Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1909-06-29
John L. Webster and W. V. Allen
Appear for the Banks.
BASIS OF THEIR ARGUMENT
They Contend it Takes Property
Without Compensation.
POSITION OF THE STATE
Attorney General Thompson and
Associates Answer that Plaintiffs
Have Adequate Remedy
at Law.
CFrom a staff CorrespondentJ

NfTOm Correspondent
LINCOLN. June S.-(special. )-Arguments
for and against the eonstltutionality of the
banking law enacted by the late legisla-
ture were heard by Judge Willis L. Vande-
venter Of Cheyenne and Judge T. c. Mum
ger in the federal court today.
Representing fifty-two banks which are
attacking the daw, John L. Webster and
w. v. Allen argued for an injunction to
prevent the law being put in force July
q while the application for the injunction
was resisted by Judge I. L. Albert of Co
lumbus, C. o. whedon Of Lincoln and At
torney General Thompson, representing the
state.
The Importance of the case attracted
many of the members Of the bar to the
court room and several of them remained
throughout the day Notwithstanding the
heat in the room was almost insufferable,
for when the windows were raised the
noise from the street almost drowned the
voice Of the speaking lawyer.
Though General Webster thought It would
take only two hours for the plaintiffs
side of the case to be presented it was
after 4 o'clock when he and Senator Allen
had concluded and Judge Albert opened
for the state.
AS a preliminary to the opening argu-
ment o. General Webster, the state filed
a motion to dismiss the case alleging there
is no ground for the issuance OF the re-
straining order or an injunction, for the
reason that the plaintiff has an adequate
remedy at law; the issues were improperly
Joined; the court has no jurisdiction; and
1t had not been shown that the amount
involved did not amount to 5000
Judge Vandeventer took this filing in the
nature of a demurrer and thus gave to
the plaintiff the right of the opening and
closing statements.
Basis of Arguments.
The arguments hinged on the following
points raised by the plaintiffs:
The levy for the creation of the guaranty
fund is repugnant to the federal and state
constitutions because It takes property
without compensation and applies 1t to
the payment of obligations OF other banks.
Section 81 provides that claims OF de-
positors shall be settled before any other
claims, except Of federal. state, county
and municipal taxes. This does not give
other creditors the same right to secure
their money.
The act is illegal wherein It provides
for the payment of fees into the general
fund OF the state, and 1t is illegal wherein
it authorizes the state banking board to
pay rewards out Of the guaranty fund for
the apprehension of persons who violate
the banking law.
THE act is illegal because It prohibits
private banks" This it was argued, is
violation of the federal constitution and
violation of the contract specified in the
charter granted these private banks.
Albert Opens for state.
Judge Albert opened for the state, direct
ing the principal part OF his argument to
the right OF the state to prohibit private
banking. He argued that no one could
engage in the banking business without the
consent of the state, whether private bank.
ing or corporation banking, and that the
state had perfect right to refuse the per-
mission to the private individual.
c, o. Whedon will begin his argument In
the morning.