a Constitutional Convention is called, their attention ought to be called to this matter. If an individual is doing business in this State, then he ought to submit to the laws of the State. There is a different law in the Federal Courts and the State Courts. I say that it is nothing but just and right, that while a corporation does business in the State, that they be considered as citizens, and as such, submit to the same laws as the other citizens.

Mr. Lellyett.—I said that I did not intend to consider this subject as a whole. I do not believe that this Association would object to allowing that if they came here as a corporation they would give them the right of removal to the Federal Court, but that if they came as a corporation, they would forfeit their rights as individuals.

Mr. Fentress. With all due respect to the Committee that drafted this, I must say that in my judgment it is done very imperfectly and poorly. "All corporations doing business in Tennessee should be inhibited from doing business in the State unless they fully submit to our laws." How could they do business without submitting to the laws? That much is simply gratuitous. Then comes the second clause, which Mr. Lellyett has asked to be stricken out, which is as follows: "And their doing business in the State should be on the condition that they will not remove their causes to the Federal Court." The State of Tennessee has no right to make any such provision. We would be stultifying ourselves to make any such a recommendation to the Legislature.

Mr. Bonner.-Mr. President: I think we can reach a disposition of the question. It seems to me that the report, with the clause that Mr. Lellyett proposed to dispose of left out, would be like Hamlet with Hamlet left out, and therefore I move to lay the motion to amend on the table.

Motion seconded and carried, and the motion to amend tabled, together with the whole proposition.

Mr. McFarland.-Mr. President: I want to support the first part of that proposition.

THE PRESIDENT.-The whole matter is laid upon the table.

Mr. McFarland.-The motion is now before the house on the

original proposition, and it still remains before the house. The motion to amend was laid upon the table.

Mr. Lellyett.-The Chair is right, and the whole resolution is laid upon the table.

Mr. McFarland.-The question, as I think, is now before the house on the original proposition, which is: "All corporations doing business in Tennessee should be inhibited from doing business in the State unless they fully submit to our laws." I am in favor of the report that far.

THE PRESIDENT.-The Chair rules that the whole question is on the table, and the fourth recommendation is laid upon the table.

A Member. I move that the fourth recommendation be reconsidered.

Motion seconded.

Mr. Lellyett.-I move that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Motion lost, and motion to reconsider not tabled.

THE PRESIDENT.-The question is now upon the motion, and the question as to whether you will reconsider is now before the house.

Motion carried, and the fourth recommendation reconsidered. THE PRESIDENT.-The question is reconsidered, and we now return to the question as to whether the motion to strike out the last clause of section four be taken up. Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Turner.-My idea is, that when a corporation comes to Tennessee it comes under her laws. It is true, in one sense of the term, it is a citizen of Tennessee, but corporations come here and do business, and at the same time they may remove their causes to the Federal Court by Act of Congress. My idea was that they should come here, and there should be no restrictions-none at all-until they had filed their intention to do business with the Secretary of State, providing some officer upon whom service of process could be had, and that then their cause should not be removed to the Federal Court. I desired that they should be required to name some officer of the corporation upon whom service of process of record could be had, and that

until then they should not be citizens of the State of Tennessee, and could not do business.

Mr. Wiltse.—Referring to the decision in Iowa, I beg leave to differ with him. I have read the whole course of things clear down to the last decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and I undertake to say that Tennessee cannot pass a law that a corporation cannot do business here until it files its intention here and fixes some agent here, and then that it can do business; and I say that it cannot fix a restriction upon their removal of causes to the Federal Court.

Mr. Fentress.-Would not that be interfering with a thing that Congress alone has power to regulate? Have we not a statute that gives you power to serve process on the President, Vice-president, Secretary and Treasurer, Agent, or, in his absence, the hod-carrier? Is not that a fact? This proposed resolution would assume to inhibit a foreign corporation from carrying its causes to the Federal Court, but the Iowa decision says that would be against the Constitution of the United States, and would be void. The State may not grant them. license to do business, but if they do come in, how can you prevent them from carrying their causes into the Federal Court? This is true, and you know that the Federal Court exercises jurisdiction in cases of this kind. The next point is, that they are to be inhibited unless they conform to our law. The moment a man comes in here from Japan or Kamtschatka, or any other place, the moment he comes in here, he comes under the jurisdiction of the law. The resolution strikes me as being badly jointed. I will go as far as anybody to make everybody obey the law, but still it looks like folly to write out a bill to recommend the Legislature to do that which the Supreme Court of the United States says it cannot do.

Mr. Turner. That precise question was up, and the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Legislature may require the license to be granted before they can do business in the State.

THE PRESIDENT.-The question is upon the amendment of the fourth recommendation, so as to strike out the last clause. The motion is carried, and the last clause is stricken out. The question is now upon the proposition as amended.

Mr. McFarland.-It is now as follows: "All corporations doing business in Tennessee should be inhibited from doing business in the State unless they fully submit to our laws.” That means that they shall make some provision by means of which service of process can be had on them. I have known of a case where a corporation came here to do business, and then left, and a case was brought against it, and there was no one here to serve process on, and nothing that could be attached. I think something like this would be a remedy for such an evil, and, with that view of the case, I think there is some merit in the proposition.

Mr. Gaut.-I move to strike out the remainder of the clause. I do so because I do not see that there is any thing in the clause after that is stricken out of it. I agree that when a corporation comes here to do business, it comes under and is subject to our laws. With a view to requiring some person here, upon whom service of process can be had, our statute provides for that. I do not think the amendment would cover the case alluded to by Brother McFarland. His case is where a corporation came here, and then left. You cannot require a corporation to keep some person here forever, upon whom process can be served. Whenever they leave, they are gone, and would not be bound by any act that could be passed. As long as they stay here there is ample provision for the service of process.

Motion that the remainder of the clause be stricken out. Motion seconded, and upon ballot being taken, the remainder of section four was stricken out.

THE PRESIDENT.-We are now upon the fifth recommendation of the Committee.

Motion that the last clause of section five be stricken out. Mr. Jordan Stokes.-I would suggest that we concur in the balance of the recommendation.

Mr. Gant.-I want to suggest to the Chairman of the Committee whether or not he does not think it would be well to leave out the clause "with a law and equity side to said Court?" I do not believe there is any thing to be gained by keeping up the distinction between law and equity.

Mr. Turner.-I have found, after a careful examination of the Code of the United States, that twenty of the States and seven

of the Territories have adopted the practice adopted in Canada and all over continental Europe. Of course they will run together for a good while, and it will be impossible to keep them entirely apart, and, for the time being, it would be well enough to have the law and equity sides. In practice we have both. I do not see the force of the recommendation. It is suggested that the Convention should consolidate the law and equity District Courts into one Court. I say strike out the word "Convention."

THE PRESIDENT.-The Chairman of the Committe had in mind that this consolidating of the Courts would not in fact do away with one of them, but that it would be there when there was any need of it.

Motion concurred in, and fifth recommendation concurred in as amended.

THE PRESIDENT.-We are now upon the sixth recommendation, which is: "It should limit appeals to the Supreme Court upon an assignment of errors filed in the Court below at the term of the cause."

Mr. Figuers.-Do I understand you to say in that, that the assignment of errors shall be at the trial term, or at the next term of Court?

THE PRESIDENT.-At the trial term.

Mr. Figuers.—It would seem to me that there ought to be some time between the trial term and the term of the Law Court, to give the Attorneys some time to prepare for the trial.

Mr. Turner.-I presented it for this reason, that I did not want to take so much time up with the attorneys. We all know that there is a large amount of sharp practice done in Tennessee by the attorneys on both sides, from the beginning down to the very trial of the cause.

Mr. Gaines. I want to say this: As I understand that, when a man brings a lawsuit, it matters not where he lives, nor whether he ever comes to the Supreme Court or not, nor whether he is a good lawyer or not, or has the ability to file pleadings or not, he has to do it. I know of a great many cases sent to Nashville for lawyers there to file the assignments of errors, and the case is tried, and the lawyer who sent it up does not attend the Court at all. I remember fifteen cases sent