the Supreme Cou

the Supreme Cou

rt of the United States, when nothing is involved of national authority.Mr. Cooley, in his work on Constitutional Limitations, on page , says: But the same reason which requires that the final decision upon all questions of national Jurisdiction should be left to the national courts will also hold the national courts bound to respect the decisions of the state courts upon all questions arising under the state Constitutions and laws, where nothing is involved of national authority, or of right under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, and to accept the state decisions as correct and to follow them whenever the same questions arise in the national courts.In Beauregard v. New Orleans,How I Ed Mr. Justice Campbell, speaking for the Supreme Court of the United States, says: The constitution of this court requires it to follow the laws of the several states as rules of decision wherever they apply. And the habit of the court has been to defer to the decisions of their Judicial tribunals upon questions arising out of the common law of the state.In Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley's Lessee,Pet L. Ed it was argued that the exclusive power of state courts to construe legislative acts did not extend to the paramount law, so as to enable them to give efficacy to an act which was contrary to the state Constitution; but Marshall, C. . speaking for the STods Online upreme Court of the United States, saidTods Shoes: We cannot admit this distinction. The Judicial department of every government Is the rightful expositor of its lawhttp://www.todsoutlet-sale.com s, and emphatically of its supreme Uw., L Ed the same eminent Judge says: The judicial department of every government where such department exists, Is the appropriate organ for construing the legislative acts of that governmentThe opinions of the Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma upon all questions of criminal law are binding upon the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of this state, the Governor, and all state officers. Certainly, then, the sheriff and jailor of a county are without the slightest power or authority to disregard and disobey tTods Shoes Sale he orders ofTods Outlet this court and such disobedience and disregard of the orders of this court constitute contempt of court The power of the court to punish for contempt is clearly stated in the ninth volume of Cyc. p as follows: Independent of authority granted by statute, courts of record of superior Jurisdiction, whether civil or criminal, possess Inherent power to punish for contempt of court Such power is essential to the due administration of justice, and the Legislature cannot take it away or abridge itUpon the hearing of this matter a great mass of conflicting testimony was introduced, and if the court was disposed to take a harsh and extreme view of the facts presented there is ample evidence in the record to justify the court in adjudging respondent guilty of contempt and in inflicting severe punishment therefor.We are satisfied from the testimony that the respondent Davis did not render that ready and unquestioning obedience to the order of the court which it was his duty to do; that a personal difficulty took place between respondent Davis and the attorneys for relator in which some highly improper language was used; but it also appears from the testimony that the respondent Davis has been a fearless, zealous, and faithful officer, and that when he had time for reflection he complied with the order of the court We are inclined to the opinion that the hesitancy which relator first manifested with reference to obeying the order of the court and what he then said, was due more to the personal feeling existing between relator and the attorneys for respondent than to a disposition to defy this court While this constitutes no defense to the charge of contempt yet we feel that in justice we should take it into consideration in pronouncing judgment against relator. This court has no desire to resort to arbitrary measures, especially against the peace officers of the state. All that it asks and requires is that its order shall be obeyed. No

70

ight to question the Judgment of this court If the court is In error as to any matter, an application must be made to the court for its correction. While the respondent Davis is guilty of contempt for not rendering unquestioning obedience to the order of the exercise of the power of eminent domain: Provided further, that before any railroad corporation organized under the laws of any other state or territory or of the United States shhttp://www.todsoutlet-sale.com all be permitted to avail Itself of the benefits of this act, such corporation shall file with the secretary of state a true copy of Its charter or articles of incorporation. The part of section , the validity of which is brought in question, is the following: The secretary of state, for services performed in his office, must charge and collect the following fees:iv. For recording and filing each certificate of incorporation and each certificate of increase of capital stock, the following amounts shall be charged: Amounts up to $ fifty cents per thousand dollars. Additional from $, to $ forty cents per thousand dollars. Additional from $, to $ thirty cents per thousand dollars. Additional from $, to $, twenty cents per thousand dollars. Additional over $, ten cents per thousand dollars. X. For filing each certified copy of charter or articles of incorporation of any foreign corporation, the same fee shall be charged as Is provided for in article IV of this section, for domestic corporations.The question submitted for' decision is whether sectionis invalid for either or both reasons assigned by the plaintiff. In support of their contentions counsel for plaintiff cite Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Tods Shoes Sale Kansas,U. SSup. Ct ,L. Ed later approved by the same court in Pullman Co. v. State of Kansas,U. SSup. Ct ,L. Ed Ludwlg v. Western Union Telegraph CoU. SSup. Ct ,L. Ed and InteTods Shoes rnational TextBook Co. v. Pigg,U. SSup. Ct ,L. EdTods Outlet L E. A. N, SAnn. Cas. . These cases, particularly the first, are directly In point In the first there was brought In question the validity of a provision of the General Laws of the state of Kansas, which, besides requiring a corporation seeking to engage in business In the state of Kansas, after having secured permission from the state charter board upon formal application made for that purpose, also required It to pay to the state treasurer of Kansas, for the benefit of the permanent school fund, a charter fee of onetenth of one per cent of ItTods Online s authorized capital upon the first one hundred thousand dollars of its capital stock, or any part thereof; and upon the next four hundred thousand dollars, or any part thereof, onetwentieth of one per cent; and for each million or major portion thereof over and above the sum of five hundred thousand dollars, two hundred dollars. General Statutes Kansas ,. In an elaborate opinion by Mr. Justice Harlan, in which there is an extencourt upon the same or analogous questions, the conclusion was reached that it Is not competent for a state Legislature to require a foreign corporation engaged in Interstate commerce, as a condition precedent to its beginning or continuing to do business in that state, to pay a given per cent of Its capital stock, representing all of its business everywhere within and outside of the state, becauseIt operates as a burden and tax on the Interstate business of the corporation, in violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution, andbecause it is a tax upon the property of the corporation beyond the limits of the state, Inconsistent with the due process of law enjoined by the fourteenth amendmentIt is true that the method prescribed for ascertaining the tax Imposed by section , supra, Is a charge of a fixed number of cents per $, of the par value of the capital stock, graduated in proportion to the amount of the capital stock; whereas, under the Kansas statute, up to $, It was to be calculated by a graduated percentage, and thereafter at a uniform fixed sum per $. This divergence In method, however, Is immaterial. The vice of such legislation, as the reasoning of the court shows, consists in the nature of the burden Imposed by it and not In the amount The