Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing in
Noble
State Bank v. Haskell, ante, p.
219 U. S. 104,
denied.
Even where powerful arguments can be made against the wisdom of
legislation, this Court can say nothing, as it is not concerned
therewith.
Among the public uses for which private property may be taken
are some which, if looked at only in their immediate aspect
according to the approximate effect of the taking, may seem to be
private.
Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361;
Strickley v. Highland Boy Mining Co., 200 U.
S. 527.
Payments required by a bank guarantee statute which can be
avoided by going out of the banking business, and are required only
as a condition for keeping on in such business from corporations
created by the state, do not amount to a taking of private property
without compensation or a deprivation of property without due
process of law, and so
held as to the Oklahoma Bank
Guarantee statute heretofore sustained as to its constitutionality,
ante, p.
219 U. S. 104.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Page 219 U. S. 580
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
Leave to file an application for rehearing is asked in this
case. We see no reason to grant it, but, as the judgment delivered
seems to have conveyed a wrong impression of the opinion of the
Court in some details, we add a few words to what was said when the
case was decided. We fully understand the practical importance of
the question and the very powerful argument that can be made
against the wisdom of the legislation, but on that point we have
nothing to say, as it is not our concern.
Clark v. Nash,
198 U. S. 361;
Strickley v. Highland Boy Mining Co., 200 U.
S. 527, were cited to establish not that property might
be taken for a private use, but that, among the public uses for
which it might be taken were some which, if looked at only in their
immediate aspect, according to the proximate effect of the taking,
might seem to be private. This case, in our opinion, is of that
sort. The analysis of the police power, whether correct or not, was
intended to indicate an interpretation of what has taken place in
the past, not to give a new or wider scope to the power. The
propositions with regard to it, however, in any form, are rather in
the nature of preliminaries. For, in this case, there is no
out-and-out unconditional taking at all. The payment can be avoided
by going out of the banking business, and is required only as a
condition for keeping on from corporations created by the state. We
have given what we deem sufficient reasons for holding that such a
condition may be imposed.
