El Nuevo mexicano., 1919-10-16
INCREASING CAPITAL
70 COST TEXAS OIL
y. COMPANY 4 BIG ZEE
|ATToRNEv oENERkLs OFFICE
HOLDS STATE HAS RIGHT TO
COLLECT 70 CENTS PER THOU
aANp DoLLARs ON 4z9.QQo.

A--'~ ~It+4f Xxx.
81. Mao ~
The qp1as company which has
been anihofized 10 40 business IN
New Mexico Is amending itE articles
of incororhtlnn and increasing Its
capital stock from f~i2.00D,D00 to $751;
ooo.0o The state oorOratioD COIL
mission under the law, is Imposing
q Zoe Of 10 cents a thousand dollars
lot the increase IN capital stock This
means a total fee OF 1890 for filing
the amendment in New Mexico.
The Texas company takes the posi-
lllonl that this fee is improper and
"a tax oil Interstate commerce. Should
the company decline to pay the feo,
It's New Mexico charter, would he
cancelled and the company'e distrir
buting plants IN the state closed,
The corporation commission has
submitted the question to the at
torney general for a ruling Harry
Is. Bowman, assistant attorney gen
eral. has just rendered the following
opinion IN the matter, to the effect
that the 10 cents tax is legal:
1--WE have before us your letter
or october 1. together with file Of
enclosures relative to the fae 70 be
paid by by the Texas company for
filing OF copy OF amendment to 10
certificate OF Incorporation, ihcreas-
ing the capital stock of such corr
pany from $4,000. 900 to $50, 100000
and requesting an opinion fromf thif
office concerning the amount OF this
fee TO be charged by the commis-
sion for the filing Of this Certificate
we have carefully noted the LEI
tiers from the legal department 3f
the company to the commission, cons
tending that a fee Of not more THAI
s2l can be charged for the filing Of
this certificate and we have also
carefully read the cases cited nv
counsel for the company which, II 5
claimed, support the position Of the
company IN this respect.
Tn our opinion, the cases OF the
Western Union Telegraph Co. VS., Kan
sas, &c y. S. /. and the Pullman
Co. vs. Kansas, ZIG u, S. Sc. and the
other cases cited in the letter are not
authority for the contention Of the
company.
I'm these cases the plaintiff COM
panies we're engaged solely in inter
state cOmmerce. The business Tor
which the companies were chartered
was the engagement in interstate
commerce. IN the ease OF the Texas
company the business for which the
Company was chartered a not Of It
self commerce, and to us this seems
TO be the real test as to whether
the fee is a tax or burden upon N
teFstate commerce.
AS was said by Mr.. Justice payH
IN the case Of Baltic Mining Co W
Massachusetts, BAL u. s. 81, and
which case Is mentioned by counsel
for the Texas company in his letter
and which case he contends Is not
authority for the collection Of the fee
In the matter under consideration.
aAp examination Of the previous
decisions in this court shows that
theyhave been decided upon the APP
plioation to the facts Of each case
Of the principles which we have I'M
dertaken to state, and a tax has
only been inyaIidated where its nee
essary effect was to burden inter
commerce or to tax property
beyond the Jurisdiction OF the state,
In the case at bar the business for
which the companies are chartered
Is not OF itself Commerce, True ,tl
Is that their products are sold ana
shipped IN interstate commerce. and
to that extent they are engaged In
the b~uslness. Of carrying on inter
state commerce and are entitled
10 the protection Of the federal CONF
s~tiution against laws burdening COM
OF that character. Interstate
commerce OF all kinds is WITHIN the
protection Of the constitution 81 lne
United States and il is not Wltnln
the authority of a state 70 YAK y pEa
burdensome laws from the slatc7I
Of facts II is apparent, now
that each OF the corporations
IN question Is carrying on a purely
and domestic business qulae
from its Interstate transact
tons. That local aud domestic puslI
ness. for tho privilege Of doing
which the state has imposed q Tax,
IA real and substantial and not 50
connected with Interstate commerce
a. To render a tax upon 1t burden
tie Interstate business Of qthe
involved
There are other cases which fpi-
low the authority Of the last mem
toned case and which support the
position that unless the company iss
chartered for Interstate commerce II
is not o burden upon commerce u
Il Is compelled to do certain things
in order to be permitted TO do bust
ness In a state.
In the present case the Texas com
pany is carrying on q purely local
and domestic business quite separ
rate from its interstate transactiohz
and therefore the fee Of ten cents
per thousand dollars Of capitalization,
IN our opinion, would not be oonsid-
cred 10 be a tax or burden upon in-
terstate commerce,
Nor do we agree that the fee ~
A tax upon the property OF the cor
noration beyond the jurisdiction Of
me state. This fee is charged =
foreign corporation and a domestic
corporation also, for the privilege Of
doing business in the state Of New
Mexico. and the capitalization Is
used as a measure Of the tax and,
therefore. under the authority Of Bal.
tic Mining CO. vs.. Massachusetts,
supra, and subsequent decisions Of
the supreme court on the same ling
N within the authority Of the state