Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/271

 cle 1 of the state constitution or § 1 of the 14th amendment to the fedearlfederal [sic] constitution.

2. Same; Same; Police Power.

Said § 27 is upheld as a proper exercise by the legislature of that branch of the internal police power of the state which relates to the public safety.

3. Same; Same; Bill to Embrace but One Subject.

Held, further, that said § 27 is not a violation of § 61 of the state constitution, which provides that "no bill shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title; but a bill which violates this provision shall be invalidated thereby only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed."

ABEAS CORPUS.

W. H. Francis and A. C. Davis, for plaintiff, filed a brief containing points and authorities without argument. Mr. Francis presented the case to the court in an exhaustive oral argument. The points and authorities were as follows: Section 27 of the State Bank Law of 1890 amounts to a palpable and arbitrary interference with the right of personal liberty: People v. Marx, 99 N. Y. 377; in re Jacobs, 98 id. 98; B. Un. Co. v. C. C. Co., 111 U. S. 146; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 id. 356; People v. Common Council, 38 N. W. 470; Millett v. People, 117 Ill. 302 (S. C. 7 N. E. 631;) People v. Gillson, 109 N. Y. 389. Said section is utterly foreign to the purpose of the act as indicated by its title: Eaton v. Walker, 43 N. W. 638; State v. Houdley, 22 Pac. 99; Dolese v. Pierce, 16 N. E. 218; Donnersberger v. Prendergast, 21 id. 1; People v. Hamill, 17 id. 799.

George F. Goodwin, attorney general, for defendant, argued: That it is within the power of the legislature to restrict the right to engage in the business of banking: Morse on Banks, § 13; Bank v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519. That the law is not in conflict with the constitution of the United States: Slaughter House Cases, 83 U. S. 394; N. O. Gaslight Co. v. La H. & L. Co., 115 id. 650; Boyd v. Alabama, 94 id. 645. Similar acts have been sustained in other states. Rennington v. Forward, 7 Wend. 276; Attorney General v. Utica Ins. Co., 2 Johns. ch. 371;