The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1922-02-09
Judge Huneke's Observation-Disclosures
Hill Contract Valid and Commendable


take the matter under Amusement and
prepare a written opinion which for
obvious reasons WAS impractical
Judge Huneke said that in view OF the
cOnlncting contentious OF such emil
nent counsel he found 1t somewhat
embarrassing TO decide this question
apparently offhand, for that is what 1t
amounts TO-" but he added impress
lively:
And yet l would like To have you
understand that the decision which l
have reached is not a haphazard de
cision or guess From day to day as
this argument has progressed have
tsIt that ! have been driven to the
position which shall presently an
nounee and am inclined to think that
even protraeted study would not
change that view, because believe it
is the right one"
Judge Huneke then proceeded to
give his conclusions which not only
sustained every act of the Hecla and
Bunker Hill under consideration, but
directly and unqualifiedly commended
them for their foresight for providing
for continuous operation of the Star
mine The decision follows:
Heela and the Sullivan Company
The nrst question which have
met at the very threshold OF thls in
curry was whether the Hecla company
could own stock in the Sullivan COM
pany; and the answer to that question
involves the correct Interpretation OF
our statute. Mr.. Plummer stated in
cred the statute that it occurred to
him that a corporation would have the
power to do that but that later study
and thought convinced him to the con-
trary. When l first looked al this
statute it occurred to me that the cor
poration had no power TO do this, but |
upon further reflection l have come to |
the contrary opinion. That shows how |
different minds differ in their action.
Now, don't misunderstood me. I do not /
mean to say that a corporation not
having expressed in its articles of in
stock of other companies may do so
but unquestiOnably
II that connection the distinction must
De observed between the primary and
secondary powers of a corporation as
hey have been denOminated here, that
S, the express powers and the implied
powers. What l mean to say is that if
he Hecla company for example not
having expressed in its articles of in
corporation the power to purchase and
eal in the stock of other corporations
undertook at any time to engage in
S a stock broker that any stakeholder
ould enjoin it from doing that.
hink il has no power to do it. But
where the Hecla company buys a mine
n an interest in a mine as it did here
nd the stock which it receives as eVi
Incident to that purchase, merely
lows from it, it seems to me that it is
ot doing what it has not a right to
%; that is, the receiving of this stock
nder those circumstances is merely a {
light which flows from the undoubted {
ight which it had to purchase that
nine. That might be called an Incl j
ent power. 1t certainly would be in
idental to it's power to purchase the I
line. And that is all it did here. The {
Iecla did not deliberately undertake '
} purchase this stock, but the whole t
al Of &c 4
how without any ground for dispute I
hatever that purchase of the mine {
as the thing that they We're after and I
lis arrangement for taking over the e
-ock and it's handling was a subse i
uent matter that had to be worked i
ut by the trustees. T
"The concluding provisions Of this S
,ction of the statutes confirms me in p
lis view 1t reads: I
All existing holdings by any such IL
in the shares of the capital t.
ock of any other corporation are Il
ereby validated $
THAT means that an offending COM a
my. which had purchased or dealt in Il
ock of another corporation before the ii
usage of this act would be forgiven s.
at offense. 1t would be made per- il
city valid. And it would not seem to II
, right that the legislature should +
rgve all past transactions and forbid 5
future transactions of a like char n
ter. am satisfied, gentle W
en-, from the consideration ! have Il
ven to it, that the Hecla company had S
e right under it's charter to take this Il
ock under the circumstances under o.
hich it took it. is
Contract Legal and Commendable. p
THAT brings me to the second and Ii
e important question in the case. il
I found time this morn N
g to write out these conclusions: p
rs this contract illegal and against
e public policy of the state, as re- Il
Lrds the disposition of the stock be- Il
nging to the Hecla in the Sullivan? F
al-s u