, 1860-01-04

Making 1t perpetual is, thAt tile act of lS3ft |
amending tho act Of 1851, known as the Gener,l
Banking Law, is unconstitutional, because it |
nus not submitted to tic people.
1t Is contcnde4 that Us ly the constitutional tho
original law was submitted to tue people, aud
became 4 lar by their approval. no law amend.
hK OF in any manner affecting the corporations |
organized under It eau be in force and opera.
tire withon. like submission to and approval
by the people. >,
That this position is not maintainabie has
been recently decided by tho Supreme Court in
D very able opinion by the Chief Justice, rnl
although the rourt has expressed no opinion iu
relation to other provisions Of the nmcndatory
acts than those iuyolyiug tue question before
them, they husc decided that Tie act of 1851 is
by the Legislature without being
submitted to the people. 1t does put follow,
however, tlit cscfy amendment the Legislature
may make is constitutional for lke oil othcr
laws ;!.sy may embrace constitutional aud un7
constitutional provisions.
The question therefore; ie; whether tie rar7
ticular provision upon which tie claim Of the
bill hulaefs rests is Unconstitutional The,
grievance Of the complainant is that he was |
not allowed to redeem the bills presented scpa1
ralcly instead OF r.d1eniug them all Ut once US
single obligation.
SO fur as fan ndsised; the Uniform custom IN;
all well regulated hanks il to redeem bills pre-
secuted together Is single obligation, aud it is
also the counon iaw rule. independent Of tho
statute. This precise question arose and was
decided in the case Of the Suffolk liauk vs.. Lin
cola Bank, Mason ]. Judge Story in his
opinion, says, 1T Las been minated that
leach bunk bill should hare been separately
presented for payment and' separately paid.
" But there is no Foundation in law for tl.at
suggestion, The holder had tue right 10 del
"mani the whole 1T once as nj aggregate suni,t
"and the hank was bound to pay tic whole;
"Then as there was due demand aud no;
"moucy to the amount paid or teudcFcd I'M
"payment, whit ground can there be to Say that
" the Bank has not reinsed."
No'cuse has been cited establishing differ:
ent rule, and us the bauE eau gain NO legal ad-'
vantage, but would he subjected to great lncun-,
venience and trouble. by adopting the other,
rule contonded for by .he compfainants, this
practice could subserse no purpose for thy
bank but to delay and harass the bill holders. ;
Any act Of Il bank having this object 1us been,
repeatedly decided to be illegal, and equivalenrI
to refusal to redeem.
Suffolk Bank "a. Lincoln Bank. 3 Masop,1
Hibbard rs. Chenaugo Bank, coweu, S.. 4.
Gilbert vs.. Nantucket Bank, 2 Am. l.. J. 157.
If this view :s correct. then the .proviso COM
planned Of is merely dccIaratory Of the common
law aid hot obnoxious TO the objection Of un-
constltutionality.
But assuming that at common la~, aud st the
time of III. passage Of the act Of 1851 1t was
the right Of the complainant, when bill.hold.
er demanded the redemption Of number Of
Whnf u 9nng hs7 heon ,ionn n IL connIain,1t
hv thc nrnvSso conn1u;na1 n in thp ocr of 7s57
Does it deprive him Of any right resed by the
net Of 1851, or does it conf'r any new right up
OH the billhotders, Clearly not. By the act Of
1851 tho banks to be organized under it, we're
~ ~ .s;,,1 49,, 49, 49, ,.ro,a. fa ~
aaaot;a ~ o,,d ,,o,a ,,s.4aa, r. nor
esat ~ nur r;'', ~ ;e', ";,Ida,
ns,;u.,;a "s .s " h, .s n,a;ss ~. "u eue
~ .o t...s.;n sam ~ .ne ens sae e.
| Cpon tno Prese6t @ assumpI.on me name. o. Q!
snS.e1uk ,us VIZ! pe.e e:T.eu ~ g.!
~ cuaugeu, ano ~ manner Wnlcu 'nuAes ltless
onetoas ~ .ne oaoA tnao '1e ons supfosso
10 e1iss ot.ole.
ansn . .us as Iyh y hnG &c CON ot
p,anani' toat laws o. Tue cass 10 which 'ne acs
OF 1921 belongs, are not SUBJECT to repeal and
n,uusa'oT Ts ~ 1ns Lss turs ! W nos' ssnera
taHs ne. Au.a uls..uI.on ; ~" set ~ wy C.
nena app'iss o1v " stiose Mao aase ac!cu ~.
uet aae INV: aau .heseoy asquisso 'es.ea l'sn1s
H., e. S,a,a as & a az. sh @ IT, ne
tween lue oIa1e anu the Sorpora11o1' onn ikg
any DUET contract Gan pe !s sn.Grceo. nut
!iase seL g see an aulnoi4t! "u1en niahes sucu
aCoFPofatloh !"p1ftam ~ s'aPe11o eng !noepen
aent VI, ana a9ose Tue Leg's!atufe o. sne ota1e
50 that II can clam sestca r'ent IN Inc mooe
Of enforcing an 0blI!at'on II mas assumed.
fights mud 9bl'gat'ous a1s sacred IN the cyt
Of the Law, aud are to be preserved and enforced
nut the mode aud manner IS Arrays SUBJECT tt
Legislative control IT'S not unusual TOT 'egfs
iatnte. II slnele session, 10 cnange the whoit
remeolai ssstem ot the Stale, nus no one cvel
ureamed taat those VINO made contracts unde1
tne Gin system acquired sested right ~ luz
oia remedies.
whenever the Legislature attempts to deprive
tl1e banking cnrPorst1ons ol 112hts WHICH TIC,
ore emitted to by tar construction ot tile Ac
Of 1881. lie cases c'ted III me aolc arguneat,
comrninants counsel would ne eheerlnilj
adopted Us q bas's ot decision but 10 tnis case
where no right is lnsaued.no obitsat'on i
Sought to be enforced which the con'Ptatuan
has not voluntarily assumed, cannot eoncede
upon the ground Of authority Or reason, that :
mere change IN The remedy, II 1T ~ one, u 1t
uuconstltntlona! act On tho part OF The Leglsla
turc- On tie other hand, under our Constltu
ton every individual and corporation ln th
S:te ss subject to The control OF the Legislature
20 tar as It relaies TO the mode OF enforcing Oh
Isgatl"us OF whatever character or dcscF7pto'
they may be.
The traditional rule OF the Nedes and feFs!an
has never been recognized as principle Of th
Common Law. or adopted rs pr1ncip!e IN Stat
legislation. But on tie other maud, the pfac
tce, It NOT the rule, has oota'ued IN most of II
States, that no Lar Or rue should long Fen'al
unchanged.
The distinction between vested right, or til
obligation OF contract and the remedy Sivel
bv l...y to enforce the right or obligation LII
been uniformly recognized By the Courts.
, | r.. Il. - I>:n ~