Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1908-01-20
U. S. Judge Smith Mcpherson
Declares it Void and
Unconstitutional.
FORBADE APPEAL TO COURTS
If Railroad Took One Without
Consent Of Other Party, Ii
Cense Could be Revoked.
Appropiiating or Destroying its Prop
erty Without Compensation.


Kansas City, Jan. 2O-Judge Smith
Mcpherson. in the United States dis
trict court here today 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
courts upon pain of forfeiture of their
charters. The application of the Rock
Island, the Santa Fe. the St. Louis
Kansas City and Colorado, the Mil.
waukee & st. Paul aud the Chicago &
Alton railway companies for an injunc-
tion to prevent John f. Swanger, sec
rotary of the state enforcing the law,
was granted by the court.
WHAT LAW PROVIDES.
The Missouri law upon which todays
decision is based provides, specifically,
that IL any foreign, or nonresident
railway corporation, created and ex-
listing under the laws Of any other state
and doing railway business from
one point in the state to another point
within the state. shall. without the
written consent of the other party, re-
move case from the state court to
United States court, or shall without
said written consent institute any suit
against a citizen of the state, in any
federal court, then the secretary OF
state shall revoke the license TO do
h,,.irss STOW, ora ooin+ within tho
state 10 any other point IN the slate,
either IN carrying passengers OF
freight, and doing such business shall
subject II to nenalty of not less than
90 100 -, - ,,,o 49,, onon co..
%-'OVV Gnu n.y. 4i''i0
each offense. And such disability shali
continue for five years
7, &c .1Isea5 in ttiS casa tl,a+ ,.cr7a-
nlainant is about removinY a cas- ann
tha secretarv will follow that nv re-
waking ito right To do business The
defendant co1tsnds that tbSs ,s in az
fect an action against the state In
violation Of the eleventh amendment
ia the CONSTITUTION. The compiainant
contends that the act of 1907 impairs
its contract wi.h the state. and denies
II the equal protection of the law n
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 decision.
-
SoCrNA . DESiSAoN'
The decision in palt follows:
This court is mindful of the criti-
cism by MANY laymen as well as many
lawyers to the effect that United States
courts have no right nor even the
power to decree the invalidity Of
rather the talk is that the peonie
know what thsy need. and that their
REPRESENTATIVES, in Iagis,ature assembied
alone should determine what statutes
we must have And when SO deter
mined and evidences nv Legislative en-
actrnent, that the courts Shout not in
terfere nv decree ana Therefore
thwart the legislative will In other
words. thai II Is well to limit the pow
ers OF executives and courts, but
written constitution restraining legis-
lative bodies Is all wrong, and that
Great Britain has the model govern
ment. Officers of the state, contin-
ued Judge Mcpherson in his decision,
too often decry the power of the ma
ton. States rights is their shlbbo-
leth, he added.
"The most attractive argument to
some lawers of recent days is that the
state courts alone in the first instance
should pass ON the question as to the
validity OF state statutes with the
right of the defended party TO carry
the case for final decree to the supreme
court OF the United states. such arsu-
meants are plausible, are convincing
TO many good people but are so dan
gerous as to amount TO heresy' IL
is the extreme of state rights IN a new
FORM
THE WISCONSIN CASE.
,n,, st.o., . 1,,tot.,, -
1uuSe MI ,'ei sOm . cn,,yt
the NisIoi,shi sa .,i,n,n 80,
W,ien upuoiu %" ,,,,,,no,,S,,s oI',,.ter
WI, miiSti al ,oi,an a.. raI,nyiny rss,
,iau peen a1fon 49,, ~ this nase nov
e ~ q iI ha saws mo no,nnany had no
,,s., rs ~, tha state ana ha4 ma.do M