Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1921-04-06
CONSTITUTION TO BE
UPHELD, SAYS BRONSON
CONTINUED from Page u

pursuant to its imposed duty, disre.
garding and unmindful Of the partisan
clamor Of approval or disapproval re-
sulting. Mortal men err; judges err;
upon questions Of law. upon legal is
must judges, upon their con-
science and sworn duties. differ. Thus.
neither the sincerity of
purpose of the attorney general in
his petition, nor the vigorous dissent
ing opinion Of Jul honorable associ-
ate justice, the pertinent legal ques-
are to be approached and con-
sidercd."
What Judge Bronson termed the
two issues Of the case again were stat
ed: % Is the Bank Of North Dakota,
the State and (2) Is it subject to
punishment?
Bank Not State
The justice points out thai the
statute provided that actions may be
OF North Dakota doing business as
the Bank Of North Dakota, and asks:
Why the need of any pan handle to
the name of the state, if the bank is
the state? Judge Bronson cited the
state bonding fund, under the man
agement n control of the commits
sioner of insurance. and points to de-
cisions to the effect that the commits
Toner may be sued and judgments
rendered against the fund. He also
cited the U. S. shipping board emery
ency fleet corporation created by the
United States with a capital stock of
$50.oo0,000 all owned by the United
States. He cited L. s. decisions quot
ed in the majority opinion that it
must be regarded as an entity separ-
ate from the United States"
Judge Bronson refers to the case
OF the state v. Hall. in which Judge
upheld the state in it's contention that
the debt limit of the state was So
100000. He further referred to
Judge Grace's characterization in the
same opinion of the Bank of North
Dakota as a fiscal agency.
Debt IAmit Issue.
Does not this opinion both recos-
nize a constitutional deb t. limit ana
the Bank of North Dakota as an
agency" asked Judge Bronson. Con
tinuing he says: "Tf every obliga-
ton and Indebtedness created is the
obligation of Indebtedness of the state
itself, how can there be any escape
from the conclusion that the Bank
Act must necessarily operate con-
trary to the constitution Of this state.
UOIA WILL lClOlCUSc " AnOeOLcuHcSS
created or to be created tot warrant
ed by constitutional provisions, and.
with reference to loans to private
individuals or private corporations:
Would Invalidate Loan.
Referring to the oar Of 100000
made of q Chicago financial house by
the Bank of North Dakota. the pur-
chase of bonds by the bank, Justice
Bronson asks the question.
What may be said of a judicial
PRONUNCIATION which would state. 70
the people of this state that indebted
ness without limit or to any extent
might be incurred by the Bank OF
North Dakota as the direct obliga-
ton of the state in defiance Of such
constitutional provisions: Can the
Bank of North Dakota, representing
the state, as such, engage in con-
loans and do things that the state
itself cannot do directly by reason OF
constitutional inhibitions? "
Gases Quilted.
Complaint is made that. the ma
|iority opinion has quoted-deciaion.
concerning state banks of the south
as such. Do not these decisions DEM
o%nstrate that the sovereign power
may create an agency, a sovereign
agency, and give to such. agency , q
status and that it is not necessary
that 1t be termed j Corporation in
order that it do have the status of an
agency? Does 1t moi sufficiently ap-
pear that, necessarily, the Bank Act
does create IN agency of the sover-
eign power engaged in an enterprise
with q distinct status AZ such. necey-
satdiy 30 to be regarded. in order that
the constitutional provisions and the
will of the people expressed in the
legislative act may function in the
designated ?"
Bismarck. n. D., April 5.-The Bank
Of North Dakota may hazard tho
capital It has been authorized to use
In whatever way may be deemed ex-
pedisnt and within the law In order
to make the banking business Q sue
cess, but II can not involve the state
by attempting to pledge its credit IN
transactions tho stateFis expressly pro-
hfbited, from entering into" declares
Justice L. T.. Birdzell Of the supreme
court in delivering the majority opfn-
ion Of the court in declining to srant
q rehearfng In the Sargent county
garnishment case.
Further supporting. the majority
tGsEf.l-sE%9sr .fc14s erasatsyf