The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-12-19
TAX ON FRANCHISES
ARGUED AGAIN BEFORE THE sU-
 FREME. COURT.
Cases Finally submitsea by Counsel for RafIroads apd State la Suits
 to Recover Taxes-Court
 ldfournod.

Argument in the now noted fran ch.se cases appealed to the Supreme Court was continued yesterday by coun- sei tfor both sides. Those who spoke were Judge Alex Humphreys and Greg ory l.. Smith for the railroads and judge Samuel D. Weakiey for the State.
 About 1 o'clock yesterday afternoon Mir. Smith of Mobile rounded out the argument for the compliments in the cases and 1t marked the final submis- sion.
 Judge weaiiey made an especial plea that if the briefs and arguments suggested. the least doubt on the Fed erai constitutional questions involved the state should have the beneflt of it inasmuch as the carriers could take the cases to the Supreme Court on a writ of error. But counsel for the State did not let this stand in the way of an earnest argument to overthrow the contentious of the foreign corpor- ations which are seeking to recover in all approximately s100.oo0 of taxes paid under protest to the Probate Judges of Montgomery and JeneFson counties.
 one of the burdens of Judge Humph- reys' argument in opening the court yesterday morning. at 10 o'clock was to infer that if the State could exer- else the authority to tax a foreign cor poratfon as it is doing in the instance at bar 1t would likewise have the DOW CT to drive the corporation from the State. He cited several cases in shis effprt to. prove that there Is a differ enee in dealing with foreign corpora- tions which have regularly establish ed agencies and have complied with the laws of a State dealing in inter- state commerce and those foreign cor porations which are not engaged in in- terstate commerce and have not estab- iisiled agencies in the State so as to merit the equal protection of the laws.
 It was cited that the State of Ken- lucky expelled & foreign insurance company from the commonwealth and was upheld in It's action by the United States Supreme Cout.z The decision of tn highest tribunal so held because in- surance is not commerce. This power was reserved to State however bad and reason1esS vas sthesground on which the antion was taken. x ss LA
 If the St2te of Alabama was sus- taInedl in taxing the franchises of for- eign arailroads and letting domestic corporations doing exactly the same kind of business escape. it would leave no limitation on the amount of taxes that could bs levied. It might be $20,- coo or 1t might be s150,000 at the dis cretion of the law-making power. aIt certainly amounted to a discrimination between foreign and. domestic. corpor- ations. according to the way in which Judge Humphrey looked at the case. and amounted to a power to expel a corporation organized in another State, or at least to prohibit the doing.of .in- trastate business. To do away with intrastate business would interfere with interstate commerce, as the two are in separabfe.
 In Alabama condemnation of the right of way is of the use of the rail- road properties. Therefore, when [ foreign corporation by being taxed in an unlimited fashion 1t is liable to be deprived of the use of it's properties and this is equivalent to depfiving 1t of property without due process of law.
 Judge Weakley's argument was aim. ed mostly st the contract between the State and the railroads on which the roads laid so much stressNin both ar- gument and briefs. He contended that the section which was construed as a contract was 6 pefmissive law offering to all foreign corporations the right to purchase domestic railroad property in Alabama. It gave no immunity. < however to the purchasing corpofas lions against the taxes that the state saw At to impose.
 Another point emphasizdd by coun- sel for the State was that it was 6