The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1899-03-02


IDENTIFY was an oversight Of the author
OF the bill. or otherwise he would have
been more explicit In the language
used.
4 Harsh Provision.
Section 3 provides that ANY officer,
manager or agent who shall make any
false statement or oath respecting the
matters and things therein required to
be stated and sworn to. shall be DEEM
ed guilty OF a felony and punished by
Imprisonment in the penitentiary for
not less than one nor more than three
years" This Is a harsh and u2justla-
able provision. and does not correspond
with the penalties imposed upon 9TH
ers guilty OF like offenses. In other
cases. the offense Is only mlsdemean-
or. while In this biil the same offeIse is
made a felony, punishable br confne-
ment In the peaite7tiary. But Its
harshness does not stop with this. 1t
makes the simple fact o! making a
false statement or oath felony, re-
aardless OF the fact as to whether such
statement or oath was made knowing
ly or willfu!ly. II such untrue state
f7eat or oath Is made merely, by. mis-
take or inadvertence, 1t makes It q
crime and visits this severe penalty,
which Is contrary to we'll settled
principle Of criminal Law. Our statute.
IN order to make false statement
perjury. expressly requires that such
Statement. shall be Haae.'w Illfully and
knowingly" To provide that an IN
true statement, not made willfully, but
through more lradvertence. error or
mistake, should subject the party to
Imprisonment in the peuitentiary and
the disgrace which follows. can, hardly
find tolerance among civilized people.
Surely this requirement was not intend
ed by the author OF the bill before me.
Conflicts with National Laws.
The license fees exacted by this bill
apply alone to the agents Of foreign
express companies, ard the payment Of
the same is condition precedent 10 the
transaction OF business by such COM
pauieS within the state. This provision
OF the bill is plainly unconstitutional,
and has been so expressly decided by
the supreme court OF the United States
In the case OF Crutcher vs.. The Com
monwealth OF Kentucky, In al United
States supreme court reports, page Al.
The court in that case holds that such
exaction is an Interference with inter-
state commerce, and is accordingly ua-
constitutional and void.
Lie. in his Notes on Corporations.
page l52, says: 1T should be carefully
observed that while q state may tax or
otherwise lay burden upon q foreign
corporation. yet II the latter be en-
gagged IN Interstate commerce. any In
reference with Its operations will be
unconstitutional and void. Hence. not
only has the state no power in such
case TO prohibit a foreign corporation
from doing business within Its borders,
but It can lay q tax upon Its business,
as 4 condition precedent 20 doing bust
ness there, since this would be. In eff
feet, q regulation OF Interstate COM
merce. Therefore, q state law requir-
Ing license tax to be paid by tele-
graph, express, or railway company, or
any other company or Individual. en-
gagged In Interstate commerce, as a
condition precedent TO the right to do
business within Its borders. Is void"
This IS q plain discussion Of the bill
before me. 1t covers, In unQuest!onable
terms, the principle objection which
have to the bill. viz: that 1t Is clearly
ara poSftifefS RRt6HSt3tatloHaf, anu ~
therefore. void.
The decision OF the supreme court OF
the United States. above cited, Is on all
tours with the bill before me. 4 license
was imposed upon all agents OF express
companies not only doing business
wholly within the stntc. but upon those
who passed across or through the state
OF Kentucky, in going 10 and from other
CT IN, ar n
poses. Had the state OF Kentucky and
the state Of West Virginia confined
their license tax to express agents OPP
Grating wholly within each state. no
constitutional question could have been
raised; but inasmuch rs the Kentucky
law, and the bill now before me. tax all
express agents who traverse the state
In the line OF their duties, Il Is In
conflict with the constitution OF the
United States.
1t has been repeatedly decided by the
supreme court of the United States,
that no state. under the uuise of IT,