The Green Bag
180
the states heretofore imposed by the rule of ap
rtionment are to be removed. . .
he author contends that the Corporation Tax law of 1909 is not an excise but a dis criminatory direct tax on capital. It “pre sents no new question. Such a tax, imposed in substantially the same language, has already been declared an unconstitutional direct tax. . . ." v "The proposal for a central bank may profitably be considered in this connec tion. . . . Control of commodities and mo nopoly of facilities in a few hands are to be dreaded, but to give to one leadership a magic wand to change the supply and pur chasin power of the people's money would be foly indeed. . . . To give irresponsible control of credit, by a federal law, to any body of men would be an abdication by the national government of all its great power to regulate commerce and a failure to work the institutions of the country in the public interest. . . . “Since the enactment of the Sherman Anti Trust Act, in 1890, the problem of controlling
corporations and commerce has been one for the courts, a question of jurisdiction‘. . . What is needed is precisely a legislative rule of jurisdiction which shall light u the twilight zone b making a case in whic that can be prove which was proved in the
States take original cognizance of any suit of a civil nature, either at common law or in equity, in which such a corporation shall be a party plaintiff unless such corporation shall have previously filed its certificate of incorporation, a sworn list of its actual officers and directors. and a sworn statement of the stocks, bonds, or other securities of other co ra tions held or controlled by it, in the office 0 the Department of Commerce and Labor; nor shall an suit in which such a corporation ma be a party de endant be removed to any Circuit urt of the United States unless such corporation shall have previously filed its certificate of incorporation and such sworn list and statement as aforesaid."
See also Interstate Commerce, Taxation. Closely related to the question of the rela tion between federal and state powers is that of the constitutionality of— "The Delegation of Federal Jurisdiction to State Courts by Congress." By James D. Barnett. 43 American Law Review 852 (Nov.-Dec.).
"Where the devolution of jurisdiction upon the states by act of Congress is deemed to be constitutional, must the assume the exercise of such jurisdiction? ith the exce tion of a few cases in which the supremacy 0 federal law is inte reted to render the exercise of jurisdiction
th lawful and com ulsory, the
"To make the Sherman Anti-Trust Act,
courts have invariably held, eit er without argument, because apparently the matter is too clear for argument, or upon the expressly stated admission that the state courts have been, for particular purposes, established by Congress, a view the principle of which, as abodve explained, has generally been repudi ate ." British Constitution. In England, the senti ment opposed to vesting in one organ of the government powers so great as to cripple a
the Constitution of the United States, the
co-ordinate authority is very powerful. If not
Knight case cognizable, if preferred, and at
the instance of the aggrieved arty, in any proper one of the thousands of state courts which have been largely put out of operation so far as the solution of this problem is con cerned, and by denying protection of the federal courts to notorious, because self oonfessed, ' trade. . .
combinations
in
restraint
of
common law, and the whole American judi cial machinery, work so as to enforce common fairness as the rule of trade and commerce, the only national legislation needed is an amendment to Section 1 of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1887. There should be added the provision :— "That the Circuit Courts of the United States shall not take cognizance of any suit of a civil nature. either at common law or in equity, between a corporation created or organized by or under the laws of any state and a citizen of any state in which such corporation. at the time the cause of action accrued, may have been carrying on any business authorized by the law creating it, except in cases arising under the patent or copyright laws, and in like cases in whic said courts are authorized by this act to take original cognizance of suits between citizens of the same states; nor shall any suit be tween such a corporation and a citizen or citizens of a state in WhlCh it may be doin business be removed to any Circuit Court of the nited States,
‘except in like cases in which such removal is author ized by the foregoing provision in suits between pitizens of the same state.
"To-this amendment, which was intro duced in 1887, but not passed, there should be added this further provision :— "Nor shall the Circuit Courts of
the United
predominant. With some partisan heat, but nevertheless not without perception of the momentous issue involved in the proposal to give the House of Commons all that it de mands, the Quarterly Review pleads for the supremacy of popular rights over the prero tives of the party in control of the last Par ment: “The Appeal to the Nation." Editorial. Quarterly Review, v. 212, no. 422, p. 281 (Jan.). "Unionists, like their opponents, are united by one idea; their fundamental faith is the necessity and the duty of insisting that the rules and the action of lparty government, the very privileges of the ouse of Commons, which were originally acquired for the de tense of the country against the threatening tyranny of the Crown, shall be made sub ordinate to the authority of the nation." In a similar s irit another writer defends the rights of the ouse of Lords, also dragging in the question of Irish Home Rule:— “The Constitutional Crisis.” By J. A. R. Marriott. Nineteenth Century and After, v. 67, p. 22 (Jan.).
