Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/511

 CHAP. VIII.] CORPORATION AND STATE. [§ 487. gin. . . . The fact that Congress has not seen fit to prescribe any specific rules to govern interstate commerce does not affect the question. Its inaction on this subject, when considered with reference to its legislation with respect to foreign commerce, is equivalent to a declaration that interstate commerce shall be free and untrammelled." 1 § 486. In respect of its foreign and interstate business a telegraph company is, as an instrument of commerce, subject to the regulating power of Congress, and if it ac- _,, ° ? . . . Telegraph cepts the provisions of title sixty-five, of the companies. Revised Statutes of the United States, it becomes a Federal agent in so far as the business of the Federal gov- ernment is concerned. Accordingly, when such a company has accepted those provisions, state laws, in so far as they impose a specific tax on each message which the company transmits beyond the- state, or on messages sent by a United States officer over its lines on public business, are unconstitu- tional. 2 Nor can a state impose a license tax on such a corpo- ration. 3 § 487. It will be noticed that the restrictions so far dis- cussed on the power of a state to tax corporations, depend on the relation that a state under the constitution bears to the United States government, rather than on any special relations that a corporation bears to the state incorporating it, or to 1 Welton v. State of Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, 282. See, also, Weber v. Virginia, 103 IT. S. 344; Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434; Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U. S. 123; Cook v. Penn- sylvania, 97 U. S. 566; Higgins ». Three Hundred Casks of Lime, 130 Mass. 1. Compare Turner v. Mary- land, 107 U. S. 38. Congress has now passed an inter- state commerce bill, in the construc- tion of which many questions are likely to arise; see § 474a-474tZ. 2 Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460; Ratterman v. Western Un. Tel. Co., 127 U. S. 411; Western Un. Tel. Co. v. Alabama, 132 U. S. 472. See American Union Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 67 Ala. 26. Such a law would be un- constitutional, not only as being a regulation of interstate commerce, but also as interfering with a Fed- eral agency. 3 Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640. See Norfolk, etc., R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 136 U. S. 114; Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47. But a city may make the telegraph company pay for the use of its streets. St. Louis o. Western Un. Tel. Co., 148 U. S. 92; ib. 149 U. S. 465; and can impose a license tax on business done within city limits. Postal Tel. Co. v. Charleston, 153 U. S. 692. 491