legislative enactments. And so, we find from an examination of Elliott's Debates on the Federal Constitution, that efforts were made in the Convention to forestall the power of the Supreme Court to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional by conferring upon the court and the president jointly, the right of the revision and veto. It is needless to say that this effort was unsuccessful. Afterwards, as if to make such authority on the party of the Supreme Court doubly sure, Mr. Johnson moved that the judicial power be extended "to all cases arising under the Constitution" (Elliott, 483). And in the Federalist, 74, we find the Supreme Court spoken of as the "bulwark of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments." From these records, we can reach but one conclusion, that is, that the framers of the Constitution intended the Supreme Court to exercise the power of declaring invalid legislative enactments repugnant to the Constitution. Yet there are not lacking those who seriously maintain that no such authority was intended by the framers of the Constitution, and that the case of Marbury v. Madison brought this power into existence for the first time.

It seems to me that the establishment of the Supreme Court as, the controlling and regulating power of the Constitution was the greatest conception of the Constitution, and "constitutes the crowning marvel of the wonders wrought by American statesmanship."

The states refused to ratify the national Constitution until they were assured that the first ten amendments or "the Bill of Rights" would be added thus evidencing their concern for the rights of the individual citizen as against the arbitrary will of governmental bodies. Mr. Root has described the Bill of Rights as a "covenant between overwhelming power and every weak and defenseless one; everyone who relies upon the protection of his country's laws for security to enjoy the fruits of industry and thrift; everyone who would worship God according to his own conscience, however his faith differ from that of his fellows; everyone who asserts his manhood's right of freedom in speech and action, a solemn covenant that between the weak individual and all the power of

the people, and the people's officers, shall forever stand the eternal principles of justice, defined and made practically effective by specific rules in those provisions which we call the limitations of the Constitution." Yet this new school of political thought would have these rights placed at naught, or would change them by the simple and easy process of legislation. They would lopp from the only department of government that has any disposition to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, or is able to preserve to the people their constitutional guaranties, its inherent rights and duty to follow the Constitution, rather than statutes made in its derogation. Their one thought seems to be to devest the courts. of the opportunity to longer protect the people in their sacred and inalienable rights.

Of course, they tell you that the people will protect their own rights; that the majority is never wrong. We have already observed that the minority has rights as against the majority, and that without the practical operation of constitutional limitations through courts of justice, sovereignty would reside in the legislative department or some other govrevolutionary results would follow, do ernmental body. But even if no such you have such absolute confidence in the will of the majority, and that will exercised without debate and deliberation? Do you believe that omniscience is always present in the mere preponderance of numbers? Do you believe that your life, your liberty and your property should be subject to every wave of popular excitement? Do you wish to submit to the majority the making, the constitutionality, the interpretation, and the enforcement of laws? If you have such implicit confidence in the majority of all the people, what about the temporary majority, or the majority of those actually voting on a measure?

Yes, these carping critics would break down these guaranties of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They must know that when these guaranties are broken down, absolute power will surely rest somewhere. But where? They don't seem to care where it goes, whether to the people, to some governmental of

$298,500 have been redeemed, there being now only outstanding of this issue the sum of $403,000. Under the latter act $1,750,000 have been issued. To pay and secure these warrants in the sum of $2,153,000 now outstanding and bearing interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum there is available in cash, solvent land notes and lands, according to their present appraised value, the sum of $4,815,510.65. All of these bonds and warrants as they have matured have been paid upon presentation, and all of the interest has been promptly paid as it has matured.

I make these statements to show you that it is good paper, that it bears a fair rate of interest and that it is available to be put up as security for public funds, and the banks are only required to pay interest at the rate of 3 per cent per annum on public funds. It is not the contention of the state board of equalization that these public building warrants are not taxable, but it is the contention of this board that the fact that they are not taxable does not operate to make the shares or capital stock in any respect exempt from taxation. In a report that I have from the state examiner and inspector he

states:

State Examiner's Statement.

"In exhibit 'E' hereof, is a copy of the bid of I. H. Nakdimen for the $1,750,000 of bonds issued and sold pursuant to the act of 1911. There is no documentary evidence that I was able to find that this bid was ever accepted, neither could I find any contract entered into with Mr. Nakdimen for the purchase of these bonds. However, Mr. Nakdimen sold or brokered these bonds to the bankers throughout the state, the state in the majority of cases furnishing the money with which they were purchased, that is the records show that when a sale was made the state treasurer would place a deposit with the purchasing bank and retain the bonds as collateral against such deposit. In this manner the public funds of the state were indirectly invested in these bonds-the banker getting 5 per cent from the public building fund and the state receiving 3 per cent from the bank as interest on daily balances the banks earning a net of 2 per cent at the expense of the state. The foregoing statement is

further borne out by the fact that on June 30, 1915, the state treasurer and commissioners of the land office held as security for bank deposits $1,380,000 of these bonds and warrants. Two hundred and eighty-nine thousand five hundred dollars of these securities were held as an investment by the commissioners of the land office on June 30, 1915. On June 30, 1915, there were outstanding of these securities, $2,153,000, $1,380,000 being held as security for public funds of the state and $289,500 as an investment of public funds of the state, leaving $484,000 in which the public funds of the state are neither directly or indirectly invested. However, the several county and school sinking funds of the state are invested in a large share of this balance of $484,000. The reports to this office from county treasurers of the state show that they have deposited in banks over $2,000,000 of sinking funds that is subject to investment in securities of this class. In view of this fact, it is evident that a ready market is available for the warrants and bonds issued against the public building funds of the state of Oklahoma."

The legislature of 1913 (Session Laws 1913, Ch. 22, p. 30), authorized certain corporations to invest in guaranty fund warrants or certificates and for the same to be deposited for certain securities and also authorized the investment of the

sinking fund of the state, or of any district thereof in such warrants, and county, city, town, township or school that such warrants should be approved as securities for public moneys and that trust funds might be invested in the same and that such warrants should be nontaxable for any purpose.

The legislature of 1915 (Session Laws 1915, Ch. 58, p. 100), authorized state banks to invest their capital stock and surplus to a certain amount in such warrants, and provided that the same might be used as security for public deposits but said section did not provide for such warrants to be non-taxable for any purpose.

Attack Is Partisan.

The Oklahoma Banker in the August issue complains that certain state officials, during the preceding administration, had permitted banks for taxation to deduct from their capital stock and surplus the

amount of all public building and guaranty warrants held by them, and that such a ruling was made by such officer or officers at the same time the bonds were sold, and the contention is made that this is a repudiation. In this connection a partisan attack is made on the governor of the state and refers to some newspaper report as to what he might have said relative to the act of some judge in holding an act of the legislature unconstitutional. I gave to the press no interview relative thereto, but a purported interview from me relative thereto appeared in the press. I did say that no judge should hold an act of the legislature unconstitutional on an ex parte hearing. The preliminary injunctions involving the constitutionality of an act of the legislature should issue to preserve property rights and hold matters in status quo until a full hearing could be had and that the attention of the next legislature would be called to such matter for proper consideration in legislation was indicated by me.

Judges Must Be Careful.

The federal congress has legislated on that identical question. I further said that where a judge wilfully suspended a law in toto and held it unconstitutional without a hearing that he ought to be removed from office, and that is still my contention. However, I am aware that a judge sometimes, with good intentions, in the hurry and rush of business, not recognizing the full import of an order may sign the same to that effect, but when the same is called to his attention the order is modified so as to merely preserve rights until a full hearing is had.

In the Oklahoma Banker it is further said:

"It is not denied that the governor and his associates may be right on the legal phases of the question. There are many who believed when the building warrants were exempted that the act was unconstitutional, and the same view would apply to the guaranty fund warrants. But that does not change the immorality of the act."

Tax Evader a Wrongdoer.

This board is not seeking to have either the building or guaranty fund warrants taxed, but to have the shares or capita! stock of the banks taxed. A person

seeking to have property exempted from taxation, when he has reason to believe that such exemption is contrary to the constitution and laws of the state, though the state officer may erroneously permit such exemption, such act of the tax evader is against public policy and the tax evader himself commits an immoral act.

The members of the state board of

equalization are merely seeking to discharge their duties under their official oaths. The banker that is seeking the exemption as a holder of these securities, earnestly believing that such is the law, is not guilty of an immoral act, but a banker who seeks to do it, believing that the law is unconstitutional, is treading on dangerous ground when he talks about morality.

Men of business and affairs who call themselves bankers and especially when they conduct a bankers' journal, should co-operate with the state officials who are seeking to enforce all the laws, and render all their property for taxation, according to law, and not launch into a partisan, half anarchical tirade against officials seeking to faithfully discharge their public duty. To read such an article some would think that there was a hidden motive behind it, and that there was some partisan advantage sought to be gained, but I want to say to the bankers of Oklahoma, who are supporting and applanding such attacks in that journal, that such attacks are liable to prove a boomerang. The editor of the journal talks about good morals. Yet on page 50 of the same issue he makes reference to a recent decision of the supreme court of the state construing a usury statute wherein he states:

"This decision is sweeping and farreaching in its effect and came as a distinct shock to the banking interests of the state."

Usury Immoral.

unless there had been to a large extent Why should there be a distinct shock the practice of usury and why should he deprecate the conclusion reached in this cast by the supreme court unless he would be glad to see the practice of usury continued. Through all the ages the practice of usury has been denounced as immoral and wrong. When the editor of the Oklahoma Banker wants to see property ex

empted from taxation he talks about morality. When he wants to see the practice of usury permitted he is silent on the doctrine of morality. The fact is, when anyone puts himself without the pale of the law, whether he is editor of a bankers' journal or a haranguer on the streets, he is a dangerous citizen.

What we are trying to do is to follow the law, and to cause this property put on the tax rolls. This was not done until the attorney general, the chief law officer

of the state, ruled that all bank capital and all the shares of such capital stock was taxable, and I believe that his ruling is right and the entire board of equalization so believes. That being the case it was our duty to cause it to be put on the tax rolls and if the bankers holding these securities are right in their contention the courts are open to them to have the question as to this exemption judicially deter-' mined and whatever is decided by the courts this board will faithfully follow.

Statement and History of Act.

Pursuant to a request of the editor of the OKLAHOMA LAW JOURNAL, I will give my views with reference to the recent act of the legislature requiring an advanced cost deposit of $40 in causes filed in the Supreme Court of this state. While our present governor during the primary election campaign contended that more of the burden of conducting the courts should be borne by the litigants, the question was not mentioned in the state democratic platform, but in his first message to the legislature, under the heading "Revenues to Be Derived from Departments," the governor, among other things, said: "I accord-. ingly recommend that a docket fee be taxed in the sum of twenty-five dollars as a part of the costs in every such case to follow the result of the case," etc. The docket fee was $3. The governor's recommendation was enacted into law March 5, 1915, and is found in section 5 of chapter 87, session laws of Oklahoma 1915, providing for an advanced cost deposit of $40.00, $25.00 of which shall be for "filing, indexing and docketing each cause." Certain members of the legislature voted for the increased cost deposit because it was an administration measure, some in order to make the clerk's office a source of revenue, some thinking that the poor litigants would be benefitted, and others in hopes of reducing the number of appeals. We should assume that all voted for what

they thought would be for the public good.

Section of Act Unconstitutional The general purpose of the act is the creation of the Supreme Court Commission. Section 5 thereof has reference to costs required to be advanced in causes thereafter "filed in the Supreme Court." The Supreme Court had been created by our constitution. Under section 57 of article 5 of our constitution providing that "every act of the legislature shail Section embrace but one subject," etc. 5 of said act, in my opinion, is unconstitutional.

Entire Act Unconstitutional.

Also, there are grave doubts as to whether or not the entire act is constitutional. Our constitution makes our Supreme Court the highest judicial authority in our state for the disposition of civil actions. The act in question gives the governor authority to appoint the members of the commission with the consent and approval of the Supreme Court and in section 6 thereof it is provided that "The commissioners herein provided for shall be subject to removal at any time by the governor." This act, I believe, is clearly in conflict with article 4 of our constitution, which provides that:

"The powers of government of the state of Oklahoma shall be divided into three separate departments: The legislative, executive and judicial; and except as provided in this constitution the