Watertown weekly leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1906-1908, 1908-01-24
DECISION Is BLOW
TO STATE RIGHTS
FEDERAL JUDGE KNOCKS OUT
RAILWAY LAW PASSED BY MIS-
SOURI, LEGISLATURE.
ROADS CAN TRANSFER SUITS.
Mcpherson Says Act FORGETTING Charters
for Changing Litigation to u S.
Courts Is Unconstitutional.
AGAINST SUPREME LAW OF LAND.

KANSAS CITY, No, Jan. 2O.-Judge
Smith Mcpherson, in the United States
district court here today, declared void
and unconstitutional the statute passed
by the Missouri Legislature in 1907 for
bidding foreign corporations from trans
ferring suits brought against them from
the state to the federal courts upon pain
Of forfeitures of the charters. The ap-
plication of the Rock Island, Santa Fe,
the st. Louis, Kansas City & Colorado,
the Milwaukee & st. Paul and the Chica-
go d Alton Railway companies for an
injunction to prevent John E. Swan
ger, secretary of state, from enforcing
the law was granted by the court.
Decision of Judge Mcpherson.
The decision inz part follows:
This cOHrt is mindful OF the criticism
by many laymen, as we'll as by many
lawyers, to the effect that United States
courts have no right, nor even the pow
er, to decree the invalidity of state
statutes. The argument, or, rather the
talk is, that the people know what they
need and that their representatives in
Legislatures assembled alone should de
termine what statutes we must have.
1t is alleged in this case that the com
plalnant IS about removing q case, and
the secretary of state will follow that by
revoking its rights TO do business. The
defendant contends that this in effect is
an action against the state in violation
of the eleventh amendment to the con-
stltutiOn. The complainant contends
that the act of 1907 impairs its con
tract with the state, and denies it 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 deci-
sions to sustain his position
Cites Wisconsin Case
Officers of the state" continued
Judge Mcpherson, in his decision. too
State rights is their Shibboleth' he add
ed. The most attractive argument to
some lawyers of recent days is that the
state courts alone in the first instance
should pass upon 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 argu-
ments are plausible, are convincing to
many good people, but are SO dangerous
as to amount to a heresy. 1t is the eX-
IRENE of state rights in new form. -
Judge Mcpherson cited a decision Of
the Wisconsin state supreme court which
upheld state statute under which an
insurance companys charter had been
revoked for removing Il case to Il federal
court.
In this case, however, he says. the
company had no property in the state,
and had made no investments therein
In the case at bar he said, "a license
to do business is not the question. Each
of the companies invested millions of
dollars, and 1t IS now IN the state and
cannot remove. To prevent it from do
ing business, means approprlating its
property or destroying it without making
any compensation therefor
In concluding Judge Mcpherson holds
as follows:
The Missouri statute of 1907 is void. be-
cause it allows a resident company to sue
in the federal court, If there is II federal
question, and denies that right to non
resident company.
Regard of the last preceding statement
the statute is void because it seeks to take
from the complainant its right TO bring or
remove q case to the United States court.
which right is given by the constitutOn and
the act of Congress, which by Article 6 of
the constitution is declared to be the ST
preme law of the land anything i'll the con
stitutiOn or laws of any state to the con.
trary Notwithstanding.
The statute is void because it is an effort
to not only impair but to repudiate the
contract of the stare made with the company
by W hich it was induced to come into tAt
state, making investments in large sums.
and was authorized to DO q state business,
but now declaring that it shall not DO sucn
business, thereby rendering it inSOlycnt, and
t9king 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.
Provisions of Missouri Law.
The Missouri law upon which today S
decision is based provides, specifically,
that if any foreign or nonresident rall-
way corporation, created and existing I'M
der the laws of any other state, and do
ing railway business from one point in
the state to another point within the
state, SHALL without the written con-
sent Of the other party, remove a case
from the state court to a United States
court, or shall without said written con
sent institute any suit against a citi-
zen 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 with
in the state. And doing such business
shall subject it to a penalty not less
than $1,000 and not more than $4,000
for each offense.