The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-01-19

present conditions. II man is injured
on the Seaboard Air Line or Coast Line
railroad he sues the company in the
state courts and without much delay
his suit is heard and his claim adiudi-
Gated. If he has a suit against the
Southern Railway, it is removed by
that Virginia corporation to the Federal
court, and, if the person suing Is poor
the delays and expense require com
promise virtually upon the com
pany's terms. We have recently had
some notorious cases in this State-nota-
bly, i'll the James case-where the de-
cisions of the State courts were over
ridden and the cases carried to the Fed
eral court. where they may be tried
after the widow and children have pass
ed the time of sorest need of the moncy
which a jury has awarded them.
Those foreign corporations that ask
a Democratic Legislature to vioIate he
Democratic Dla form 10 let them defy
the State cou rs and deny justice 10
parties having claims against them,
base heir position upon two grounds:
/. That it is legislation inimical to CAPT
tall. prompted by men Of populistic ten
denotes, and will give the State black
eye with men thinking of making in
vestments in North Carolina. This is
A., ,Ioo oo,,1ora 4;n,,c orro:J re ;,,e
ticc. always make, but happily the peo-
pie have learned that the cry is 4
pretence made for giving them special
privileges and immunities. If the de-
mand fiat Il foreign corporation shall
enjoy the same privileges and obey the
same laws that apply to State corpora
tons is populistic and dangerous then
the Democratic State Convention was
n ''populistic" and dangerous body. 1t
is the height Of absurdity to say that
a corporation chartered in Virginia is
injured or driven out because we de-
mand that it shall in all matters affect
ing its operations in this State be sub
ject TO State laws as interpreted by
State courts
.. That such legislation is unconstitu-
tional and therefore ought not to be
put upon the statute books. When
Senator Hairston introduced his first bill.
which contained provisions that were
clearly unconstitutional the foreign cor
porations, desiring to defy North Caro-
lima laws and North Carolina courts.
offered no objection. 1t was their hope
that this Legislature would pass an
unconstitutional law. 1t was only after
Mr.. Hairston amended his bill and
omitted the unconstitutional features
that they began to rave. tear their hair.
call Mr.. Hairston "conspirator'' and
cry ont. Great is Diana of the Epic
SLAMS" seeing their craft in danger"
There is not the shadow Of doubt that
Senator Hairston's bin is constitutional
and that it fills the Democratic pledge
contained in the Democratic State plat
form. AS to the details, it may be
necessary TO make some changes, bur
these, if necessary, will be made by
Democrats who want to perfect the
measure without asking the consent
of corporations that have fattened by
riding rough shod over the laws of North
Carolina.
Below we give a few leading authOri-
ties with regard to the powers of the
Legislature to cause foreign corporations
to be Incorporated in North Carolina,
and to take out license and pay Ii
cense tax therefor in order to do bust
ness in North Carolina:
/. This State can make a corporation
of another State reincorporate itself in
North Carolina. See the leading case
of Goodlet, administrator, against the
Louisville and Nashville Railroad Com
pany, 122 Z. S. Reps, page 391 to 412.
This is leading case and gives a
summary of Il number Of other cases on
the same questions, to wit: 70 T.. S. IL
Wallace 50: 96 u. S., $50; 107 L. S.
5S1; 11S U. S. 295.
2. a railroad corporation of one State
which is also created a corporation
Of another State cannot remove into the
Federal court suit brought against it
in the court of the latter State by cit
izen Of that tSate. See Gerling VS.. B.
and @. Il. II. Co., 151 L. S., 673. See
especially the Lawyers Coop. Pub. Co.
edition, book So and the notes and opin-
ions therein cited ut page 673. Very inn
p0rtant.
3. The case Of Memphis and Char
lesion Railroad Company against the
State Of Alabama III book 81 Lawyers
Coop. Pub. Co. edition at pages ISL ia
$50 viii also elucidate this question.
4. A State statute which denies the
right Of foreign corporation to do bust
ness in the State unless it stipulates III
advance that it viii remove to the Fed
eral court any suit brought against il
by a citizen of the State is repugnant
TO the Constitution and laws OF the
United States. See 50 u. s. 44J; 12l
L. s., 1856; 146 U. S.. 202; 76 Tex. $50
- Ohio ST. 100; % Ohio ST. POS; q
l.. r. A.. $40; 80 ". Va. 1914. Conc
Export and Commission Co. VS.. Poole
- J.. II. a.. 2S9 TO avoid the diff
culties rs set forth in these decisions ii
is only necessary to cause the foreign
corporation to be reincOrporated in North
taP0ling Whom tbic * doYn tho yVa,.Iy i