The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-07-14

n40 neen Q DurpoDe to prevent their 0o-
 ds ns wosd ifSss ssv. TSs pSs socn nmitAtion upon the rieht in tx. pEsss terms. q at least lfmited the HHht to sue ''in all courts of the State. I Trey choss, 1owevsr. in conferring thS thS courts. There is nothing which au- lns of these words. in which sense. un- less the contrary h some way appears, De taken. Clearly thl3e sweeping Mords refer 10 ali the courts which dfspense justice in the state and rive to "AlI corporations" the right to ester m smvsfy court in which . natural psfson
 nsSisctisn Drav.s by Law.
 Natural persons and domestic cofpo- rafion1 can resort to . Federal Court, .aS Sais, ~ :rl;n Moas Ssr ss; Se right. of suit in Fsdsf1i Court. to any forfeiture of the right to pursue any business: while under the identi- ticn is expelled from the state. Three domestic corporations have flled bills in this court attacking the same rate legislation. Under the statute they while 1t ipso facto forfeits the rieht- of foreign corporations to do domestic busisess, because they brought like suits here. lss z bringing such . suit here. when no such consequence can attach to a do- mestic corporation or natural per- son. t needs no argument to prove tlon to sue fin all courts. in like cases." is not the same as that of 'natnrsi
 The st.tuss destroy. the perfect tion exacts. and subverts the declared policy of the Constitution, There Is nothing in the nature of the suit which can justify putting the foreign corpo- ration in one class, and other suitors in different consequences to the bringing of suits by them in . Federal Court. If. howevef. t were case where. ordina- : riiy. the Legislature might ciassify 4s..far. sT asrsn; nx.r for r. such se EsrVs . denied, when the constitutions Neelf,l 6y [ mandatory provision. put 9f kihdl of corporations in one and the aaAne them the same, identical rfsht aS to waging suits "in all courts" &
 PrereEative Te Expel Linfteo. 2.
 The former absolute prerogattve Eo expel the foreign cOrpoTatton at VIII by this provision is shorn of some of Its power. The provision limits the prerogative in one respect. and puts an absolute veto in 9, sdvance unon sny hsy cause 1t resorts to any court The prerogative being no longer without Limitation. its arms cannot grasp mat ters which the constitution declares they shall not touch. The constitu- tionality /of 3 statute. leveled at the enjoyment of . Fundamental right, must be determined by it's natural and reasSnabie son ,sn efest upon tho uxer sxereiss ss U. s. 25S; Chy Lung vs. Freeman. 1b
 It is also . maxim of constitu- directly, cannot De done indirectly: 9 Cummings vs. Missouri. Wall. 277 A statute which declares that . corr poration is ipso facto expelled. because 1t resorts to Federal court or any of the constitutional provision: for 1t Is an attempt to expel corporation for cause which the constitution will not tolerate. The legislative by this of right which 1t can not directly take the enjoyment of a right the constitution ;Is fs:' Ain, :'A s: s''fe's':s' 5. HsS.Ts
 No court can give such a statute ef- feet; for no court b authorized to de- s.rs .os nst oasr for vhSp tse Legislature might lawfully expel it. when the Legislature declares 1t is ex- pelled because 1t brought the suit. . eon eourt .ns did 'Hn0 that. it Would enact and and execute 8 statute which the Legislature never passed, in order to overrule the plain veto the constitution itself puts upon the statute which was actually Censtructien of Constitutional Pre-
 visisn by Supreme Court Of
 Alabama.
 ego. Oti the Supreme Court of this State. Ala, is9-which involved . discrimi- nation between the rights of a domes- vision Identical with Section 24o and various other provisions repeated in the present constitution. declared:
 visions Is to place all persons. natural upon a basis of equality in the en- forcement of their rights in the courts sst,oa es otherwise ProS'oso NOT tas esn 'Its be permitted that litigants can be- de- barred from the free exercise of this of arbitrary, unjust and odious dis senat'0es eolor of esiae}lshins peculiar rules for q particular occupation; Unequal equal
 
 which secures a right to some fay ored class or classes and denies 1t to others. who are thereby excluded from that equal protection designed to be secured by the general law of the land, Is in clear and manifest oppo- sition to the letter and spirit of the foregoing provisions"
 The same question. involving dis crimination against a foreign corpor- ation as a suitor in the courts. came before the Supreme Court of Alabama, in Smith vs. Railroad Company. 70 Ala, 451, which followed and reaf- firmed the doctrine declared in Rail the Smith case, Chief Justice Stone. de- livering the opinion of the court said:
 "This question, however. would seem to be settled by our own State Consti, tuition, Article 14. Section IF (carried forward in identical words in Section 240 of the present constitution). which ordains that all corporations shall have the right to sue and shall be subject to be sued. in all courts, in like cases as natural persons Tn like cases as natural persons, must mean where the cases are alike. the same description of contract or tort, there must be nc and natural persons in the matter o1 prosecuting or defending suits, The sum of these provisions is that no burden can be imposed upon all other classes"
 The same rule. was enforced by the seauent cases of l.. & N. R.R. Co.,. vs Baldwin. s5 Ala. 627; Brown vs. A. G. s. RR. Co.,, ST Ala, 370; Randolph vs Builders and Painters Supply Company 106 Ala, 511; in each of which, statutes making the forbidden discrimination A ~l~nt N4~ <xth nFC