Court Opinion

ID: 9571481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:32:06.702087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:28.588584
License: Public Domain

Finley, J.
(concurring specially) — I concur in and have signed the majority opinion. However, I wish to make it quite clear that I believe that the result reached by the majority must rest upon a so-called liberal or functional, rather than a so-called literal or “strict constructionist,” interpretation of Const, 'art. 8, § 7 and the word “loan” used therein. Whether characterized as liberal or functional, or as literal or strict, either approach or method of interpretation is a traditional and recognized function of the judiciary in our Anglo-American system of jurisprudence. Also, what is often recognized or perhaps tacitly conceded, but usually de-emphasized, is the fact that given these two legitimate approaches or methods of interpretation, there is a judicial choice — a legitimate and proper one — which must be made by judges in resolving problems of statutory or constitutional interpretation. Straightforward recognition that there is a choice of approach or method of interpretation, rather than dissembling, seems to me the essence of judicial responsibility and judicial self-restraint.
In the case before us, I believe that the time deposits, in the literal or strict sense of the word, must be considered loans because they are characterized by (1) the payment of interest by the bank for use of the money, and (2) the depositor’s knowing and intentional loss of his right to the funds for a fixed period of time. I can conceive of no basis upon which the nature of such deposits can be meaningfully distinguished from that of the loans which the bank itself makes to borrowers, using the funds obtained from time deposits made with it.
However, I believe that the exact words of the constitution should not be strictly and restrictively construed inconsistently with the probably underlying or basic intent of *686the drafters and contrary to a commonsense accommodation to the needs of the times.
I therefore concur in the majority opinion, not because I feel that the time deposits in question are not “loans” within the strict sense of that word, but because I believe that the majority opinion is persuasively clear in demonstrating (1) that the framers of the constitution would not have prohibited the time deposits under the circumstances in this case if they had been confronted with the problem, and (2) that the various safeguards surrounding the time deposits here in question admirably serve and are consistent with the purpose underlying Const, art. 8, § 7; namely, the integrity and protection of public funds.
I must also register my disagreement with the approach and analysis in the dissenting opinion by Wright, J. That approach and analysis seems to me to be an oversimplification of (1) the problem involved, and (2) the very nature of the judicial process. I am concerned because this seems an abrogation of responsibilities of the appellate judicial function as I personally understand and regard such matters.