investigations before justices of the peace and other judicial officers:

"Now, therefore, be it resolved, That, the public safety requiring it, the Civil Governor is hereby authorized and requested to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in the provinces of Cavite and Batangas."

Whereupon, on the same day, the Civil Governor issued the following proclamation:

"Whereas certain organized bands of ladrones exist in the provinces of Cavite and Batangas who are levying forced contributions upon the people, who frequently require them under compulsion to join their bands, and who kill or maim in the most barbarous manner those who fail to respond to their unlawful demands and are therefore terrifying the lawabiding and inoffensive people of those provinces; and

"Whereas these bands have in several instances attacked police and constabulary detachments and are in open insurrection against the constituted authorities, and it is believed that the said bands have numerous agents and confederates living within the municipalities of the said provinces; and

"Whereas, because of the foregoing conditions, there exists a state of insecurity and terrorism among the people which makes it impossible in the ordinary way to conduct preliminary investigations before justices of the peace and other judicial officers:

"In the interest of the public safety, it is hereby ordered that the writ of habeas corpus is from this date suspended in the provinces of Cavite and Batangas."

But we must take notice of the fact that on October 19, 1905, the Civil Governor issued a proclamation revoking that of January 31, 1905, as follows:

"Whereas the ladrone bands which up to a recent date infested the provinces of Cavite and Batangas have been practically destroyed and the members thereof killed or captured or have surrendered, so that the necessity for the continuance of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the

aforesaid provinces which was made necessary by the conditions therein prevailing on the thirty-first day of January last no longer exists:

"Now, therefore, I, Luke E. Wright, Governor General of the Philippine Islands, being duly authorized and empowered thereto by the Philippine Commission, do hereby proclaim the revocation of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the provinces of Cavite and Batangas which was made by me on the thirty-first day of January last."

This proclamation wiped out the basis of the decision sought to be reviewed on the day when the copy of the petition for writ of error was served on opposing counsel, and more than two months before the writ of error was issued. The question ruled by the court below and solely argued before us became in effect a moot question, not calling for determination here. Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651.

But the disposition of this writ of error must be rested on another ground.

The proceeding is in habeas corpus, and is a civil and not a criminal proceeding. Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S. 82, 88. Sec. 10 of the Philippine Act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. c. 1369, pp. 691, 695, provides:

"That the Supreme Court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm the final judgments and decrees of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands in all actions, cases, causes, and proceedings now pending therein or hereafter determined thereby in which the Constitution or any statute, treaty, title, right, or privilege of the United States is involved, or in causes in which the value in controversy exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars, or in which the title or possession of real estate exceeding in value. the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars, to be ascertained by the oath of either party or of other competent witnesses, is involved or brought in question; and such final judgments or decrees may and can be reviewed, revised, reversed, modified, or affirmed by said Supreme Court of the United States

on appeal or writ of error by the party aggrieved, in the same manner, under the same regulations, and by the same procedure, as far as applicable, as the final judgments and decrees of the Circuit Courts of the United States."

Final orders of the Circuit Courts or District Courts of the United States in habeas corpus can only be reviewed by appeal and not by writ of error. In re Morrisey, 137 U. S. 157, 158; Rice v. Ames, 180 U. S. 371, 373. In the latter case the court said:

"Motion is made to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that there is no provision of law allowing an appeal in this class of cases. Prior to the Court of Appeals Act of 1891, provision was made for an appeal to the Circuit Court in habeas corpus cases 'from the final decision of any court, justice or judge inferior to the Circuit Court,' Rev. Stat. sec. 763; and from the final decision of such Circuit Court an appeal might be taken to this court. Rev. Stat. sec. 764, as amended March 3, 1885, c. 353, 23 Stat. 437.

"The law remained in this condition until the Court of Appeals Act of March, 1891, was passed, the fifth section of which permits an appeal directly from the District Court to this court 'in any case in which the constitutionality of any law of the United States, or the validity or construction of any treaty made under its authority, is drawn in question.' In this connection the appellee insists that an appeal will not lie, but that a writ of error is the proper remedy. In support of this we are cited to the case of Bucklin v. United States, 159 U. S. 680, in which the appellant was convicted of the crime of perjury, and sought a review of the judgment against him by an appeal, which we held must be dismissed, upon the ground that criminal cases were reviewable here only by writ of error. Obviously that case has no application to this, since under the prior sections of the Revised Statutes, above cited, which are taken from the act of 1842, an appeal was allowed in habeas corpus cases. The observation made in the Bucklin case that 'there was no purpose by that act to

abolish the general distinction, at common law, between an appeal and a writ of error,' may be supplemented by saying that it was no purpose of the act of 1891 to change the forms of remedies theretofore pursued. In re Lennon, 150 U. S. 393; Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651; Gonzales v. Cunningham, 164 U. S. 612."

Writ of error dismissed.

ST. MARY'S FRANCO-AMERICAN PETROLEUM COMPANY v. WEST VIRGINIA.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA.

No. 98. Submitted November 5, 1906.-Decided December 3, 1906.

A State has power to regulate its own creations and, a fortiori, foreign corporations permitted to transact business within its borders. The act of West Virginia, putting all non-resident domestic corporations having their places of business and works outside the State, and all foreign corporations coming into the State, on the same footing in respect to service of process, and making the state auditor their attorney in fact to accept process, is a reasonable classification and not unconstitutional as denying equal protection of the laws, because that provision does not apply to all corporations; nor does it deprive such corporations, without due process of law, of their liberty of contract; nor does the requirement that they pay such auditor an annual fee of ten dollars for services as such attorney amount to a taking of property without due process of law.

THIS is a writ of error to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus, commanding the St. Mary's Franco-American Petroleum Company, by power of attorney, duly executed, acknowledged and filed in the office of the Auditor for the State of West Virginia, "to appoint said auditor and his successors in office, attorney in fact to accept service of process and notice in this State for said St. Mary's Franco-American Petroleum

Company, and by the same instrument to declare its consent that service of any process or notice in this State on said attorney in fact, or his acceptance thereof indorsed thereon, shall be equivalent for all purposes to, and shall be and constitute, due and legal service upon the said St. Mary's FrancoAmerican Petroleum Company, and that the petitioner recover from the respondent, her costs about the prosecution of her petition in this court in this behalf expended."

It was agreed by the parties that no rule to show cause need be issued on the petition for mandamus, nor any alternative writ, but that the petition might stand as such writ and the case be determined on demurrer thereto, which was filed.

The petition, among other things, averred that the St. Mary's Company was "a nonresident domestic corporation, organized, chartered, existing and carrying on its corporate business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of West Virginia, but having its principal office and place of business and chief works in the city of Lima, in the State of Ohio;" that the corporation "was organized, and now exists by virtue of a charter issued to it by the Secretary of State of the State of West Virginia on the 18th day of January, 1902;" and that "on the 17th day of February, 1902, the said defendant corporation, by power of attorney, duly and legally executed, filed and recorded, appointed one Wm. M. O. Dawson, a resident of the county of Kanawha in the State of West Virginia, to accept service on behalf of said corporation, and as a person upon whom service may be had of any process or notice, and to make returns of its property for taxation."

At the time the company was incorporated, sec. 8 of chap. 53 of the state code read:

"Where the legislature has the right to alter or repeal the charter or certificate of incorporation heretofore granted to any joint stock company, or to alter or repeal any law relating to such company, nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to surrender or impair such right. And the right is hereby reserved to the legislature to alter any charter or