out what is technically "a license" to transact its business in Kansas. But it denies all authority to do business in Kansas unless the corporation makes, delivers and files a "Statement" of the kind mentioned in § 1283. The effect of such requirement is practically the same as if a formal license was required as a condition precedent to the right to do such business. In either case it imposes a condition upon a corporation of another State seeking to do business in Kansas, which, in the case of interstate business, is a regulation of interstate commerce and directly burdens such commerce. The State cannot thus burden interstate commerce. It follows that the particular clause of § 1283 requiring that "Statement" is illegal and void.

In this connection it is to be observed that by the statute the doors of Kansas courts are closed against the Textbook Company, unless it first obtains from the Secretary of State a certificate showing that the "Statement" mentioned in § 1283 has been properly made. In other words, although the Textbook Company may have a valid contract with a citizen of Kansas, one directly arising out of and connected with its interstate business, the statute denies its right to invoke the authority of a Kansas court to enforce its provisions unless it does what we hold it was not, under the Constitution, bound to do, namely, make, deliver and file with the Secretary of State the Statement required by § 1283. If the State could, under any circumstances, legally forbid its courts from taking jurisdiction of a suit brought by a corporation of another State, engaged in interstate business, upon a valid contract arising out of such business and made with it by a citizen of Kansas, it could not impose on the company, as a condition of its authority to carry on its interstate business in Kansas, that it shall make, deliver and file that Statement with the Secretary of State and obtain his certificate that it had been properly made. This court held in Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 207 U. S. 142, 148, that a State may, subject to the restrictions of the Federal Constitution, "determine the limits of the jurisdiction of its courts, and the character of the

controversies which shall be heard in them." But it also said in the same case: "The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship, and must be allowed by each State to the citizens of all other States to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. Equality of treatment in this respect is not left to depend upon comity between the States, but is granted and protected by the Federal Constitution." How far a corporation of one State is entitled to claim in another State, where it is doing business, equality of treatment with individual citizens in respect of the right to sue and defend in the courts is a question which the exigencies of this case do not require to be definitely decided. It is sufficient to say that the requirement of the Statement mentioned in § 1283 of the statute imposes a direct burden on the plaintiff's right to engage in interstate business, and, therefore, is in violation of its constitutional rights. It is the established doctrine of this court that a State may not, in any form or under any guise, directly burden the prosecution of interstate business. But such a burden is imposed when the corporation of another State, lawfully engaged in interstate commerce, is required, as a condition of its right to prosecute its business in Kansas, to make and file a Statement setting forth certain facts which the State, confessedly, could not control by legislation. It results that the provision as to the Statement mentioned in § 1283 must fall before the Constitution of the United States, and with it— according to the established rules of statutory constructionmust fall that part of the same section which provides that the obtaining of the certificate of the Secretary of State that such Statement has been properly made shall be a condition precedent to the right of the plaintiff to maintain an action in the courts of Kansas. Section 1283, looking at the object for which it was enacted, must be regarded as an entirety. These

parts of the statute are so connected with and dependent upon each other that the clause relating to actions brought in the courts of Kansas cannot be separated from the prior clause in the same section referring to the Statement to be filed with the Secretary of State, and the former left in force after the latter is stricken down as invalid. As the clause about suits in the courts of Kansas expressly refers to the prior clauses in the same section prescribing the Statement to be filed with the Secretary of State, the clause relating to suits would be meaningless without reference to the latter. We cannot suppose, from the words of the statute, that the legislature would have adopted the regulation about actions in the state courts, cxcept for the purpose of enforcing the prior clause in the same section relating to the Statement to be filed with the Secretary of State. The several parts of the section are not capable of separation if effect be given to the legislative intent. It is well settled that if a statute is in part unconstitutional the whole statute must be deemed invalid, if the parts not held to be invalid are so connected with the general scope of the statute that they cannot be separately enforced, if so enforced, will not effectuate the manifest intent of the legislature. In Allen v. Louisiana, 103 U. S. 80, 84, this court referred with approval to what Chief Justice Shaw said on this point in Warren v. Mayor &c., 2 Gray, 84. Referring to the rule obtaining in cases of statutes in part constitutional and in part unconstitutional, that eminent jurist said: "But, if they are so mutually connected with and dependent on each other, as conditions, considerations, or compensations for cach other as to warrant a belief that the legislature intended them as a whole, and that, if all could not be carried into effect, the legislature would not pass the residue independently, and some parts are unconstitutional, all the provisions which are thus dependent, conditional, or connected must fall with them." See also Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270; Spraigue v. Thompson, 118 U. S. 90; Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U. S. 97.

or,

VOL. CCXVII-8

It results that as the part of § 1283, which relates to the Statement to be filed with the Secretary is unconstitutional, and as the clause in the same section, relating to suits in the state court, is so dependent upon and connected with that part as to be meaningless when standing alone, the section must be held inoperative in all its parts and as not being in the way of the enforcement in any state court of competent jurisdiction of the plaintiff's right to a judgment against the defendant for the amount conceded to be due from him to the Textbook Company under his contract. The judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

MR JUSTICE MOODY heard the argument of this case, participated in its decision in conference, and approves the reversal of the judgment upon the grounds stated in this opinion.

Reversed.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA dissent.

SOUTHWESTERN OIL COMPANY v. STATE OF TEXAS.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. No. 119. Argued March 2, 1910.—Decided April 4, 1910.

This court will not consider whether a state statute is unconstitutional under provisions of the Constitution other than those set up in the state court even if those provisions be referred to in the assignment of error.

On writ of error this court is not concerned with the question of whether the statute attacked as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment violates the state constitution if the state courts have held that it does not do so.

Whether the severity of penalties for non-compliance with a state statute renders it unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment will not be considered in an action in which the State does not ask for any penalties.

The Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to cripple the taxing power of the States or to impose upon them any iron rule of taxation. This court will not speculate as to the motive of a State in adopting taxing laws, but assumes-the statute neither upon its face nor by necessary operation suggesting a contrary assumption-that it was adopted in good faith.

Except as restrained by its own or the Federal Constitution, a State may prescribe any system of taxation it deems best; and it may, without violating the Fourteenth Amendment, classify occupations, imposing a tax on some and not on others, so long as it treats equally all in the same class.

An occupation tax on all wholesale dealers in certain specified articles does not on its face deprive wholesale dealers in those articles of their property without due process of law or deny them the equal protection of the law because a similar tax is not imposed on wholesale dealers in other articles, and so held as to the Kennedy Act of Texas of 1905 levying an occupation tax on wholesale dealers in coal and mineral oils.

A Federal court cannot interfere with the enforcement of a state statute merely because it disapproves of the terms of the act, questions the wisdom of its enactment, or is not sure as to the precise reasons inducing the State to enact it.

100 Texas, 647, affirmed.

THE facts, which involve the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Kennedy Act of Texas of 1905 for taxing certain classes of business, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. George C. Greer, with whom Mr. F. C. Proctor and Mr. D. E. Greer were on the brief, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. James D. Waithall, with whom Mr. R. V. Davidson, Attorney General of the State of Texas, was on the brief, for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was brought by the State of Texas in one of its own courts against the Southwestern Oil Company, a corporation of that State, to recover the amount of certain taxes alleged to be due under what is known as the Kennedy act. Chapter 148, General Laws of Texas, 1905, p. 358, providing