The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1908-02-19

argues 4ulN mat IL cannot como ulittf |
this head. that the police power can
only he applied 20 me protection Of
use. that IL is taking Il without just
the public health AMI saftoy. and
many cases are cited where. under
the peculiar facts of each case. il has
been aeld by or highest courts that
certain laws were unronstitUtIpna. be-
cause they provided Tor The taNnEtcf ,
private prorctty Zoe private He The i
rase that originated In ropcka whore
she munlciyiiity of the city acting
upon q majority vote OF the citizens.
issued one hundred Thousand dollars
worth of bonds TO be given as a
bonus 10 a bridge company for locat
ing there. Is relied upon. Mr.. Justice
Miller of the supreme court of the
United states in very strong opni
ion pointed ont that there were
some things that even the people or
majority of them. couli not do. that
/ il was true IN the very nature Of
Things: that even the people thc-h-
selves being sovereign. still they could
NOT By any act. take from the minor
lity their private property and devote
/ II 10 the use OF some other private
person ] think fhfa mus, appeal 10
everyone. But there was no question
but what that was exactly what was
sought to be done and neither Is
thore any questi6S Of police power in
the case.
The grnsshopper' case decided 10y
Judge Brewer Is another case whore
Il was sought 10 NaN the people Of
certain townships in order TO raise q
fund 20 loan 60 The suffering farmers.
Il perhaps WAS ~ popular me istre
aud one that might have resulted IN
great good. but it was clear case
of taking private property for private
luse. and there was no semolance of
the exercise OF police power in SO do.
ing
This IS also true of the Massachu.
sets case when the city of Bos-
ton was authorized by the legisla-
ture to bond the city for 20 million
dollisrs in order to raise fund to
loan to the owners or real estate
whose buildings had Deen destroyed
by a great fire il was clear case
Of taking private property by taxation
to use.--not to carry on the govern
.mcnt. but TO loan to individuals the
taking Of private property for private
iuse. and neither was there any ques-
tion OF police power IN that
The Maryland case. counsel con
tends. is this case IN that case, as
II recollect it. "a county, or the state,
was authorized to issue bonds to an
insolvent railroad corporation in or
der to enable il to pay its debts TO
the citizens THIS was also the TAX
ing OF private property for private use
and there was no question OF regulat
ing it involved
Using these cases as predicate
counsel for the plantiff argues that
since this fund is sought to be raised
, lby the assessment complained Of foi
I the purpose OF paying debts. that its
I debts TO depositors % any bank that
may hereafter become insolyent. that
! the state might just as well provide
s for paying the debts of any Other
corporations, Of railroad companies
OF gas companies of electric lighi
companies and Of any other company
engaged in private business.-but up
i on the other hand Il is pointed on
1 by the attorney general that the STATE
I will regulate all OF ,hese corporations
e not TO the extent Of paying their debts
y but To the extent OF protecting th'
( public in the transaction in the par
IlIkMlNN UMrllNnh III WAAA.h tiANf CIV -
gagged; that u.s. II will see that th'
hubble can travel over the railroad.
with safety: II will regulate th'
Infringing and laying OF wires. and thI
LAYING of pipes systematically aud u
propet places. so as to protect thu
= public from harm and also viii res
d ulate the charges of such corpora
q tions But bankers are not engages
= ! a
n freight nor in transmitting electri
+ currents, nor gas, their entire busi
Il mess upon one side of the ledger, !
" lin takine the peoples money On dc
q poait Has the legislature the righ
"a under the police power. to regulat
"a this businessf Can tho leEislatur
IF provide rulesald regulations Tor In
ia protection OF these deposits and thps
n who make them? Under the law,
=, an OF the opinion that only corpora
e tions can engage in the business G
/. banking ia this state and Individual
a. can not The banking corporation
e therefore have monopoly on IN
T. banking business. This As given
~ them hy the law Enjoying this m'
% uGpoly that il Is given them, mus
ic thty not be subject to an the rule
N and regulations reasonably impose
H. upon them by the law And does ns
te these regulations apply both 70 thcs
IL corporations who have been chartere
s- heretofore before the late law weI
IL into effect. las Wei lasthose who ma
Sc be chartered hereafter2 That IS n
TO condition upon which the bankin
ld corporations heretofore chartered ma
ss continue 10 do business
en- My conclusion is that the proyisio
of this law for raising a safety tun
ly 40 protect all depositors of stai
M banks is legitimate exercise OF q
H. police power of the state. aud thi
~ inc law does not Infringe any of q
II. moyisiOns OF the constitution ui OH
it homa nor OF the constitution of q
is United States
se As 30 the genera policy or wisdO
! ol tne law the courts have nothing
~ do those are matters that must ne
he alone with the legislature, subject
is the approval OF the governor