—a State cannot condition the right of a foreign corporation to sue upon a contract for the interstate sale of goods.

"Importation into one State from another is the indispensable element, the test, of interstate commerce."

—or require that a foreign corporation qualify to do business in the State as a condition of its right to sue in its courts for the enforcement of contracts made in interstate commerce

I, § 8, clause 3. "It is the established doctrine of this court that a state may not, in any form or under any guise, directly burden the prosecution of interstate business."

—at pages 128-129, 57 S. Ct. 650, at page 654, 81 L. Ed. 953. "(W) e cannot doubt that intercourse or communication between persons in different states, by means of correspondence through the mails, is commerce among the states within the meaning of the Constitution,***."

—it is said, it was held that a law of Kansas which required the filing by a foreign corporation engaged in interstate commerce of a statement of its financial condition as a prerequisite of the right to do such business, and which required a certificate from the Secretary of state showing that such statements had been filed as a condition precedent to

The contract and sale out of which the action arose were transactions in interstate commerce, and entirely legitimate notwithstanding the plaintiff's non-compliance with the state statute.

Only in that way can Bond and Share, or its subholding companies or service subsidiary, market and distribute securities, control and influence the various operating companies, negotiate inter-system loans, acquire or exchange property, perform service contracts, or reap the benefits of stock ownership. See § 1 (a).

In such cases it doubtless is true that the resulting sale is local to Connecticut, but the action of the Boston office in receiving the order and transmitting it to the home office partakes more of the nature of interstate intercourse than of business local to Massachusetts and affords no basis for an excise tax in that State.

The fundamental principle involved has been applied by this court in recent decisions in a great variety of circumstances, and it must be taken to be firmly established that one otherwise enjoying full capacity for the purpose cannot be compelled to take out a local license for the mere privilege of carrying on interstate or foreign commerce.