Weekly miners' express. (DuBuque, Iowa) 184?-1849, 1848-11-21
DECISION OF BANK CASE.

DECISION OF BANK CASE.
The President, Directors, and Company
(of the Miners Bank Of Dubuque,
VERSUS
1.-THE United States, on The relation Of the
Prosecuting attorney.
Error to Dubuque.
The issue presented by the amended
rejoinder of the Plaintiff, in error and
the demurrer thereto by the Defendants
in error raises the question for the ad-
judieaton Of this Court, Of the validity
Of the act. Of repeal; pleaded in Defen-
dants replication.
By the 90 Section Of the act Of Incor-
poration, it is provided.
"That if the said Corporation shall
"ia'l TO go into operation, or shall
"abuse or misuse their privileg es
"under this Charter: it shall be in
'the power of the Legislative Assem-
vol the Territory at any time, to au-
"nul, vacatc, and make void this
"Charter."
There was much said in tho argu-
nent OF this case about the character Of
thus institution, as to whether it is pub
tic or private corporation. The stock
being owned by individuals, it cannot be
reasonably doubted that it is a private
Corporation in which the public have no
interest or control, except to exercise a
supervisory power, and to annuI it's char
ter when the franchises granted are mis-
used or abused.
Had the stock been entirely owned by
the State, it would have possessed the
character Of u public corporation.
The Plaintiffs in their rejoinder would
60 behind the act. Of repeal, and set up
matter in avoidance Of the act, aveting
1t was passed without the happening OF
the events which would authorize the
Legislature 10 annu and make void the
charter.
There appears TO be no rule Of construc-
ton better established in the English
books, than that 'pubic grants are con
strued strictly in favor Of the King! and
in this country in all conflicts between
the soverlng power, and granters en- 10y
Ing exclusive privileges conferred u pom
them by acts Of Incorporation, the same
rule OF construction prevails. See Unit
ed States VS.. Arredondo ct alii 6 Pet.
Rep. 1873: Also Charles River Brige vs.
Warren Bridge ct AL II Pet. 544.
1t is argued, that the investigation of
the facts to be enquired into, and found
TO exist, as an abuse or misuse Of privi-
leges of the Corporation was a judicial
act:-lhat before The Legislature had
right to repeal the Act o! incorporation,
such facts must have been judiciaIly as
cerlalned. 1t is conceded, that without
any reservation Of the right to repeal,
the judicial Tribunals would have the
power to annu! and make void the Char
ter upon asccrtaing b! a proper issue,
such misuse and abuse.
IL then 1t were now necessary to form
an lsoue IN the courts and judiciaIly in
vesllgate such facts, it would seem absurd
IN the Legislature TO have reserved the
right thereafter to repeal, when the same
end could be accomplished as substan,i-
ally and more speedily by the court which
tried the issue. Such reasoning must
lead 10 the inference, that the clause pro-
vIdng for repeal means nothing.
The more reasonable construction Of
this clause it is believed is, that the Leg
stature, in order to protect the public
from the frauds frequently praciised by
Banking Institutions at the time when the
Corporation was created; especially in
many of the Western States, and also to
prevent the mischiefof great delay in the
Territorial courts (,hen imperlectly
organised in legal proceedings reserved
10 themselves the power Of ENDURING in
TO and finding the facts which the Act OF
incorporation declares shall exist before
the right Of repeal can be exercised.
1t is urged as great hardship for this
right 10 oe lnterposed to the detrimert, if
not destruction Of the property Of the
corporation who engaged in the enter
prise at great expense and in good faith.
The Legislature made ii liberal grant
Of power and privileges to the ori ginaI
grantees, and they accepted Of the grant
subject to the Limitation and restrictions
imposed. 1t is again urged, that the act
OF incorporation is solemn contract
which the Leg islaturc by their Act Of
repeal have violated.
Follow the strict rules Of construction
which prevail in questions Of grants and
between private persons, and it
will be seen that the Leg stature have
not violated the conditions upon which
the corporation was created. The plain
Interpretation Of the grant is, that the
Legislature did grant certain powers and
privileges TO be exclusively exercised and
enjoyed upon reservation Of the power
OF canceIllng the grant and annulIing the
same W henever such privileges should be
misused and abused, the members Of the
Legislature being the judges of the time
when, and extent which, such abuse and
misuse should be committed. If the cor
poration have suffered from the undue
exercise of such power, they have only
to censurc themselves for the folly of ac-
ceptng the grant upon the terms specified
1t is to be presumed tina, the orig-
nal grantees believed that no Legisla-
tive Assembly would ever exercise the