Welton v. The State of Missouri was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could impose a tax on a foreign corporation. The case involved a company called the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, which was incorporated in Missouri but had its principal place of business in New York. The company was assessed a tax by the state of Missouri, which it refused to pay. The company argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the tax was constitutional, finding that the company had sufficient contacts with the state of Missouri to justify the tax. The Court noted that the company had a substantial presence in the state, including a large number of employees, offices, and other property. The Court also noted that the company had received numerous benefits from the state, including the right to use the state's roads and bridges. The Court concluded that the company had sufficient contacts with the state to justify the imposition of the tax.

In the case of Welton v. The State of Missouri, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the state court had erred in its decision to deny Welton's motion for a new trial. He argued that under the law at the time, if there was any reasonable doubt as to whether or not an accused person was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then they should be granted a new trial. In this case, Justice Field believed there were sufficient grounds for granting such relief and thus felt it necessary to dissent from his colleagues' majority opinion denying Welton's request for another trial. He further noted that while some evidence may have been presented against him during his original trial, much of it was circumstantial and could easily be interpreted differently by different people depending on their own personal beliefs or biases; therefore making it impossible to determine with certainty whether or not he actually committed the crime in question beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, Justice Field concluded that due process required granting him another opportunity at proving his innocence before being convicted and sentenced accordingly