The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1914-10-16

tenance OF number OF immigrants
30 detained.
Whether the code OF Alabama IL In
violation OF the thirteenth amendment
70 the constitution Is the question put
up 10 the court In the case OF. the
u. 8. versus l.. A. Reynolds and q.
w. Broughton. II IL charged that the
defendant held K. w. Fields In q
state Of peonage 10 work out debt.
The defense Ia that Fields had sold
lands on which the defendant had a
mortgage. and was threatened with
criminal prosecutions under the Ala
bama law II he would not work out
the debt.
Three distinct cases In regard to
the Oklahoma guaranty. OF bank de-
posits law have been set for early
argument before the court. One of
the most interesting. and also the
most involved. OF these Is that OF w.
8. Parish versus the State Banking
Board. Appeal was taken on the
ground that the u. 8. Court for the
Eastern District OF Oklahoma erred
In rendering judgment against the
Union State bank for the deposit al
legged to have been transferred from
the Alamo State bank to the Union
State bank and In holding that the
state OF Oklahoma had Just and
prior lien as against the claim OF the
plaintiff for the reimbursement OF the
amount OF money taken by the Bank
Ing Board and Bank Commissioners
from the deposits OF the Alamo State
bank and the Oklahoma Trust Co.
fvU a.
issued by the town OF Muskogee, and
which according to the plaintiffs.
should have been passed along TO the
Texas company, who supplied the as
phalt that built the streets on which
the bonds were issued.
II Is charged that these bonds we're
sold, and that the proceeds were not
held separate from the regular de-
post funds OF the bank. as they should
have been. The plaintiff therefore
claimed. after the bank had failed,
the right to collect the full amount
received from the sale OF the bonds
from the state guaranty fund.
A slightly different case involving
the law Ii that OF j. ID. Landlord.
bank commissioner of Oklahoma,
against the Plat Iron Works Co. The
Platt company bought certificates OF
deposit, II Is alleged, from other per.
sons who had bought them from the
bank. The defense Is that the COM
pany could not sue the state Of Ok
lahoma and that suit against the
bank board constituted suit against
the state. II Is claimed by the at
torneys for the state that the "law
nj Ns.ae AL T.. IL. a. L.
positor to sue the appellants, but the
appellants acts Hereunder are gov
ernmental within their administrative
discretion"
II is also denied that the Plat com
pany IL deposition In the ordinary
sense. The third case. that OF the
American Water Softener Co., against
the State Banking Board of Oklahoma
Is straightout case OF whether the
state can be sued or not
A case somewhat similar to that OF
the Norfolk and Western against the
State Of West Virginia IL that of the
Northern Pacific Railway Co. against
the State OF North Dakota. which has
also been set for early argument.
This case involves the constitution
ality or aslaw or that state fixing coal
rates 80 low as to yield the carrier
nothing for the use Of his property.
though providing enough revenue for
the actual movement of the coal. The
lower court held that II all the intra-
state business showed profit, no sin
gle rate could be held to be confisca-
tory.
The famous Terminal Railroad Az
ISOLATION Of st. Louis will figure In
the case OF the u. 8. against that az.
ISOLATION. when the government will
argue that the order of the Supreme
Court in previous case has not been
carried out In many particulars by
the lower court, and therefore fur
Their action IL desired