Even if private banking be absolutely prohibited by the state constitution, the question remains whether the state constitution is opposed to the federal constitution. If the state constitution were older than the fourteenth amendment, it is difficult to see how that provision would apply, and it is not conceivable that under the privilege and immunity clause of the original constitution (art. 4, sec. 2) the question could arise. But even in states with constitutions adopted after the fourteenth amendment was passed, if the act prohibiting private banking were held in consonance with the federal constitution, the question arising under a state constitution requiring banking acts to be submitted to popular vote, and the state court of final resort holding that the act prohibiting private banking was unconstitutional under the state constitution, the further consideration would require decision, whether a popular vote gave the law any efficacy as against the state constitution. Since the constitution is binding upon all the people, it would seem to follow that such a law would be held unconstitutional where a law would be so held if adoption by popular vote were not required.1 It is possible that the supreme court of the United States might hold, even in the case of a constitution adopted prior to the fourteenth amendment, that an act suppressing private banking was contrary to those fundamental principles of government which are spoken of in Loan Asin v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655.