con
stitution guaranteeing equal privileges
and immunities to the citizens of the
several States: l2) That upon becoming
domesticated they become citizens of
n CarfIina in lnt of th u
L. s. Constitution so far as is necessary
to determine the jurisdiction of the
courts; CD That nothing appearing on
the face of the statute. or by fair inn
plication. that its aim and "avowed puT
pose was TO defeat the. jurisdiction of
Federal. courts, it cannot he so consid-
cred: and is therefore within the limits
of the Federal Constitution. and is Il
valid act.
Governor Pattison asks. ''why. sup
pose every State and territory in the
United States should pass such a law!
Why then each corporation would be-
come forty-four corporations. and the
States would thereby have practically
legislated the t. 5. Sup reme Court out
of existence" Not at all so. There ARE
many Federal questions that give that
court final jurisdiction, and have kept it
busy for many years past. Other States
have passed laws somewhat similar to
this The Constitution allows what it
does not forbid either expressly or by
fair implication. | fail to see wherein
that instrument. either expressly or by
fair implication, forbids any state OF
the Union to require as a condition pre-
cedent that IA corporation seeking to do
business within its borders. shall be-
come ''domesticated. If one State can
do so. then all can, and We could indeed
conceive of one original corporation be-
coming fOrty-four corporations. | CON
fess that | am somewhat surprised that
the head of a great corporation, like the
Security Trust and Insurance Company,
of Philadelphia, would he opposed to
expansion"
Mr. Luper suggests that ''if the object
aimed at was simply to prevent insur-
ance companies going into the Federal
courts. the better method would have
been to compel them to sign such an
agreement before granting them license.
as is done in Illinois" Indeed. And who
is Mr. Luper that he shall presume TO
say to the Legislature of North Carolina
what would or would not be better"
The reply to him is, that Just such an
act as he suggests was passed by NJ