Though, as we have seen, a State may not prevent foreign corporations from carrying on interstate commerce business within its borders, it may prevent them from doing business generally as a corporation within the State; or it may attach such conditions as it sees fit to the doing of such business, other than interstate commerce, as a corporation. But permission to continue to do an interstate business may not be founded upon conditions which, in effect, interfere with interstate business.42

In Paul v. Virginia43 the court say: "Having no absolute right of recognition in the States, but depending for such recognition and 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 on their discretion." 44

In Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Kansas,45 however, the exactions that may be made by a State of a foreign corporation doing an interstate commerce business as a condition for doing a domestic business within the State are carefully considered and prior adjudications examined, and, by a divided court, the doctrine declared that a charter fee of a certain per cent. of the entire capital stock might not be exacted of a foreign telegraph company as a condition to being permitted to continue to do an intrastate business within the State. This exaction the majority of the court declared to be in essence a burden and tax on the company's interstate business and on its property located and used outside of the State. The fact that there is difficulty in harmonizing this decision with that of Security Mutual Ins. Co. v. Prewitt46 is elsewhere adverted to.47

42 Whether or not the refusal of the privilege, or the withdrawal of a consent once given may be predicated upon an agreement of the corporation not to exercise a federal right, as, for example, to resort to the federal courts, see Section 74.

43 Wall. 168; 19 L. ed. 357.

44 Quoted with approval in Waters Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S. 28; 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 518; 44 L. ed. 657.

45 216 U. S. 1: 30 Sup. Ct, Rep. 190.