]Me. Justice Field
delivered the opinion of the court.
A corporation being the mere creature of the legislature, its rights, privileges and powers are dependent solely upon the terms of its charter. Its creation (except where the corporation is sole) is the investing of two or more persons with the
capacity to act as a single individual, with a common name, and the privilege of succession in its members without dissolution, and with a limited individual liability. The right and privilege, or the franchise, as it may be termed, of being .a corporation, is of great value to its members, and is considered as property separate and.distinct from the p operty.which the corporation itself may acquire. According to the law of most States this franchise or privilege of being a corporation is deemed personal property, and is subject to separate taxation. The right of the States to thus tax it has been recognized by this court and the state courts in instances without number. It was said in
Delaware Railroad Tax, 18
Wall. 206, 231, that “the State may .impose taxes'upon the corporation as an entity existing under its laws, as well as upon the capital stock of the corporation or its separate corporate property. And tire manner in which its value shall be assessed; and the rate .of taxation, however arbitrary or capricious, are mere matters of legislative discretion; ” except; we may add, as that discretion is controlled by the organic law of the State. And, as we there said also, “it is not for us'to suggest in any case that a more equitable mode of assessment or rate of taxation might be adopted than tue one prescribed by the legislature -of the State; our only concern is with the validity of the tax; all ‘else lies beyond the domain of our ’jurisdiction.”
The granting of the rights and privileges which constitute the franchises of a corporation being á matter resting entirely within the control of the legislature, to be exercised in its good pleasure, it may be accompanied with any such conditions as the legislature may deem most suitable to the public interests and' policy. It may impose as a condition of the grant, as well as, also, of its continued exercise, the payment of a specific sum to the State each year, or a portion of the profits or gross receipts of the corporation, and may prescribe such mode in which the sum shall be ascertained as may be deemed convenient and just. There is no constitutional inhibition against the legislature adopting any mode to arrive at the sum which it will exact as a condition of the creation of the corporation or of its continued'existence. There can be, therefore, no pos
sible objection to the validity of the tax prescribed by the statute of New York, so far as it relates to its own corporations. Nor can there be any greater objection to a similar tax upon a foreign corporation doing business by its permission within the State. As to a foreign corporation- — and all corporations in States other than the State of its creation, are deemed to be foreign corporations — it can claim a right to do business in another State, to any extent, only subject to the conditions imposed by its laws.
As said in
Paul
v.
Virginia,
8 Wall. 168, 181, “the recognition of its existence even by other States, and the enforcement of its contracts made therein, depend purely upon the comity of those States — a comity which is never extended where the existence of the corporation or the exercise of its powers is' prejudicial ■ to their interests or repugnant to their policy. Having no absolute right of recognition in- other States, but depending for such recognition and the enforcement of its contracts upon their assent, it follows, as a matter of -course, that such assent may be granted upon such terms and conditions as those States may think proper to impose. They may exclude the foreign corporation entirely; they may restrict its business to particular localities, or they may exact such security for the performance of its contracts with their citizens as in their judgment will best promote the public interest. The whole matter rests in their discretion.”
This doctrine has been so frequently declared by this court that it must be deemed no longer a matter of discussion, if any question can ever be considered at rest.
Only two exceptions or qualifications have been attached to it in. all the. numerous adjudications in which the subject has been considered, since the judgment of this court was announced more than half a century ago in
Bank of Augusta
v.
Earle,
13 Pet. 519. One of these qualifications is that the' State cannot exclude from its limits a corporation engaged in interstate or foreign commercé, established by the decision in
Pensacola Telegraph Co.
v.
Western Union Telegraph Co.,
96 U. S. 1, 12. The other limitation on the power of the State is, where the corporation is in' the employ of the general gov-
eminent, an obvious: exception, first stated, we think, by the late Mr. Justice Bradley in
Stockton
v.
Baltimore & New York
Railroad, 32 Fed. Rep. 9, 14. As that learned justice said: “If Congress should employ a corporation of ship-build-* ers to construct a man-of-war, they would have the right to purchase .the necessary timber and iron in any State of the Union.” And this court, in citing this passage, added, “without the permission and against the prohibition of the State.”
Pembina Mining Co.
v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 186.
Having the absolute power of excluding the foreign corporation the State may, of course, impose such conditions upon •permitting the corporation tó do business within its limits aá it may judge expedient; and it may make the grant or privilege dependent upon the payment of a specific license tax, or a sum proportioned to the amount of its capital. No individual member of the corporation, or the corporation itself, can call in question the validity of any exaction which the State may require for the grant of its privileges. It does not lie in any foreign corporation to complain that it is subjected to the same law.with the domestic corporation. .The counsel for the appellant objects, that the statute of New York is to be treated as a-tax law, and not as a license to the corporation for permission to do business in the State. Conceding éueh to be the case we do not perceive how it in any respect affects the validity of the tax. However it may be regarded, it is the condition upon which a foreign corporation.can do business in the State, and in doing such business it puts itself under the law of the State, however that may be characterized.
The only question therefore open to serious consideration in this case is one of fact: Did the Horn Silver Mining Company do business as a corporation within the State?- The referee found such to be the fact, as a conclusion from many probative circumstances in the case. That finding was never set aside, but stands approved by the courts of New York.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
]Me. Justice Field
delivered the opinion of the court.
A corporation being the mere creature of the legislature, its rights, privileges and powers are dependent solely upon the terms of its charter. Its creation (except where the corporation is sole) is the investing of two or more persons with the
capacity to act as a single individual, with a common name, and the privilege of succession in its members without dissolution, and with a limited individual liability. The right and privilege, or the franchise, as it may be termed, of being .a corporation, is of great value to its members, and is considered as property separate and.distinct from the p operty.which the corporation itself may acquire. According to the law of most States this franchise or privilege of being a corporation is deemed personal property, and is subject to separate taxation. The right of the States to thus tax it has been recognized by this court and the state courts in instances without number. It was said in
Delaware Railroad Tax, 18
Wall. 206, 231, that “the State may .impose taxes'upon the corporation as an entity existing under its laws, as well as upon the capital stock of the corporation or its separate corporate property. And tire manner in which its value shall be assessed; and the rate .of taxation, however arbitrary or capricious, are mere matters of legislative discretion; ” except; we may add, as that discretion is controlled by the organic law of the State. And, as we there said also, “it is not for us'to suggest in any case that a more equitable mode of assessment or rate of taxation might be adopted than tue one prescribed by the legislature -of the State; our only concern is with the validity of the tax; all ‘else lies beyond the domain of our ’jurisdiction.”
The granting of the rights and privileges which constitute the franchises of a corporation being á matter resting entirely within the control of the legislature, to be exercised in its good pleasure, it may be accompanied with any such conditions as the legislature may deem most suitable to the public interests and' policy. It may impose as a condition of the grant, as well as, also, of its continued exercise, the payment of a specific sum to the State each year, or a portion of the profits or gross receipts of the corporation, and may prescribe such mode in which the sum shall be ascertained as may be deemed convenient and just. There is no constitutional inhibition against the legislature adopting any mode to arrive at the sum which it will exact as a condition of the creation of the corporation or of its continued'existence. There can be, therefore, no pos
sible objection to the validity of the tax prescribed by the statute of New York, so far as it relates to its own corporations. Nor can there be any greater objection to a similar tax upon a foreign corporation doing business by its permission within the State. As to a foreign corporation- — and all corporations in States other than the State of its creation, are deemed to be foreign corporations — it can claim a right to do business in another State, to any extent, only subject to the conditions imposed by its laws.
As said in
Paul
v.
Virginia,
8 Wall. 168, 181, “the recognition of its existence even by other States, and the enforcement of its contracts made therein, depend purely upon the comity of those States — a comity which is never extended where the existence of the corporation or the exercise of its powers is' prejudicial ■ to their interests or repugnant to their policy. Having no absolute right of recognition in- other States, but depending for such recognition and the enforcement of its contracts upon their assent, it follows, as a matter of -course, that such assent may be granted upon such terms and conditions as those States may think proper to impose. They may exclude the foreign corporation entirely; they may restrict its business to particular localities, or they may exact such security for the performance of its contracts with their citizens as in their judgment will best promote the public interest. The whole matter rests in their discretion.”
This doctrine has been so frequently declared by this court that it must be deemed no longer a matter of discussion, if any question can ever be considered at rest.
Only two exceptions or qualifications have been attached to it in. all the. numerous adjudications in which the subject has been considered, since the judgment of this court was announced more than half a century ago in
Bank of Augusta
v.
Earle,
13 Pet. 519. One of these qualifications is that the' State cannot exclude from its limits a corporation engaged in interstate or foreign commercé, established by the decision in
Pensacola Telegraph Co.
v.
Western Union Telegraph Co.,
96 U. S. 1, 12. The other limitation on the power of the State is, where the corporation is in' the employ of the general gov-
eminent, an obvious: exception, first stated, we think, by the late Mr. Justice Bradley in
Stockton
v.
Baltimore & New York
Railroad, 32 Fed. Rep. 9, 14. As that learned justice said: “If Congress should employ a corporation of ship-build-* ers to construct a man-of-war, they would have the right to purchase .the necessary timber and iron in any State of the Union.” And this court, in citing this passage, added, “without the permission and against the prohibition of the State.”
Pembina Mining Co.
v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 186.
Having the absolute power of excluding the foreign corporation the State may, of course, impose such conditions upon •permitting the corporation tó do business within its limits aá it may judge expedient; and it may make the grant or privilege dependent upon the payment of a specific license tax, or a sum proportioned to the amount of its capital. No individual member of the corporation, or the corporation itself, can call in question the validity of any exaction which the State may require for the grant of its privileges. It does not lie in any foreign corporation to complain that it is subjected to the same law.with the domestic corporation. .The counsel for the appellant objects, that the statute of New York is to be treated as a-tax law, and not as a license to the corporation for permission to do business in the State. Conceding éueh to be the case we do not perceive how it in any respect affects the validity of the tax. However it may be regarded, it is the condition upon which a foreign corporation.can do business in the State, and in doing such business it puts itself under the law of the State, however that may be characterized.
The only question therefore open to serious consideration in this case is one of fact: Did the Horn Silver Mining Company do business as a corporation within the State?- The referee found such to be the fact, as a conclusion from many probative circumstances in the case. That finding was never set aside, but stands approved by the courts of New York. If the correctness of the conclusion could be questioned, and held not justified by the facts in evidence- — and they should be considered as showing only transactions of interstate commerce, and not business in the State independently .of such commerce — it
would be impossible to overcome the force of the answer of the defendant inv which it alleges' that in the years 1881 and 1882 it was a manufacturing company carrying on manufactures within the State of Hew York. .The admission is conclusive that the corporation was engaged in business in the State in those years, though, we are clear, not in such a business as rendered it a manufacturing corporation exempt from the tax prescribed by the statute.
To dispose of the position that- the plaintiff in error was a manufacturing corporation, and therefore excepted from taxation under the statutes cited, it is only necessary to refer to the articles of association of the company. By them it appears that it was organized to conduct the business of buying, selling, leasing and operating -mines and mining claims in -the Territory of Utah, and smelting, reducing and refining works there and elsewhere; of conducting a general mining, milling and smelting business in all its branches, including buying and selling mineral ores and bullion; of carrying on a general mercantile business by buying and selling such goods, merchandise, stores and miners’ supplies as are usually kept in and .required by the wants of a mining camp or settlement; of building^ and operating all such roads, tramways and transportation routes as may be convenient in transporting the products of its business or procuring supplies; of purchasing, hiring and holding all such real and personal property, wherever situate, as may be required in carrying on any of its business, and, when no longer required for business purposes, of leasing, selling or exchanging the-same; and generally to do all acts and things incidental to a general mining business, or to any of the aforesaid pursuits. ’ They also declare that it was primarily formed for the immediate purpose of working and developing the estate, property and premises known as the Horn silver mine, and the treatment and reduction of the ores and metals therein contained. There is in the business thus detailed nothing that would characterize th,e corporation as a manufacturing company, and in' no proper sense was.it engaged in a manufacturing business within the State. The bullion taken by the company from
its
mines was shipped to
Chicago, and, after being .refined and the silver separated from the lead, it was forwarded to the United States assay office-in the city of ISTev^ York, where it had an office, not for occasional business transactions* but where its transfer books were kept, its dividends declared and paid, and other business done by it such as is usually performed by corporations where' their principal office of business is situated. It is true, the greater part of the business of the company was done out of the State, and the greater part of its capital w’as also without it, but the statute of blew York does not require that the whole business. of a foreign corporation shall be done within the State in order to subject it to the taxing power of the State. It makes, in that respect, no difference between home corporations and.foreign corporations, as to the franchise or business of the' corporation upon which the. tax is levied, provided it does business within the State, as such corporation.
There seems to be a hardship in estimating the amount of the tax upon the corporation, for doing business within the State, according to the amount of its business or capital without the State. That is a matter, however, resting entirely in the control of the State, and not a matter of Federal law, and with which, of course, this court can in no way interfere.
Since this tax was levied the law of the State has been altered, and now the tax upon foreign corporations doing business in the State is estimated • by the consideration only of the capital employed within the State. It is said that against nearly all other foreign corporations, except this one, the taxes upon their franchises have been computed upon the basis of the capital employed within the State; but as to. that we can only repeat what was said in the Court of Appeals of the State, that, if this be true, the defendant may have reason to ' complain of unjust discrimination and may properly appeal for relief to the legislature of the State, but that it is not within the power of the court to grant' any relief however, great the hardship upon it. - '
The extent of the tax is a matter purely of state regulation, and any interference with it is beyond the jurisdiction of this court. The objection that it operates as a direct interference
with interstate commerce we do not think tenable. The tax is.not levied upon articles imported, nor is there any impediment to their importation. The products of the mine can be brought into the State and sold there without taxation, and they can be exhibited there for sale in any office or building Obtained for that purpose; the tax is levied only upon the franchise or business of the company. ✓
Judgment affirmed.
Mb. J ustice • Hablan dissented.