The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1906-12-21

contracts upon their ascent 1t follows
as matter OF course. that such as
sent may be granted upon such terms
and conditions as those states may
think proper to impose. They may
exclude the foreign corporation en-
tirely, they may restrict its bust
ness TO particular localities, or they
may exact such security for the per
formance of it's contracts with their
citizens as in their judgment VIII best.
promote the public interest The
whole scatter rests In their discre-
ton
T. S, 19 Law Ed, $50.
Paul v Virginia, s Wal. 16S.
"a corporation is tha creature Of
the law, and none OF its powers are
original They are, precisely what
the incorporating act has made them
and can only be authorized in the
manner which the act authorizes. In
other words, the state prescribes the
purposes OF a corpoatlOn and the
means OF executing those purposes.
Purpose and means are within the
states control. This is true as To
domestic corporations. II has even a
broader application TO foreign cor
pOrations
Waters OH Co. VS.. Texas, III L.
s., 657.
Such restrictions will not be deem
cd a limitation or Interference with
interstate commerce. 1t may Incl
dentally. affect transportation it s.
true but so does every burden or tax
imposed on corporations or persons.
B, 4 O. Ry. VS. Md, So U s., 455.
"A state may prescribe the terms
upon which q foreign corporation
shall be allowed to carry on business
in the state"
Cooper Mig. co, VS.. Ferguson, ll3
u. s.. 727.
"A state has power to discriminate
between her own corporations and
those OF other states desirioas oi
transacting business within her iuris-
diction,'
Dneat v. Chicago, 10 Wal, 410.
In this same case the court held:
The state can determine the degree
of discrimination"
Blake VS. McCmng, 172 ". s., 239.
EMINENT DOMAIN
In the State of Indiana the legis-
lzture, under a general act, permitted
nishing gas to the people Of the state
TO be Incorporated or given the right
of eminent domein. The legality OF
this art came before the Indiana Su'
preme Court n the case of the Con
sumers Gas Trust Company VS. Matil
da Hairless. The Supreme Court In
deciding that case used The following
language;
The right to take private property
for public use without the consent
of the owner Is called the right OF
eminent domain and belongs alone
to the sovereign II embraces al
cases where. by the authority of the
state and for the public good, the
property of the individual Is taken
without his consent, for the purpose
OF being devoted to some particular
use, either by the state IN It's sover
eign capacity, or by a corporation
public or private or by a private
citizen to whom such right has been
granted by the state Lewis, Em
Dom. page 1.
The right of eminent domain is
limited only by che constitution ane
the only limitation Ia this state i'
that no mans property shal be taker
by law without just compensation
nor. except in cuse Of the state. viii
out such compensation first assessed
and rendered. state Consc, Page y
art 1.
Il Is TO be exercised only when the
public necessities or convenience re
quire f. but when such necessity
or cOnyenienee Is declared hy the
Representatives OF the sovereign, ths
Legislature. the courts cannot qnes
ton the wisdom OF such declaration
Water Works Co. of indianapolis VS.
hufkhart, Al, Ind S64.
The time, Dlanner and occasion Ol
che exercise Of the right of eminent
domain are wholly Ia the control and
discretion OF the legislatures OF tho
several states of the Union except
[ ~ l.s rsaaftaatrnH I..s III. r.,nufffrtYtfr