NOTES OF RECENT CASES obligation of the contract; that it violated the pro visions of the 1 4th amendment as to the equal pro tection of the laws; that it interfered with the regu lation of commerce, and that it was an unconstitu tional prohibition of a lawful calling. None of these objections was regarded as well founded, and with respect to the one last mentioned the statute is held to be a lawful exercise of the police power, enacted in order to protect travelers from fraud, in support of which holding the court cites quite a number of similar decisions from other jurisdictions. Fry v. State, 63 Ind. 552, 30 Am. Rep. 238; Burdickf. People, 149 Ill. 600, 36 X.E. 948, 24 L. R. A. 152, 41 Am. St. Rep. 329; State v. Corbett, 57 Minn. 345, 59 N. W. 317, 24 L. R. A. 498; Commonwealth v. Keary, 198 Pa. St. 500, 48 Atl. 472; Jannin v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 631, 51 S.W. 1126, 96 Am. St. Rep. 821; State v. Bemheim,' 19 Mont. 512, 49 Pac. 441; In re O'Neill (Wash., Dec. 27, 1905) 83 Pac. 104. A somewhat similar statute to that declared constitutional in Oregon was declared to be un constitutional by the Court of Appeals in New York in 1898, in the case of People ex rel Tyroler v. Warden of the City Prison, 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 1006, where the court decided four to three, Chief Justice Parker writing the majority opinion that the statute violated the provisions of the state constitution in that it deprived a person of liberty without due process of law, and that it was not a valid exercise of the police power. The Oregon court distinguishes the New York decision on the ground that the New York statute author ized the agents appointed by one railroad to sell tickets of other railroads while the Oregon statute restricted the agency to dealing in tickets of the railroad making the appointment. The courts of Texas have also declared such a statute unconsti tutional. Jannin v. State, 51 S. W. Rep. 1126. 'Where a ticket is issued by a railroad stipulating that it is non -transferable, and not to be used by any person other than the purchaser from the railroad, irrespective of statutes, some of the courts have issued an injunction restraining ticket brokers from dealing in unused portions of such tickets. A case involving the power of the court to grant such an injunction is now before the Supreme Court of the United States for its con sideration. L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Bitterman, a ease which first arose in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and is reported 128 Fed. 176. Lee M. Friedman. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Due Process — Railroads.) U. S. S. C. —-Where proceedings by State Drainage Commissioners for widening and
475
deepening the channel of a creek require the re moval and rebuilding of a railroad bridge and cul vert, the imposition upon the railroad company of the entire cost of rebuilding the bridge and cul vert is held in Chicago. Burlington ct Quincy Railway Company v. Illinois, 26 Sup. Ct. 341, not to constitute a taking of property without due process of law. It is, however, declared that the expense of re moving the soil attendant upon the widening and deepening of the channel across the right of way cannot be imposed upon the railroad company without a denial of due process of law. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Foreign Corpora tions.) U. S. S. C. — Security Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Prewitt, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 619, is a holding which seems to be a necessary corollary of a proposition which has been decided so often that it is certainly by this time incontestable. Hooper v. California, 15 Sup. Ct. 207; Allgeyerv. Louisiana, 17 Sup. Ct. 427; Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 19 Sup. Ct. 281; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 20 Sup. Ct. 518, and a number of other cases both earlier and later have established the principle that a state has the right to prohibit a foreign corporation from doing business within its borders unless such prohibition is so conditioned as to violate some provision of the federal constitution. Based upon this broad principle the court declares in the case being re viewed that a state statute may properly provide that if a foreign insurance company shall remove to a federal court a case which has been commenced in the state court, the license of the company to do business within the state shall thereupon be revoked. The case of Home Insurance Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445, is considered in connection with Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U. S. 535, and it is pointed out that there is no inconsistency in the decision in these two cases inasmuch as the holding in the Morse case that a statutory provi sion purporting to prevent foreign insurance com panies from removing causes to federal courts was void, did not cover the issue presented in the Doyle case, nor in the case under review. The case of Barren;'. Burnside, 7 Sup. Ct. 931, is referred to and the contention that it overruled the Doyle case is negatived. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Increasing com pensation of Judges.) Conn. — In McGovern f. Mitchell, 63 Atl. 433, the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut is called upon to discharge the embarrassing duty of passing on the validity of a statute increasing the salaries of its members. The Connecticut constitution contains an amend ment providing that neither the general assembly
