The Birmingham age-herald., 1910-11-15


 have reached this office, both from your department and from several of the for eign corporations transacting business in Alabama, in respect to the application to a certain class of foreign corpora tions, of the provisions of section 36o4 of the code of 1907, codified from the act of March 1, 1907. relating to the cancel lston of permits of foreign corporations to do business in the state of Alabama for removing causes of action from any of the courts of this state to any fed eral court, under the principles declared by the court in the above case.
 Tn the recent opinion to the state audi tor upon the subject of the rights of those foreign corporations which had come into and were doing business with in the state prior to the franchise tax act of March ', 1907, with the permis- sion of the state, and had acquired, un- der the sanction of its laws. a large amount of permanent and valuable prop erty, and had established therein an ex- tensive domestic business, I had occa- sion to construe and apply the general principles announced by the supreme court of the United States in the cases of the Western Union Telegraph com pany vs. Kansas, 216 U. s. l, and South ern Railway company vs. Greene, 218 U. s. 400, with respect to the liability of the various foreign corporations doing business in Alabama for the tax required under the provisions of the above act. The court held that the class of foreign corporations which had been admitted to do business in the state prior to the adoption of the act by the legislature, and had acquired therein valuable prop erty and had established an intrastate business, were persons within the Juris- nf the meaning of the fourteenth amend ment and, therefore, such corporations were entitled to be protected against any statute of the state which deprived them os the equal protection of the laws, and that the imposition of the franchise tax under discussion. being different and more onerous than the tax demanded of domestic corporations for the same priv ilege, amounted to a denial of the equal protection for the same privilege, amounted to a denial of the equal pro- lection of the laws and was in conflict with the federal constitution.
 One of the constitutional questions in- volved in the case of Herndon vs. Chi cago, Rock Island and Pacific rail- road company supra, was wheth- CT or not under the act of March Is, 1907 (of Mo.), the license and right of the complainant to do business in the state of Missouri could be lawfully re- voked because 1t had begun suit in federal court or had removed a suit from a state court to a federal court, com plainant being a corporation organized in another state. The main contention Of the complaint was that the provision of the above act of the legislature of the State of Missouri in respect to the for feits and penalties imposed upon 1t for bringing case in the federal court or the removal of one to the federal court, was violative of it's rights under the fed eral constitution. The facts of this case show that the railroad company had en- tered the state of Missouri in accord ance with the laws of that state some years prior to the passage of the leg1sla- tive act, and had acquired therein valu- able vested property rights, amounting 10 an assessed taxed value Of several mil- lions of dollars at the time Of its pas sage. It appears also that this statute of Missouri was similar. with respect to fines and penalties, to section S654 of the code of Alabama.
 The court resorted to the principles de- duced and elaborated in the case of Western Union Telegraph company vs. Kansas, supra, and followed In the case of the Southern Railroad company vs. Greene, supra, and extended the princi- ples announced in these cases to this case in the following language of MT. Justice Day, speaking for the court:
 "As to the validity of the act of March IS, 1907, forfeitng the right of the com pany to do business in the state of Mis- souri. and subjecting it to penalties In case it should bring suit in the federal courts, or remove one from the state courts to the federal courts, but little need be said. This is so because of the cases decided at this term, involving con- tentions kindred to the one made In this case (Citing cases.)
 Applying the principles announced in those cases, it is evident that the act In controversy cannot stand. in view of the provisions of the constitution Of the United States. Moreover. this is not case where the state has undertaken to prevent the coming of the corporation into it's borders for the purpose of carry ing on business. The corporation was within the state. complying with It's laws, and had acquired, under the sanction of the state, a large amount of property within its borders, and thus had become a person within the state, within the meaning of the constitution, and entitled to it's protection. Under the statute in controversy, domestic railroad company might bring an action in the federal court, or, in proper case. remove one thereto. without being subject to tho forfeiture of it's right to do business, or to the imposition of penalties provided l for in the act. In all the cases in this court discussing the right of the states
 to exclude foreign corporations, and to