Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/509

 CHAP. VIII.] CORPORATION AND STATE. [§ 485. § 485. Of great interest are the restrictions on the power of the state to tax corporations which arise from the R es tric- essentially exclusive power or Congress to regulate Jgjg JJ^ commerce with foreign nations and among the tion arising -it from the states. 1 The power of a state to authorize railroads power of and other highways is unrestricted, and the dispo- to°reguia!te sition of revenues from them lies in its discretion. 2 commerce. A state may license and tax occupations extending beyond its borders, provided it does not discriminate in favor of simi- lar occupations that are carried on entirely within its borders. 3 But a state cannot impose a tax on the movement of persons or commodities from one state to another. 4 A state tax on freight transported from state to state is void, as amounting to a regulation of commerce between the states ; for, whenever a subject, over which a power regulative of commerce is asserted, is in its nature national or interstate, it may be said to require exclusive regulation by Congress ; and the transporta- tion of passengers or merchandise through a state is of this nature. 5 On the other hand, a state tax on the gross receipts vent national bank in the hands of a receiver is exempt from state tax- ation. Rosenblatt v. Johnston, 104 U. S. 462. A national bank may, on behalf of its shareholders, maintain a suit to enjoin the collection of a state tax unlawfully assessed on their shares. Hills v. Exchange Bank, 105 U. S. 319; Evansville Bank v. Britton, 105 U. S. 322; Cum- mings v. National Bank, 101 U. S. 153; National Albany Exchange Banku. Wells, 18 Blatchf. 498; City National Bank v. Padncah, 2 Flip- pin, 61; Citizens Nat. Bank v. Co- lumbia County, 23 Wash. 441. But see § 4926, note. 1 See for the effect of these exclu- sive powers of Congress in restrict- ing the police power of the states, ante, §§ 4746-474d. 2 Railroad Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456. 8 Machine Co. v. Gage, 100 U. S. 676; Osborne v. Mobile, 16 Wall. 479. Compare Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418; Erie Ry. Co. ». State, 31 N. J. L. 531; Jackson Mining Co. v. Auditor-General, 32 Mich. 488; Chicago & E. I. R. R. Co. v. State, 153 Ind. 134. 4 Crandall v. State of Nevada, 6 Wall. 35 ; Railroad Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456. Compare Moran v. New Orleans, 112 U. S. 69; Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517; Pickard v. Pull- man Southern Car Co., 117 U. S. 34. A state cannot tax a foreign railroad corporation upon its business within the state when that is exclusively a business of interstate commerce; it cannot tax the foreign corporation for the privilege of carrying on in- terstate commerce within the state borders. People v. Wemple, 138 N. Y. 1. Compare Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 145 U. S. 192; State v. Stephens, 146 Mo. 662. 5 Case of the State Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 233. But the court said 489