Document: 385 U.S. 252 87 S.Ct. 492 17 L.Ed.2d 343 The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LOGAN, UTAH, Petitioner,v.WALKER AND TRUST COMPANY. SECURITY N.A., Petitioner, v. COMMERCIAL BANK. James J. SAXON, Comptroller of the Currency, Nos. 51, 73, 88. Argued Nov. 7 and 8, 1966. Decided Dec. 12, Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1967. See 1032, 738. Richard A. Posner, Washington, D.C., Theodore S. Perry, Logan, Utah, for petitioners. John Wilson, First Security Bank. F. Bell, Joseph Jones, Salt Lake City, respondents. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered opinion Court. 1 These cases involve construction those portions National Banking Act, 44 Stat. 1228, 12 U.S.C. § 36(c), which authorize a national banking association, with approval to establish operate new branches within limits municipality in bank is located, if such operation 'at time authorized State banks by law question.'1 Two their main houses Logan Ogden, respectively, seek open municipalities. Utah statute prohibits banks, certain exceptions not here relevant, from establishing except taking over an existing has been less than five years. Code Ann., Tit. 7, c. 3, 6 (1965 Supp.)2 In No. Bank Walker & Trust Co., petitioner seeks branch where its principal house without established bank. District Court approved doing so but Appeals reversed. 352 F.2d 90 (C.A.10th Cir.), sub nom. Co. Saxon. N.A. Commercial Bank, 88, Saxon home office situated, held that state must be complied with, 236 F.Supp. 457, affirmed judgment, opinion, citing supra. view conflict between these holdings decision Smithfield Saxon, 267 (C.A.4th we granted certiorari, consolidated three argument. 384 925, 86 1441, 16 530. We affirm judgments. 2 maintains second class city under (Utah 10, 1, (1953, as amended)), therefore subject 7—3—6 Code, It applied Currency certificate 'inside' Logan. At application there were no other offices However, two whose situated outside one belonged respondent, was located City. After hearing, ordered issued. respondent subsequently filed this suit seeking declaratory judgment injunctive relief against claiming action void since proposed required law. dismissed complaint. found 'express authority' relying on general authority holding subsequent conditions, acquisition another bank, did 'change into lack part or statutory expression authority, (did) add Federal requirement compliance made all conditions.' 234 74, 78, n. 8. reversed, Congress enacting 36(c)(1) acceded created 'a competitive equality banks.' Finding trial court's interpretation contrary, it declared 'the proper approach look at just it.' 90, 94. 3 73 maintained house. Its proposal take Ogden. Under law, Ogden also 'take over' provision 7—3 6, supra, applicable. have issuance certificate, United States Columbia asking relief. imposed restrictions establishment Circuit affirmed, cited 10th Circuit, 4 2. Act: Background. 5 There long opposition exercise federal power field. Indeed, President Jefferson opposed creation first Jackson vetoed Act extending charter States. act field resolved landmark case M'Culloch Maryland, Wheat. 316, L.Ed. 579 (1819). Chief Marshall, while admitting does appear contemplation Framers Constitution, could chartered implied powers instrumentality Government implement fiscal powers. paramount has. therefore, settled almost century half. Nevertheless, adopted until 1863 (12 665), 1927 dealt problem before us cases. This inaction possibly due fact turn century, very few country. only 82 operating total 119 branches. By end 1923, however, 91 580 2,054 branches.3 his Annual Report recommended congressional banking. report stated continue engage 'in unlimited will mean eventual destruction system * *.' H.R.Doc.No.90, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., (1924). Soon thereafter legislation introduced equalize House measure, H.R.Rep.No.83, 69th (1926), among things: 'The bill recognizes absolute necessity legislative reference controversy. present situation intolerable system. proposes practicable solution stopping further extension state-wide reserve member permitting cities are allowed them laws.' 8 failed pass Senate and, although continued study problem, McFadden adopted. originated substance, both permitted facilities enactment bill. 4—5 (1926). intent leave question desirability up indicated struck limitation, thus change corresponding effect branching. concluded would permit 'national S.Rep.No.473, 14 Conference Committee, position members Reserve System limited A grandfather clause retention operated date enactment. H.R.Rep.No.1481, finally passed February 25, 1927, became known name sponsor, Representative McFadden. he characterized language: 9 'As result passage act, amended able meet needs modern industry commerce system.' (Emphasis added.) 68 Cong.Rec. 5815 (1927). 10 During economic depression much agitation failures small undercapitalized rural should supplanted larger stronger banks. advocated regardless Hearings Subcommittee Committee pursuant S.Res.No.71, 71st 3d 7—10 (1931). Senator Carter Glass similar belief organize irrespective beyond 'outside' His strenuously eventually defeated. Seventy-third Bankruptcy 1933 Glass, ranking dominant figure Congress, sponsor Act. reporting passage, said, 'required regulations 77 3726 (1933). colloquy floor Copeland purpose (with banks), said permissible laws banking, extent banking.' Moreover, make crystal clear, when replied 'it permits banks,' careful repeat: 'Only 76 2511 Remarks indicate they shared understanding Glass. For example, Vandenberg provides 'that branch-banking privilege far concerned shall follow status respect privilege.' Cong. Rec. 2262 Likewise, Long who had joined filibuster earlier version final '(w)e undertaken secure equal treatment banks' substantially achieved result. 5862 tone, Bacon may provided 'this them.' 3949 And Luce, reported House: 11 'In controversy respective merits what 'unit banking' 'branch systems,' alive sharp years, steadily gaining favor. not, give advocates any advantage. do go inch saying ideas compete terms competition possible letting own institutions branches.' 5896 As passed, well note same removed restriction previously 13 3. Policy Competitive Equality. appears clear resume history (2) intended place basis 'competitive equality' insofar Both sponsors applicable legislation. construe Acts frustrate clear-cut forcefully expressed friend foe adoption. To continuing policy equalization 1864. Lewis v.Fidelity Deposit 292 559, 565—566, 54 848, 850—851, 78 1425 (1934); McClellan Chipman, 164 347, 85, 41 461 (1896); Chase Securities Corp. Husband, 302 660, 58 476, 510 (1938); Anderson Nat. Luckett, 321 233, 64 599, 88 692 (1944). 15 argues Utah's 'expressly authorizes' He restriction, paragraph limiting branching solely strange argument pick choose portion binds him. fly face hold it, even 'only clearly extent' takes contends supersedes 'whether' 'where' 'method' effected. believe allows expresses prohibition limitation municipality. being 'method,' parcel policy, absorbed provisions §§ (2), tag placed upon it. Affirmed. provides: '(c) association may, branches: (1) Within city, town village expressly question; point language specifically granting affirmatively merely implication recognition, location Supp.), '7—3—6. Business conducted house—Branching offices—Violation section misdemeanor.—The business every receive deposits pay checks hereinafter provided. 'Except class, unincorporated areas county national, regularly transacting customary business, unless No unit organized acquired period years.' 1. Facts. Board Governors System, Studies 15, 428 (1941).

Category: 9