, 1877-10-28

xl0s It dated Oct. o7........ .......... 2, $50
T5xtD #, dated Oct. .6 (Jabez Musscl-
white to William S. Gilbcrt) ......-. - 20, 0oo
Halsted d. st LII r of Sixteenth ~ s., f. ". nm
Prnirie NJ, near Thirty .sicth IT, " I, :oz
l25 II with building. dateo Oct. g.. t,ooo
Vest Erie st, :,36 # v Of Lincoln st, sf,
.kl,11s It. dated Oct. u U.......:.. l,Ooo
Union Pari place, " cor of Carroll ay,
CT, 35xl00 IT, with building, dated o7,
Ferdipaod di % st. 1so It Of Panii,ia ST, III,
-o4x1oo It, dated Oct. 27.... .......:. 80
A 1Iai r. dated Oct. - .s...' "'........ 1000
ct a5yIi50 r. dated oct u. ls74..... 1000
SOUTH or CITY LIMITS, WITHIN nAp1us or
SEVEN NILES or THE COURTHOUSE.
Buttcrfeld st, $50 It 4 Of TAirty-nlntt1 81,
cf. :,5xlO6 It, dated Oct: - ..,......S l,1oo
Cottage Grove ay, ii corof Fiflleth St "
I, B9x14O with 53xlSU IT adjoining.
on Fifticth ST, dated Atay -. 3, $40
SUMMARY FOR THE WEEK.
TIE following is the total amount Of city and
subu1 ban transfers within radius OF seven
miles of the Courthouse filed Tor record during
the week ending Saturday, Oct. p: City sales,
sales =; consideration. sl9,96 West OF city
limits, sales ?; consideration, SG,GO0. Total
sales, 19; total consideration saa51.,074.
GOV. cULLoM's VETO OF THE BUILDING Asso-
ClAT1oA ACT. IT,.
The Building association Journal Of Ihlladcl-
phia criticiscs Gov. CulIom's veto Of the act
passed hy the late Legislature permitting the
formation Of Building Associations in thls State.
1t says: .
The objections Of Gov. Cullon may be founded
in sound reason yet We arc somewhat incnnea af 70
critically at his Interpretation OF the State cons-
tution. .-......
The orcanIzcrs Of an association under this act
must state the object aud purpose Of Its formation
10 be the building GHd impr0rlng honacsfedds. We
have not ali the subsequent sections OF the act be-
NS1Nn TH
the exercise by the corporation Of its cooperative
powers. Prcsumptiyely the subsequent parts OF
the act are no conrIadctlon OF NC 1nnaaMcn1at
explanatory Of it. Sucha corporation Clearly would
not have authority TO purchase notes q bills or
resort to general banking. Its privileges are
To impose in any act too many restrictions Is to
interfere with its beneficial operation. The utility
preventing its practical working. The legislator
should recognize the necessity for certain laws. 1t
is impossible for him 10 forsec all the consequences
which will flow from their enactment. When,
therefore, in the present instance, tho powers
and franchises OF corporation are comprised
within domain which.has ucln,te.aud nudonbted
line Tor circumference, aud there Is no element
OF danrcs to the public evident but The promise OF
great gooa, such powers and franchises should not
be seriously objected to. They could scarcely DC
Of an Interested public or forfeiture BY the
State.
hbition in the passage Of special or local laws the
simple answer is this: The act under considcra-
ton is not spccial, but pubic act. The enjoy
mcnt OF its privileges is net confined to u Town or
county, nor is any class Of persons excluded from
availing themselves OF its provisions. Were
granted to any .'association. corporation, or
Individual, " then The lntcrdiction OF the Constitu
1ion would be violated, but such is not the case.
This is not special law regulating interest, but
public law, creating species Of public corpora
tlons- and giving them certain privileges In chars-
ing different rates of interest. OF course, the
Legislature establish class OF corporations,
givin. them certain powers, expressly or implicitly
denying them others: and can at the same time
create another class Of corporations. giving to the
latter the privileges refused to the former These
familiar principles in tho enactment Of munich
nal laws, II, then, respecting Iuiidins Aseocla-
tions, The General Assembly enacted that the pre-
miums, etc, although, amounting to more than the
statutory rate Of interest should not be considered
usurious, such premiums, etc, would be LEGAL and
we conceive not usurioEs. We arc compelled to
conclude, then, that the act docs not contraTene
the prohibition OF tue Constitution, and that re-
aton to the question Of usuEy, it merely makes IN
exception to the general interest 1aw. We think
that the interests Of large body OF citizens would
have been conserved by the approval Of the bill.
Possibly the defeat OF this may lcad to the more
carefull drafting OF another.