The Mena weekly star., 1908-01-23
THE MISSOURI JAW VO|D.
The Statute Forbidding Transfer of Suits to Federal Courts Declar-
 ed Unconstitutional.
LENGTHY DECISION BY JUDGE JEFFERSON
The Secretary of State Is Restrained From Forfeiting Charters of Rail- roads Which Have Violated Law Court Holds Missouri Statute Con- flicts With Federal Constitution.

flicts With Federal Constitution.
 Kansas City, Jan. 21.-Judge Smith McPherson, in the United States dis trict court here Monday, declared void and unconstitutional the statute passed by the Missouri legislature in 1907 forbidding foreign corporations from transferring suits brought against them from the state to the federal court upon pain of forfeiture of their charters. The application of the Rock Island, the Santa Fe, the St. Louis, Kansas City & Colorado, the Milwaukee & St. Paul and the Chi cago & Alton Railway companies for an injunction to prevent John D. Swanger, secretary of state, from en- forcing the law, was granted by the court.
 The Missouri law upon which Mon- days decision is based provides, spe- officially, that if any foreign or non resident railway corporation, created and existing under. the laws of any other state, shall, without the written consent of the other party, remove a case from the state court to United States court, or shall without said against a citizen of the state, in any federal court, then the secretary of state shall revoke the license to do business, from one point within the state to any other point within the state, either in carrying passengers or freight. And doing such business shall subject it to a penalty of not less than $2,000 and not more than S10,000 for each offense. And such liability shall continue for five years.
 It is alleged In this case that com plainant is about removing a case, and the secretary will follow that by re- voking its right to do business The defendant contends that this, in ef- feet, is an action against the state, in violation of the eleventh amendment to the constitution The complainant contends that the act of 1907 impairs it's contract with the state. and denies 1t the equal protection of the laws If enforced.
 Judge McPherson, in his decision, goes into the law of the case at great length and quotes freely from previous decisions to sustain his position.
 In concluding Judge McPherson held as follows:
 "The Missouri statute of 1907 Is void because it allows a resident company to sue in the federal court. if there is a federal question. and denies that right to a nonresident company.
 Regardless of the last preceding statement, the statute is void because it seeks to take from the complainant its right to bring or remove case to the United States court, which right is given by the constitution and the act of congress. which by article 6 of the constitution is declared to be the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding
 "The statute is void because it is an effort to not only impair, but to re- pudiate the contract of the state made with the company. by which it was in. duced to come into the state, making Investments in large sums. and was authorized to do a state business, but now declaring that it shall not do such business thereby rendering it in- solvent. and taking from the people along its line the use of a railway for state business, unless the company will surrender under coercion rights given it by the national constitution and valid enactments of congress.
 "This court recognizes the rule that presumptively all legislation is valid But 1t is only a presumption, and in no sense conclusive. This court recog- nizes that all doubts should be solved in favor of upholding legislation. But there are no doubts in this case.
 This court recognizes that the sec retary of state will be enjoined from doing that which he is commanded to do by state legislation. But it is also well known that if this court is in errors there can be a reversal by the supreme court within less than a year of time.
 There is but a single question pre- sented The complainant asserts rights under the national constitution and laws enacted by congress. The de- fendant asserts rights under an act of the Missouri legislature, and insists that there is no conflict
 This court holds that there is a conflict. And there being conflict, the one or the other must give way. And the constitution and laws of con gress being the supreme law of the land. of course the enactments of the state must yield.
 "The application for an injunction Is sustained"