The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1913-08-11

the sugar companies and will finally
report his findings to the court.
The suit involving the constitution
atty of the blue sky law was filed in
the shawnee county district court by
Don A. MounDay, who desired to sell
ms land contracts in-this state, but
found that his operations were block
ed because of the passage of a 1913
amendment to the blue sky law. In
his suit MounDay asked that the at
torney general and state bank COM
missioner be enjoined from further
interfering with or investigating the
affairs of his land and sugar company
A temporary Injunction against the
state officials was granted in the case,
but that Injunction was dissolved today
when Judge Whitcomb ruled that the
blue sky law is constitutional and that
the 1913 amendment to the act is
legal
Seven questions regarding the Ie-
gality and constitutiona1ity of the blue
sky law were raised in the petition
presented by attorneys for MounDay
All of them were overruled by the
court.
Two Of the more serious questions
raised in the fight on the blue sky
law involved the issue as to whether
the act was a valid exercise of the
police powers of the state and whether
the act contained more than one sub
Ject and was clearly expressed in the
title of the bill.
State Has These Powers.
on both of these questions, Judge
Whitcom ruled against the MounDays
He said that the law was passed to
supervise the dealing in securities and
that the state has power to regulate
matters of that kind and to protect
its citizens from impositions and to
vest the enforcement of the law in
some officer. 1t further held that the
title to the act covers the general text
OF the law and that there is not suf-
ficient discrepancy to hold the law UNI
constitutional on that ground
1t was contended by attorneys for
ounDay and his wife the blue sky
law authorizes the taking of private
property for public use without just
PENDANTS of due process of law. In
this contention, the court held that
the defendants had ample legal pro-
lection and that their point was not
Wen taken. 1t was further contended
that the law confers judicial powers
on executive and administrative Off
GERS. But Judge Whitcomb held that
the sugar companies and the Noun
Days nave sufficient protection in an
appeal to the courts and that the state
mas right through an officer to regu-
late the business of dealing in invest
mcnts. The court held as not applica-
DIE the constitutional provision that
guarantees to citizens of one state the
right of citizens of all states. Further
contention by MounDays that the law
exacts cruel and unusual punishments,
vas stlSO on the ground
that the extent or amount of punish
ment under the law is within the dis
cretion of the courts and it cannot be
urged that the courts would abuse
their rights under the law.
Both judges concurred in the opin-
ions. s-.'T-
Sweeping Victories for State.
The decisions today were most
sweeping victories for the state Every
thing which the state asked in the re-
ce1verShfp case was granted by the
court Every contention of the Noun
Days in their fight on the constitu-
tionality of the blue sky law was over
ruled.
That the blue sky suit will be fought
through the higher courts, was indi-
Gated by d. r. Hite, attorney for
MounDay and his wife.
There isn't anything to do but to
said Hite. I'VE have no in
1t is generally believed that the con-
stitutlona1 question involved in the
blue sky law will go to the United
states supreme court, regardless of
the decision which may be rendered
by the state supreme court. AS for
the rece1vershlp suit, there is some
question about an appeal, it is be-
1eVed- The supreme court has already
indicated its view in the mat
ter and with a receiver to be placed
10 immediate control of the affairs of
MounDay and his sugar companies,
1t is believed that the fight of
confined to their effort to resist a
final order of custer when application
for this order is later made by the
state.