Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1908-01-21
LAW Is KNOCKED OUT
Missouri Statute Forhiddiug Transfer
Of Suits % Federal Courts Void.
'DRT1OE HY JUDGE MCPHERSON
Hs HsldS That IL Denies Property
Equal Protection.
RAILROADS FILE THE COMPLAINT
soOretaFy Of State is EnjOined From
Enforcing Act.
STATE LII TAKE APPEAL
ASe1gnsV lsral Hadley Says the
Oasas Ne suBmitesa - Su-
y couRa Oa the
~ nftsA stntes.
STATE


trict con 70 today. declared void and
unoonsu lai the statute passed by the
Missiouri sislature IN 1907 forhidding
foreign iilons from transferring suits
'rought st them from the state TO
the fedsi rts upon pain OF forfeiture
Of their g. The application OF the
Rock Island. o santa Fe, and St. Louis,
Kansas city q Colorado. the Milwaukee.
& 81. Paul. and the Chicago g. Alton
railway companies for an injunction to
prevent John e. Swanger, secretary Of
state fran enforcing the law granted
By the court.
Tho Missouri law upon which todAys
decision is based provides. specifically. that
II any foreign. or nonresident railway cor
poration. created and existing under the
laws Of any other state. and doing a rail-
way business from one point In the state
10 another point within the state, shall,
without tho written consent OF the other
party, remove 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 fed
oral 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 70 a penalty ofnot
less than 5000. and not more than $4,000
for each offense. And such disability shall
continue for five years.
Equal ProtectlOn Of Law Denied.
1t s alleged in this case that complainant
IL about 10 remove case, and the secretary
viii follow that by revoking its right to
do business. The defendant contends that
this In effect Is an action against the state.
IN violation OF the eleventh amendment TO
the oonstitHion. The complainant con-
tends that the act OF 1901 impairs its con-
tract With the state. and denies It tho equal
protection OF the laws be enforced
Judge Mcpherson in his decision goes into
tho law OF The case at great length and
}, auOtey freely from previous decisions TO
The decision in part follows;
This court Is mindful of the criticism by
many laymen. as we'll as by many lawyers,
20 the effect that United states courts
cree cree tSe insaiIdity Of state statutes The
argument. OF rather the talk. is that tho
people know what they need and that their
determine what statutes We must haye.
And when 50 determined and evidenced by
should not interfere bS decree and thereby
thwart the legislative will In other words.
that Il Is well to limit the powers OF ex
eontives ana courts. but a written consu-
tuition restraining legislative bodies is all
wrong
model government
Findings of the Court.
In concluding Judge Mcpherson holds
as follows:
The Missouri statute of 1907 is void, bee
cause Il allows a resident company 10 sue
IN The FEDERAL court, u there is federal
question and denies that right to non
Regardless OF the last preceding state
meht, the statute Is void because It seeks
IN ka frfn ha rfU
bring or remove case to the United
States court which right is given by the
which BY article Of the constitution is
deelared 70 be. the supreme law of the
land, anything IN the constitution or laws
ef any state TO the contrary notwithstand-
The statute is void because It is an
the contract Of the state made with the
company by which il was induced to come
INTO the state, making Investments I'm
state business. but now declaring that il
shall not do such business, thereby render
people along it's line the use Of a railroad
for state business. unless the company will
by the national constitution and valid en-.
actnlents OF congress.
This court recognizes the rule that pre-
gurnptively all legislation is valid. But IL
= only presumption, and IN no sense
conciuaive This court recognizes that All
doubts should be solved IN favor OF up
There is but a single question presented
Tho complainant asserts rights under tho
national constitution and laws enacted by
congress. The defendant asserts rights
and insist. t5.t thsss s no ean legislature ict
This court holds that there Is a con-
nlot; And there being conflict the one
Stitutton and laws OF congress being the
supreme law OF the land. OF course the
laws OF the state must yield.
aDDIlCQtlOU Il
sus.s'nfd." ="
states Eirhts ShihhNIeth.
OFFICERS OF the state" continued Iri-s
NcPherson IN HIS decision. ''too often decry
he power OF the nation. State rights Is
their shibooieth." he add.
The most attractive argument 70 some
swyers OF recent days Is that tho state
courts aione in the first instance should
pass upon the question as 70 tho validity
" state statutes. with the night OF the
defended party TO carry tho case for final
leeres to the supreme court OF the United
States Such arguments are plausible. are
convincing TO many good people. but are
70 dangerous as 10 amount 10 q heresy. II
the extreme OF state rights IN q new
oEm."
Judse Mcpherson cited a decision OF the
WISCONSIN state supreme court which up
ssld a state statute under which an insur-
.nee oompany's charter had been revoked
s(or removing case TO federal court
thia case. however. he says the com
amy had no property IN the state ana had
made no Investments therein
In the case AZ bar" he said. "a license
DO business n not the question. Each Of
he companies invested millions OF dollars
ma It is nov IN the state ana cannot re-
o0ve. To prSvent IL from doing business
means aDprcpriatng It's properly. or de-
aroytng Il without making any compensa-
Ion therefor. II was invited to come into
~ @iate and was told BY the laws then IN
Oh mat Il should have the same and
Ike standing as resident eompani.a ,.,,h