Omaha daily bee., 1909-07-27
Brief Ready
in Bank Case
Senator Allen Presents Forty-one
Pages of Argument Against
Validity of Act.

MADISON, Neb.. July 26-(special)-
Senator William V. Allen has Just COM
pleted his brief comprising forty-one pages
as counsel for plaintiffs associated with
John l.. Webster, solicitor for complaints.
in action brought in the United States cir
cult court, district of Nebraska, wherein
the First National bank of Holstein, Neb.,
and fifty-one other banks are plaintiffs,
and Governor shallenberger, Auditor Bar
ton, Treasurer Brian. Attorney General
Thompson. Edward Royce, secretary Of
the State Board Of Banking, and Sam
Patterson are defendants.
The first seven pages Of the brief are
directed to a close analysis Of the
guaranty banking act. 1t is first urged
that this act violates the federal and state
constitutions insofar as it prohibits
private banking. Quotations from the Bible,
the encyclopaedia Britannica, decisions of
the courts Of errors of New York of the
supreme courts of California, North Dakota
and Minnesota are cited to show that
private banking is a Fundamental light of
the citizen.
It is then claimed and numerous cases
are cited to support the contention that
under the Fourteenth amendment to the
NAAoN PAANaAS bbGlAlCoGs
calling, or occupation of the citizen can
not be entrenched upon by legislative
enactment. 1t is shown that several courts
have determined this fact. 1t is urged that
under the language of the state and ma
tional constitutions certain rights and
privileges are claimed to be inalienable and
that property cannot be taken for public
use without compensation therefor. There
are Carfain pouarnrnantal nrfNilaraG -
served to the people, one which is the right
to pursue a private occupation. 1t is con-
tended that the legislature cannot with
draw the right to pursue a private calling
and force the citizen into a banking cor
poration, where the stock can be taxed
for the payment of the depositor of private
institutions. Cases are cited to show that
banking is a private business and is with
in the protection of the Fourteenth
amendment and that being a private insti.
tuition the tax is not for a governmental
but for a private purpose. It is urged that
under the constitution private property can
be taken for public purposes by the wal
power, which is exercised in the confisca-
ton of private property; by the power OF
eminent domain in which the government
is required to make just compensation In
money and by the power OF taxation ir
which the government compensates The
citizen by the protection which It affords
his person and property. 1t is said that
any other seizure or taking is revolutionary
and is a violation of the fundamental law
1t is shown the levying of an assessment
upon the stock of the private banks &c
raise a fund with which to pay depositor'
and holders OF exchange in other private
institutions and rewards for the conviction
and enforcement of the act is not a public
purpose within the meaning Of the consti.
tuition and does not fall within the legitf
mate domain Of a tax, but constitutes
confiscation Of property. Many cases are
cited to prove these assertions. It is SAID
II the assessment is levied as a tax theI
the act is void for the want of uniformity
of operation and constitutes confiscatior
and cases are cited to support that con
%tention. II is urged that the act violates
the contract clause of the federal and stat
constitutions and authorizing the taking Of
private property without due process Of
law, as II makes no provision for adequate
compensation therefor.