Because of the control which a State has over corporations of its own creation, it is held that it may tax the entire capital stock of domestic corporations, even though some of the property of those corporations is situated outside of the taxing State. For such a tax is held to be not upon the property which in large measure gives the value to the capital stock, but upon the corporation as an entity, over which entity the State has full personal jurisdiction. The same rule is applied to foreign corporations which have been permitted to consolidate with and thus become constituent elements of domestic corporations.31

As to foreign corporations doing an interstate commerce business, it is held that their capital stock may be taxed only to the extent that such corporations have property within the taxing States.32 This doctrine has not been questioned since the decision of Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania.33

In Western Union Telegraph Co. v. New Hope34 and Atlantic & Pacific Tel. Co. v. Philadelphia35 the court has laid down the doctrine that where, from the nature of the case, a certain amount of police supervision of an interstate carrier on the part of the State or of one of its political subdivisions is needed, a charge, in the form of a tax, sufficient to meet approximately the expenses of such supervision may be imposed by the State or its political subdivisions. The fact that, in result, a revenue somewhat greater than the actual cost of supervision is derived does not render the tax void, but such excess cannot be sufficient to make the tax essentially a revenue measure.

31 Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S. 436; 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 865; 38 L. ed. 773; The Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. 206; 21 L. ed. 888; State Railroad Tax Cases, 02 U. S. 575; 23 L. ed. 663,

32 As to whether when such corporations seek to do other than an interstate commerce business in States other than those of their origin, conditions may be attached to the permission so to do, and whether these conditions may take the form of a tax on capital stock, or any other form of tax, see W. U. Tel. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U.S. 1; 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; and Pullman Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 54: 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 232.

33 114 U. S. 196; 5 Sup. Ct, Rep. 826: 29 L. ed. 158.

34 187 U. S. 419; 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 204: 47 L. ed. 240.

35 190 U. S. 160; 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 817: 47 L. ed. 995.

"Whether or not the fee is so obviously excessive as to lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it is exacted as a return for the use of the streets, or is imposed for revenue purposes, is a question for the courts, and is to be determined upon a view of the facts and not upon evidence consisting of the opinions of witnesses as to the proper supervision that the municipal authorities might properly exercise and expense of the same."36 In Atlantic & Pacific Tel. Co. v. Philadelphia, however, the court point out that the function of the court, as to the reasonableness of the regulation, is to pass upon the character of the regulations prescribed, and whether a charge upon the supervised company is proper; and that it is the function of the jury to pass upon the question as to the reasonableness of the amount of the charge in the particular case at issue. "What is reasonable in one municipality may be oppressive and unreasonable in another."