The Cordova daily times., 1915-05-22

In which he decided that foreign cor porations must file their articles of incorporation and have local rep resentative in the territory, before they can sue in the courts of Alaska, is attracting considerable intere1t, and is herewith published in full:
 Case of w. J. Van Schuyvcr Con- pany vs. s. o. Freedman, of MeCar- thy.
 The plaintiff, a corporation organ ized under the laws of the state of Oregon, brings this action to collect some six hundred dollars from the de. fendant, for goods, wares, merchant disc sold defendant by one of plain tiff's travelling salesmen in Alaska. It Is admitted that the defendant re- ceived these goods and has not paid for them, but he sets up the defense that the plaintiff corporation is not authorized to maintai this action for the reason that it has not com. piled with the laws of Alaska (passed by the Congress of the United States) requiring foreign corporations doing business in Alaska, to file with the secretary of the district an authenti- cated copy of their articles of incor- poration, appointment of agent upon whom service of process may be made. and also annual statements or reports setting forth the amount of it's capi- tai stock, amount of it's assets and Ii. abilities, etc. Chapter 23, Title 12, Civil Code of Alaska)
 Plaintiff alleges in it's amended com plaint that it "is not, and during all the times herein mentioned, was not doing business in the territory of Alaska, so as to bring 1t within the provisions of Chapter 23 of the Civil Code of Alaska, etc.
 The plaintiff does not claim that it has fully complied with said Chapter 23, but contends that it Is only en- gagged in an interstate business in AL aska, not having a place of business therein, but selling goods through travelling saelsmen or agents only.
 Upon this question there are great numbers of conflicting cases from the courts of all the states, and from the Supreme Court of the United States The general settled doctrine may be said to be that laws similar to those in said Chapter 23 are held to be un- constitutional, as being a burden on interstate commerce or regulating such commerce, when applied to cor porations carrying on business in states other than its home state, only through or by travelling salesmen or solicitors.
 Without undertaking to review the conflicting authorities as to what con. stitutes doing business" in such state. very recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States seems to be decisive on this question. In the case of the International Harvester company of America vs. Common wealth of Kentucky, 234 U. S. su. preme Court Reports, page 57s, an almost identical state of facts exist. ed as in the case at bar. The liar. vester Company issued the following instructions to it's agents (which is taken by the court as being a fair statement of the facts):
 The company's transactions with the people of Kentucky must be on strictly interstate commerce basis Travellers negotiating sales must not hereafter have any headquarters or place of business in that state but | may reside there.
 Their authority must be limited to taking orders, and all orders must | be taken subject to the approval of | the general agent outside of the | state, and all goods must be shipped | from outside of the state, after the orders have been approved. Tray. elers do not have authority to make a contract of any kind in the State of Kentucky. They merely take orders to be submitted to the general agent If any one in the State or Kentucky owes the company a debt, they may receive the money, or a check of a draft for the same, but they do hot nave any authority to make any al. lowances or compromise any disputed cialins. When matter cannot he