Los Angeles herald., 1908-01-21
RAILROAD
LAW KILLED
BY COURT
CORPORATIONS MAY TRANSFER
CASES
MISSOURI STATUTE DECLARED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Carrier Systems viii Have an oppor-
tunlty to Take Suits to Fed
eraI Tribunals for
Hearing


BY Associated Press.
KANSAS CITY, Jan. 20.-Judge Smith
Mcpherson in the United States distrlct
court here today declared void and I'M
constitutional the statute passed by the
Missouri legislature in 1907 forbiddlng
foreign corporations from transforms
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 e. Colorado, the Milwaukee q ST.
Paul and the Chicago & Alton railway
companies for an injunction to prevent
John E. Swanger, secretary of state,
from enforcing the law was granted
by the court.
The Missouri law upon which today 8
decision is based provides, specifically,
that if any foreign or nonresident rail-
way corporation created and existing
under the laws Of any other state and
doing a 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 a case from the state court to
a United States court or shall with
out 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
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 penalty of not less than
$4,000 and not more than $4,000 for each
offense. And such disability shall con-
tinue for five years.
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. The
decision in part follows:
Explains Decision
This court is remindful 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 pow
err to decree the invalidity of state
statutes. The argument, or rather the
talk is that the people know what
they need and that their representa-
tives in the legislature assembled alone
should determine what statutes we
must have. And when so determined
and evidenced by legislative enactment.
that the courts should not interfere
by decree and thereby thwart the leg
isIafive will In other words. that 1t
is well to limit the powers of executives
and courts, but written constitution
restraining legislative bodies is all
wrong. and that Great Britain has the
model government.
"Officers of the state continued
Judge Mcpherson in his decision, too
often decry the power of the nation.
State rights is their shibboleth.
1.-THE most attractive argument to
some lawyers 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 arguments are plausible, are
convincing to many good people, but
are so dangerous as TO amount to
heresy. 1t is the extreme of state
r..;hts in new form"