, 1879-04-27

p's: s&a chcsgo e Journal, s41; Newell rs r5551S
As a, general. proposition this might !.
eG0cfasa oP bans 'at What the is saass
speaks Of banking powers. What are hantssos' go
powers? In order to answer these Questions rntaas
ence must be had 70 books Of definition aud to sst.
OF the people, as we'll as OF the Assembly: th,r
to the history OF tho times il which thosa -
were made use Of Referring 10 these Knnrrs. 4s
seems clear that tho Convention n,usthaye ma
ub0ve indicated. - aSFe
Reference has also been made to 1desi;;;o, $: :.
our Supreme Court in the case Of johnson ~ ~
to have adopted principle dlcr:at from t,1 sgens
dicatcd by the above autho.i,ics " ~ ~
ignoring the language OF the Convention ~ !.
have. construed provision Ut the .consti,at;smo %
by refcrenccto the subsequent history Of tie Sttsa
and to have taken into account the wfdesnrsesa
dcsolation which adherence to the exact ian"n,saa
oftne Constitution would inttct upon the pcopis ):
1t is said that Judge Brccse 6as s1ace tEen !. { :
pressed great regret TINT the Supreme Conrt -
rendered that decision, and am asked to take nta
account state ncnt to that effect which comes ~
me- unofhcia1ly through a gentleman to whom ths
remark was Haec. II It were possible To tecei1st
such statement, I should do so with Rteat rss
inetance. because bcl{eyc the principle On which
that case WAS decided TO be sound one and thss
in constituting Constitutions in cases Of donht ras
eucc must not DC had alone to the wors but IL H.
words interpreted in the light Of the history Of ,hs
language and Of tile times in which 1t was ased.
am also referred to 10 Chicago Ldgat VeEs. 40
MCCARTHY vs.. LaTosche, 4 clse in which out snN
premo Court claimed to have decided Q chastsr
similar to that now in question was hnconstitn
present chartar. Were that the settled doctri. NJ
the Supreme Court could not hesitate Whist to d.
But, since that decision was published, modis.
cation of It has been submitted to the State r.
porter, and the decision Us modified ID TO m:
pear IN subsequent volume OF our reports omst!
ling tie part pronouncine the ehsrter unconstitu-
tional. and resting the decision upon other erounds
This facs indicator that the question is not regsr
ed settled, and that the Supreme Court yfrw III.
decision far this point is concerned % mnst
view it, as an 0bifer d!c:sans. -
IT uAs BEEN URGED 80
also by the defendants in this case that Sees III,
construed the corresponding sections OF tie Con-
sti,ution Of 1913 in the sense desired bT thrm-
Most OF the provisions OF the Constitution of lS;c
upon the su0joct Ut banss are, in substance ~
the section cof1Cspondin. to Sec. ) Of the laft.r
after the wurGs associations with banking poWers'
hive tccn inserted the words :. whether Of isaue
deposit. or discount, thus toroiGc1ns the General
Assembly to create any banks whaseycr, whather
Of lssuc, deposit or discount, without sabmIttino
their charters to vote OF the people. In respect
to this provision 1t NAV be said that it mav ,nean
either 9! two things: 1t may mean that the Con7en
ton Of 1900 thought the Constitution Of
construed contained no limitation On the creation
OF banks Of discount and deposit, and undertookto
may mean as con;ended by the defendants, th.f
the Convention intending to declare what vas the
construction to be nus upon the PROVISIONS OF tia
Constitution Of 1913 for the future. But had ida
latter been Ihe puIpose VI the Convention tia
readlest and most natural mode Of effec.uatinr It
would have been to do so directly bya declasatorT
provision
For these reasons the motion to strike flpm ths
flies is allowed.
The case was then set for trial. to be taken IN
this week on three days notice.