FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218  
219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   >>   >|  
s the right to require the services of its citizens at the seat of government and they the correlative right to visit the seat of government, rights which, if the Nevada tax was valid, were at the mercy of any State, the power to tax being without limit. Reference was also made to the right of the government to transport troops at all times by the most expeditious method. Two of the Justices, however, rejected this line of reasoning and held the act to be void under the commerce clause.[618] But it was not until 1885 that the Court, in deciding Gloucester Ferry Company _v._ Pennsylvania,[619] stated flatly that "Commerce among the States * * * includes the transportation of persons,"[620] and hence was not taxable by the States, a proposition which is still good law.[621] Four years earlier it had been held that the transmission of telegraph messages from one State to another, being interstate commerce, was something that the State of origin could not tax.[622] State Taxation of the Interstate Commerce Privilege: Foreign Corporations DOCTRINAL HISTORY In the famous case of Paul _v._ Virginia,[623] decided in 1869, it was held that a corporation chartered by one State could enter other States only with their assent, which might "be granted upon such terms and conditions as those States may think proper to impose";[624] but along with this holding went the statement that "the power conferred upon Congress to regulate commerce includes as well commerce carried on by corporations as commerce carried on by individuals."[625] And in the State Freight Tax Case it is implied that no State can regulate or restrict the right of a "foreign" corporation--one chartered by another State--to carry on interstate commerce within its borders,[626] an implication which soon became explicit. In Leloup _v._ Port of Mobile,[627] decided in 1888, the Court had before it a license tax on a telegraph company which was engaged in both domestic and interstate business. The general nature of the exaction did not suffice to save it. Said the Court: "The question is squarely presented to us, * * *, whether a State, as a condition of doing business within its jurisdiction, may exact a license tax from a telegraph company, a large part of whose business is the transmission of messages from one State to another and between the United States and foreign countries, and which is invested with the powers and privileges conferred by the act of Co
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218  
219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

commerce

 
States
 

business

 

telegraph

 

interstate

 

government

 
transmission
 
messages
 

license

 

Commerce


includes

 

carried

 

decided

 

corporation

 

chartered

 
regulate
 

conferred

 
foreign
 

company

 

Congress


suffice

 

statement

 

nature

 
domestic
 

general

 

invested

 

powers

 

exaction

 
holding
 

privileges


presented

 

squarely

 
conditions
 

question

 

impose

 

proper

 
corporations
 
granted
 

explicit

 

implication


Leloup
 

Mobile

 

jurisdiction

 

implied

 

United

 

countries

 

Freight

 
condition
 

borders

 
engaged