~·14 ‘· FEDERAL Rmronrmn. · »
of · the constitution, was unanimously disapproved, and the court ex-
pressly held that they are entitled, as well as individuals, to the equal
protection of the laws, under the fourteenth amendment of the constitu-
tionp Y °.. · . A
It is undoubtedly just and proper that foreign corporations should be
subject to the legitimate police regulations of the state,and should have,
if required, an agent in the state to accept service of ` process when sued
for acts done or contracts made therein. c In reference to some branches of
business, like those of banking and insurance, which aiiect the people
at large, they may also be subject to more stringent regulations for the
seourityiof the public, and may be even prohibited from pursuing them
except upon such terms and conditions, not unlawful in themselves, as
the state chooses to impose. But in the pursuit of business authorized
by "the ’ government of th·e United States, and under its protection, the
corporationsof other states cannotr be prohibited or obstructed by any
state. pt If congress should employ a corporation of ship—builders to con-
· struct a. man—of-war, they would have the right to purchase the necessary
timberand iron in any state of the Union. And, in carrying on foreign
and interstate commerce, corporations, equally with individuals, are
within the protection ofthe commercial power of congress, and cannot
beimolested in anotherstateby state burdens orimpediments. This
washeld and decided in thecase of Gloucester Ferry C'oi.v. Pennsylvania,
114?U.‘ S. 204, 5 Sup;   Rep. 826, and affirmed .in the recent case of
Ph*iZadclph·ia;’S. S. ·C’o. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep.
1118; and although the decision ‘in··Pou.l v. Wrginia, 8 Wall. 168, con-
formed to the doctrine of Augusta Bank v. Earle, the following striking
language was used by the court, to-wit: · ' . “
""At*the‘time of theformation of the constitution alargepart of the com- _
meroefof theworld was carried on by corporations. The East Indiaflom-
panytthe Hudson’s Bay Company, the Hamburgh Company,the Levant Com-
pany, and .the.Virginia,_C0mpany may be named among the many corpora-
tions then in existence which acquired, from the extent of their operations,
celebrity throughout the commercial world. This state of facts forbids the
supposition that it was intended, in thegrant of power to congress, to exclude
from its control the commerce of corporati‘ons·. The languageof the grant
makes no reference to the instrumentality by which commerce may be carried
on; it is general, and includes alike commerce by individuals, partnerships,
associations, and corporations. " A V , ‘
l -’·We mayfairly supplement this language by adding that, when the
constitution was adopted, it could not have been supposed that the reg-
ulationsof oommerceto bemade by congress mightbeof no avail to
p -commercial corporations, or, at least, might be renderedmugatory with
regard to them, in consequence of state restrictions upon their power to
act ascorporations in any other state ithanithat of their origin.
‘ » At all events, if congress, in the execution of its powers, chooses to
ernploythe intervention of a proper corporation", whether of the state,
or out of the state, we see no reason why it should not do so. There is
nothingin the constitution to prevent itfrom making contracts with or
conferring powers,upon, state corporations, for carrying out its own le-