The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-05-11
JOLT FOR BIC ONES
Pullman and Western Union
Companies Lose.
Supreme Court Decides They
Must Pay Charter Fee.
LEAVENWORTH CASE.
Writ Of Custer Against Missouri
River Town.
Must Stop Licensing the Sale
of Liquor.

Inc supreme court this morning
rendered a judgment in custer against
the Western Union Telegraph COM
pany and the Pullman Sleeping Car
company to compel them to cease do
ing business in Kansas. The opinion
was written by Justice Burch, and
contains about fifty typewriter pages.
1t was unanimous
1t is expected that the two COM
panies will at once appeal to the SUI
preme court of the United States
The real object of the state in the
case is not to compel the two COM
panles to stop doing business in Kan
Sas, but to compel them to comply
with the state charter laws, which re-
qu1re a foreign corporation to secure
permit to do business in Kansas and
pay certain fees provided by law. The
amount which each company will be
required to pay before being allowed
to continue in business in Kansas I'M
der today's decision, is $4,000 in the
suit against the Western Union and
Pullman company. The capital stock
of the Western Union is given at
$1Oo,OOO,ooo and for the Pullman
company it is $74,000.000.
The great question involved in these
cases is the jurisdiction of the legisla-
ture over corporations doing an inter-
state business. Justice Burch in his
opinion draws the distinction very
closely between state and interstate
business. He holds that the state,
through its legislature, has authority
to exclude absolutely, foreign cor
poration from coming inside the state
and hence has authority to pass an
act regulating foreign corporations
The decision is to the effect that
neither the Pullman company nor the
western Union company can accept
any state business without first COM
plying with the state corporation laws
The supreme court does not hold that
either of the companies is obliged to-
comply with the state laws in order to
transact interstate business. In other
words, either company might refuse to
accept any business originating and
terminating in the state and be ex-
empt from the payment of any char
ter fees.
Another important feature involved
in the case is whether the Bush cor
poration law enacted by Poplist leg
islature applies to a corporation which
was already doing business in the
state at the time the law was enacted. 1
The supreme court holds that a cor
poration must get permission from the
state to continue to do business here, |
even though it may have been located
here at the time the law was passed.
The Western Union company made
Il strong point of the fact that the |
United States government had grant |
ed to the company the right to build |
lines along post roads and across pub |
lie domain and that the transmission |
the regulation of the United States |
postmaster general. 1t was contended |
that by this arrangement the Western /
Union company was to a certain ex- |
tent transacting postal business and |
could not be interfered with by the |
state. The supreme court, however,
draws a distinction between the bust |
ness of the government and messages
transmitted between individuals, hold
ing that the latter is a strictly COM
transaction and subject to the
police regulation of the state.
The Pullman company advanced as
it's chief argument that it was under |
contract to furnish cars to the rail-
road companies and that by excluding |
would necessitate a violation of an ex-
listing contract. The court however,
holds that the company came into the
state and placed itself subject to state
regulation and that if a law has been
passed which requires it to do certain
things in order to maintain the in
of a contract. it cannot be
that the violation of that con-
tract is essential.
Custer Against Leavenworth.
For the second time in it's history
the city of Leavenworth is subjected
to a writ of custer from the supreme
court to compel it to cease licensing
saloons and other unlawful resorts.
The first decision of this kind was
rendered about twenty years ago. To-
day the supreme court allowed an
other writ of a similar nature.
The city of LeavenwOrth commended
that the old judgment of custer ac-
all that could be accom-
pliShed by such proceeding and that |
the new judgment should not be al
lowed. The court says: "a Judgment
Is ordinarily conclusive between the
parties on all questions directly in
volved in the issues and necessarily
determined by it, but a judgment is
not an estoppel as to facts which did
not occur until after the judgment
was rendered and which are not in
volved in the suit in which 1T was rem
dered. The fact that a party may
have obtained judgment against an
other does not estop him to SUBJ
lief against the same party, if condi-
lions have changed and new facts, and
elements are brought in
There was an agreed statement of |
facts in this case which admitted all
the charges made by the state in re-
oons and the only defense made by
was that in regard to
he former judgment against it. The
decision of the court was unanimous. |
Judgment Against Everhardy.
In similar proceedings brought by
he state to GUST from office Peter
Everhardy, mayor of Leavenworth, the
court grants the writ of GUST
er. Everhardy admitted all the alleg-
atoms of the state but contended that
he act imposing these duties on the
mayor and making the neglect of
hem a ground of forfeiture for which
lie may be removed from office is OBJ
loxious to the constitution in that the
title is not broad enough to cover the
provisions for the removal from office
The supreme court says, THE title of
he act Is as broad and comprehensive