The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-04-21
Preliminary Injunction
 Granted. CANNOT ENFORCE THE
 FAMOUS 10UTLAW'' ACT Judge Jones Hands Down 2 Lengthy
 Opinion. He Says That the Outlaw Act l. vie- iatien of the Constitusien ef
 the state and the Nation.

I nied by an opinion exhaustively dis cussing the constitutional questions raised by the bill. was issued yester- day by Judge Thomas G. Jones of the Federal Court of the Middle District of Alabama, restraining the Secretary of State of Alabama and all Circuit Court clerks of the State, from enforcing the famous Outlaw Act" of the East Leg from doing business in Alabama. after they had had suit removed from State to a Federal Court.
 l The act was declared by the opinion to be in direct conflict with both the Constitution of Alabama and the Con- stitution of the United States. In hia opinion handed down yesterday Judge Jones deals especially with its viola ton of the letter and spirit of the Constitution of Alabama.
 1 He discusses. too. the unfortunate ef- feet of the law which would forbid foreign corporation. made up of citf- zens Of other States, from having ac- cess 10 the courts. like all other ciass- es of citizens The citizen of Alabama. the corporation of Alabama, would have the right to go Into any court. but a foreign corporation, no matter how much It had at stake could only go into one court--a State court.
 The Consultation of Alabama, Judge Jones points out, positively forbids such an unjust law. It gives all citf- xens. corporate and otherwise the rfghf to go into any court. The Legisiature woe without power to abrogate that right or punish q company for the ax- ersise of | constitutional right
 It is specifically stated h the sfafs Constitution that any association or corporation shall have the right to construct and maintain telegraph and telephone lines and the Legislature shall have the right to provide reas- Judge Jones holds that action banish- ing such companies from the State for exercising constitutional right. is an l arbitrary use of power. which could iH no wise be considered "reasonabIe reg I ul0ffon.
 The 1uofnpfainant in this case wap tl.s Western Union TeleKrnph Company. Tf had transferred a euft from state to a Federal Court and fearing that under the operation of the law fhe clerk of that court would notify the Secretary of State who would cancel the license of the company, the attor- neys of the Western Union went be- fore Judge Jones and asked a tempo rary restraining order. This was granted on the showing made by the bill and April 5 was set as the day for hearing, Following the hearing
  his opinion prepared with care and thoroughness was sent to Birmingham yesterday.
 The Outlaw act" which was the bone of contention. was one of a series. ac- tuated by the same spirit, which de- clared that no foreign corporafion could transfer case from a State fo Federal Court. Every other class of citizens had the right to go into any court. but the purport of the outlaw act'' was to close the doors of the Fed- eraI Courts to foreign corporations.
 Fought by Minority.
 At the time these bills were up in the State Senate the minority of that body fought them on the proposition that they we're unconstitutional and that their enactment would not only be futile but that 1t would plunge the State into costly litigation, But they were administration measures" and the majority of the Senate promptly passed them.
 In discussing the constitutional ques- ton involved Judge Jones writes:
 Section 240 of the Constitution Of Alabama ordalns: All corp orations shall have the right to sue. and shall be subject to be sued, in all courts in like cases as natural persons"
 This section Ia found in an article regulating foreign corporations and corporations chartered under the laws Of this state which carefully diser fui- mates between the two classes of .c0Se poratIons. It Is evident from the drop ping in the close of the article of all distinction in regard to the right to sue and be sued, and using the words all corporations that the framers of the constitution intended to put corpo- rations of every kind upon the samo footing as to their right to resort te ali courts It has been urged thas this language could not have intended to refer to the Federal courts. since the franers of the state Consultation would naturally, not attempt to make provis- ion for suits in Federal courts. the right to resort to which Is conferred and governed solely by the constitu- ton and laws of the United States. True, the State could not give the right but 1t could disable itself by It's funda- mental law from interfering with a foreign corporation because 1t exercised the right. In view of the history of the original section, and it's sweeping words which imply no exceptions. we are not auth hoTized to construe the sec ton as though the words of this state were interpolated after the words in all courts and thus contract the right given to a mere right to sus and be sued in all courts of this State The framers of the conGtitution were deal-. ing with the broad subject of suits. by and against all kinds of corporations. In all courts. which administer justice In this State. The property rights of corporations are litigated and settled quite as often in the Federal courts as In the state courts.
 Again. the opinion says of this pro vision: t
 "Thia provision was construed by the Supreme Court of Alabama in Railroad Company vs. MorFts, e5 Ala. 199, and Smith vs. l.. and N. Rsiiroad O.. 76 Ala. 651. In the latter case the court after quoting the words of Justice Field (SawysF. 2ss) that Section of the fourteenth amendment applied to corporations As we'll as natural per- sons, and implied not only the right to resort on the same terms as others to the courts of the country for the ss- eurity of person and property. but also exemptions from all invidious burdens. etc. said: This question, however would seem to he settled by our own state constitution, Article 1, Section 12 lnow Section adOS which ordainE that