The Hope pioneer. [volume] (Hope, N.D.) 1882-1964, 1919-11-27

State Thomas Hail., ana denle0 tnenl
the right Of witnesses.
Chief Justice A. M. Christianson
of the supreme court, the Harlan Of
North Dakota, today issued his dis
senting opinion in the Scandinavian
American bank case. He concurs in
all the points raised by Judge Bird
zell in the opinion Of the latter which
was issued some three weeks ago in
dissent to the majority opinion of
Grace, Bronson and Robinson.
Then C%hristianson in a mastery
manner recites the law, the consti-
tuition, rebukes the judges of social
istic tendencies picks their opinion
to pieces and scatters the bits to the
four winds Of legaldom.
The decision overs 10 pages of
typewriter copy. In n place JUS
tice Christianson says:
Reference has been made by one
of the majority members of the trial
of Christ. Even upon that trial the
right to be confronted by the accus-
ers and witnesses was not to be de-
MED. What is true both of the trial
MED. That is true both Of the trial
before the Jewish Sanhedrim and
before PLATE. For it is written;
"And the high priest stood up and
said unto him, Answerest thou moth
:o-O vTyl,o :, t. %ho% %n1o1 u,s%-ooooo
say against thee?" And plate said
Behold I have examined him before
you and have found no fault in this
man touching those things whereof
We accuse him."-St. Luke 23:14.
The justice quotes the bible in con-
nection with his assertion that a fair
not called.
He agrees with Judge Birdzell that
the state bank examiner is subservi-
ent to the orders and wishes of the
state banking board, and that the
state banking board was within it's
power in appointing a temporary re-
ceiver for the Observation-Disclosures
Bank.
Justice Bronson in his majority
opinion held that the legislative in
tent to take away from the state
banking board the power to appoint
receivers and to vest such powers
in the state examiner is so plain that
"He who runs may read" In COM
menting upon this analogy, Justice
Chr%istianson says at strikes me as
more likely that n who believes
he has e Q such intent must have
been running while reading-and
running so fast a. to be unable to
observe the plain and unmistkable
~signboards along the way which in
Dictated the rue legislative intent"
In setting forth his ideas with ref
erence to the denial TO the state
banking board of their constitutional
right of being confronted by their
witnesses and being entitled to
cross-examine them, Justice Chris
Hanson calls attention to the fact
that all Of the members Of the SUI
, preme court who signed the majority
opinion in this case recently joined
in an opinion which reversed a dis
trict court because the district judge
had restricted the right to cross-ex-
animation and he says:
only a short time ago every
!, member who concurred in the ma.
jority opinion also concurred in an.
other opinion whereby a judgment
. Of the district court was reversed be.
cause they deemed that the cross,
examination of a certain witness HAD
!, been too restricted. That case in.
. Volved the possession of a horse
This case,-so the major say-in.
wolves questions of transcendant i'm.
portance, - questions affecting the
sovereignty Of the state or it's fran
chises or privileges or the liberties
OF it's citizens-and in this case
cross-examination is not only re
stricted but wholly Denied"
. He winds up his opinion by say
= ing:
With all due Difference to the opin,
ion of the majority members 1 be
!, lieve that the practice which the,
have adopted and sanctioned in thi:
case is contrary to the letter ant
spirit of our laws; and that their do
n cision is erroneous in it's entirety
AS 1t is without precedent in judi
cial annals, SO do l hope it will no
become a rule to be followed in fu
ture determinations"