Subject to these constitutional limitations, the states may in their discretion, impose conditions upon foreign corporations, as es sential to enable them to do business ; Pem bina Consol. Silver Min. & Mill. Co. v. Penn sylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 8 Sup. Ct. 737, 31 L. Ed. 650 ; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Pennsyl: vania, 136 U. S. 114, 10 Sup. Ct. 958, 34 L. Ed. 394 ; they may discriminate between them and domestic corporations by a tax up on the privilege of doing business in the state, and, if it be considered good 'policy, make that discrimination so burdensome as to amount to exclusion ; Ducat v. City of Chicago, 48 Ill. 172, '95 Am. Dec. 529 ; and the federal constitution does not secure them against inequality' Of 'taxation either as to system or rates as coMpared with domestic corporations ; Com. v. R. Co.; 129 Pa. 463, 18 Att 412, '15 Am. St. Rep. 124; Singer Mfg. Co. y. Wright, 33 Fed. 121; but such tax was held contrary to the state constitution ; San PranciSco v. Ins. CO., 74 Cal. 113, 15 Pac. 380, 5 Am. St. Rep. 425 ; thOugh "it is clear that it violates no principle of the 'federal consti tution as the supreme court of California seem to suppose ;" 6 Thomp. Corp. § '7877, n. and another state court has said that the state cannot impose upon foreign and do mestic corporations taxes differing in prin ciple ; per Beasley, C. J., Erie R. co. v. State, 31 N: J. L. 531, 86 Am. Dec. 226 ; but this reasoning has been characterized as a dic tum; 6 Thomp. Corp. § 8090, as the corpora tion in question being engaged in interstate commerce was exempt from discrimination on that ground. The provisions of state consti tutions securing uniformity and equality of taxation have been held not violated by a spe cific tax on gross receipts of a foreign corpo ration on business within the state ; Pacific Exp. Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339, 12 Sup. Ct. 250, 35 L. Ed. 1035 ; or upon such corporations as a class ; Germania Life Ins. Co. v. Com., 85 Pa. 513, cited with approval in the last case.
The state power of taxation of such cor porations is subject to. certain restrictions in addition to thoie already stated, but as a general rule the property of the corporation owned or used within the state is alone the proper subject of taxation. The power has been sustained as to franchises ; Society for Savings v. Coite, o. Wall. (U. S.) 594,18 L.-Ed. 897 ; Provident Inst. for Savings v. Massachu setts, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 611; 18 L. Ed. 907; even of an interstate corporation acting under U. S. R. S. § 5263 ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Attorney General, 125 U. S. 530, 8 Sup. Ct. 961, 31 L. Ed. 790 ; Attorney General v. Tele graph Co., 141 U. S. 40, 11 Slip. Ct. 889, 35 L. Ed. 628 ; as to tangible property within the state even if employed in interstate com merce ; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 5, 21 L. Ed. 787 ; Minot v. R. CO., 18' Wall. (U. S.) 206, 21 L. Ed. 888 ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460, 26 L. Ed. 1067 ; Western Union Telegraph Cp. v. Attorney General, 125 U. S. 530, 8 Sup. Ct. 961, 31 Ed. 790 ; and with respect to the stitus for this purpose, personal prOpertY May be separated from its owner ; Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18, 11 Sup. Ct. 876, 35 L. Ed. 613 ; in which the principle was applied to rolling stock (q. v.), of which as a general rule the situs is the domicil of the corporation ; Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore City V. Ry. Co., 50 Md. 417 ;
Pacific R. Co. v. Cass County, 53 Mo. 18 ; but subject to exceptions growing out of its char acter and use; City of Dubuque v. R. Co., 39 Ia. 56; Kennedy v. R. Co., 62 Ill. 395. See 6 Thomp. Corp. § 8097, and note 3. Where a corporation was registered in South Africa, but did its real business in London, it was held liable to taxation in England on its en tire income ; De Beers Consol. Mines, Ltd., v. Howe [1906] A. C. 455.
This power does not reach the capital of a company domiciled without the state, though a tax on a proportion of it has been sustained as a license ; Riley v. Tel. Co., 47 Ind. 511; and so has a tax called an excise, on capital of a corporation having its domi cil within and its business without the state ; Attorney General v. Mining Co., 99 Mass. 148, 96 Am. Dec. 717 ; or a franchise tax assess ed according to legislative discretion ; Peo ple v. Trust Co., 96 N. Y. 387; measured by the capital found to be employed within the state; People v. Davenport, 91 N. Y. 574; People v. Com'rs of Taxes, 104 N. Y. 240, 10 N. E. 437 ; which is justified on the theory that part of the capital is employed within the state ; People v. Wemple, 129 N. Y. 558, 29 N. E. 812. See TAXATION.
Independently of the power of taxation, foreign corporations may be 'excluded from doing business in other states, or, if permit ted to do it, are subject to such terms and conditions as the legislature may see fit to impose ; Attorney General v. Min. Co., 99 Mass. 148, 96 Am. Dec. 717 ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Mayer, 28 Ohio St. 521; Farmers' & Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Harrah, 47 Ind. 236; Home Ins. Co. v. Davis, 29 Mich. 238; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. (U. S.) 404, 15 L. Ed. 451; Semple v. Bank, 5 Sawy. 88, Fed. Cas. No. 12,659 ; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 168, 19 L. Ed. 357. Such conditions may include: Restrictions upon the right of eminent domain (q. v.); pay ment of license fees ; Pembina Consol. Silver Min. & Mill. Co. v. Com. of Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 8 Sup. Ct. 737, 31 L. Ed. 650 ; pro visions that any restriction imposed by the home state of the foreign corporation shall also be imposed upon corporations of that state in the domestic state ; People v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia, 92 N. Y. 311, 44 Am. Rep. 380; Home Ins. Co. v. Swigert, 104 Ill. 653 ; such provisions when, as is usual, they are in the form of a license or tax are not objectionable on the ground of inequality ; State v. Ins. Co., 115 Ind. 257, 17 N. E. 574; Blackmer v. Ins. Co., 115 Ind. 596, 17 N. E. 583 ; Phcenix Ins. Co. of New York v. Welch, 29 Kan. 672. So statutes are upheld requir ing such corporations to file their charter, etc. ; Hammer v. Min. & Mill. Co., 130 U. S. 291, 9 Sup. Ct. 548, 32 L. Ed. 964 ; or their agents to file evidence of their authority ; Morgan & Co. v. White, 101 Ind. 413 ; or to keep a known place of business, and a resident agent ; or to appoint an attorney for service of process in suits against the company ; Utley v. Min. Co., 4 Colo. 369 ; default of which contracts are voidable ; Semple v. Bank, 5 Sawy. 88, Fed. Cas. No. 12,659 ; Bank of British Columbia v. Page, 6 Or. 431; New England Mtg. Sec. Co. v. In gram, 91 Ala. 837, 9 South. 140; and all such statutes are self-enforcing ; id.