The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1911-01-05
CASE DECIDED BROUGHT BY
NOBLE COUNTY STATE BANK
First Instituted Before Judge
Huston In Local Dis
trICt Court

News Of the decision Of the SIT
lreme court Of the United States, an
nouucement of which was mace q
brief bulletin to The Leader, was the
occasion of considerable local com
ment, not only In financial circles, but
Nv interested bank deposltors.
The case decided was that of the
Noble State bank Of Noble versus
GOV. G. N Haskell, ct al, the other
defendants being the other members
cf the state banking board and the
bank commissioner. 1t was a case
originated in January, 1908, to test
the depositors guaranty plan general
HI, and though begun in the name OF
TIE Noble State bank, was backed by
contributions from many leading
bankers or Oklahomh, VINO We're then
untiiendly to the bank guaranty law.
The fundamental principle inyolv-
cd in the case was the question.
whether one bank could be compelled
10 contribute to general fund 10
protect the deposits of all state banks
generally The attorneys for the No
he state bank contended that in re-
qnlring this the law was an infringe
ment Of a leading principle OK the
constitution Of the United States.
The case was fled befAs District
Judge A. H. Huston at Guthrie. re
was asked to grant perpetual IN
Junction restraining the stale banking
board and bank commissioner from
leyying OF collecting an assessment
for the guaranty fund, and from for
feiting the charter of the Noble
State bank for refusing to pay The
same. Judge Huston upheld the
guaranty law and refused. the inJune'
tian. The case was appealed to the
supreme court Of the state and the
guaranty law won again. Justice
Robert l.. Williams, then chief JUS
tice, in a mastery opinion, IN June
1908. sustained the law and upheld
District Judge Huston in his refusal
Ito grant the injunction. The oppon-
ents Of The guaranty law then ap-
pealed to the supreme court OF the
United States, where they have lost
again and finally
The opinions Of the supreme court
Mere announced by Justice Holiness
He said the main objection to the
laws was the assessment OF banks
hp the state in order to create fund
Ia guarantee the deposits In other
banks within the state took private
property Of one bank for the private
use Of another without compensation.
justice Holmes admitted that there
might be a taking of private property
without return to pay debts to rival
in business, but he said there were
powerful considerations on the other
side - the duestios.
In the first place" he said, 1T =
established by cases that an ulteflof
public advantage may justify com
paratively insignificant taking 0f pfi-
yate property for what, in its lmlna-
date purpose, Is a private use
III would seem that there may pe
other cases besides the everyday one
of taxation, IN which the share OF
each party in the benefit of a scheme
fot mutual protection is sufficient com
pepsation for the correlatiye burden
tbat il is compelled TO assume. ~
least If we have a case within W"
reasonable exercise of the police pow
ei as above explained, no more nfca
Ibe said.
Tire justice then proceeded to ustl'
lfg the laws under the police powers.
llhe police powers, he said, may be
ppt forth in aid Of what is sanctioned
Ihv usage, or held by the prevailing
morality or strong and preponderant
opinion to be greatly ana mmcdisls-
Iig necessary to the public welfare.
1 The laws came WITHIN this llinlv &c
ih.lI