The question recurred upon Mr. HEBB'S
amendment.
Mr. HEBB. I will state that the proviso
attached to the act of assembly passed in
1842, chapter 301, to sell the State's interest
in the works of internal improvement, and
buy up the debts of the State, when authori-
zing the sale of the Chesapeake and Ohio ca-
nal, recognized these scrip holders. The
amount held by these scrip holders and other
creditors is $946,435 39, and with the esti-
mated interest to July 1st, 1864, is $2,200,000.
This is only the portion for which there is
no lien upon the canal. These creditors re-
side all along the line, laborers, persons who
furnished materials, and others; and I think
it is only fair that if this work is to be sold,
these parties should be protected. These per-
sons living along the line would sooner have
the State control the canal than any private
individual.
Mr. MILLER. If that amendment prevails,
it will impose upon the company an obliga-
tion to do that which they are now under no
legal obligation to do, and never have been,
These scrip holders and creditors of the com-
pany referred to in this amendment, hold
debts which the company owe, debts con-
tracted by the company, on which recovery
must be had if suit is brought in a court of
law, against the compainy itself. We cannot
sue the State for those debts. The State,
since 1842, has taken no action whatever
upon those debts. If they are barred by lim-
itation on the face of them, the debts are
gone just in the same way that the creditors
of any private individual cannot recover
after the term has expired by limitation. At
this day the scrip holders, if they wish to
recover those debts must bring their suits,
not against the State of Maryland but
against the Chesapeake and Ohio canal com-
pany. They have no claim upon the State
for them. If they cannot recover them as
against the company, if the company has
not property enough to pay those debts, those
creditors are in the same position as every
other person is who trusts an insolvent cor-
poration, and in no better position.
What is the object of this amendment? It
is to clog a sale of the State's interest, in its
effect, with a condition that all those out-
standing scrip debts shall be paid before the
sale, or secured to be paid before the sale is
made. They amount, upon the statement
made in the report of the comptroller of the
present company, to over $300,000 for post-
notes, as they are called in this report.
What did these creditors receive when they
received that money? Did not they know
they wore taking the notes of the Chespeake
and Ohio canal company and not of the State
of Maryland?
Mr. HEBB, I do not propose by my
amendment that the State shall pay those.
Mr. MILLER. I know you do not. That is |
not the reason I object to the proposition.
But I say those creditors knew they were
trusting the company and not the State.
This provision requires that before the State
shall sell its interest in this i'anal, tire com-
pany shall secure those debts. Now, if the
company has not got money enough to pay
those debts, and nothing to mortgage to
secure them with, how in the world can such
a provision as that be carried out? It is an
effectual clog on all sale whatever. What
right have those creditors, those scrip holders,
aimplJ,- contract orod'tnra nf nn anaolvent
corporation, to come in and ask for their mo-
ney upon debts due by this company years
and years ago? Is there any law in that?
Is there any justice in it? It is not proposed
thait the State of Maryland now shall assume
and pay those debts; but the sale of the
State's interest is to be clogged by this en-
cumbrance, in favor of the scrip lioldera
and creditors, to an amount of more than
two millions of dollars, who have lost all
remedy unless they fall back upon a party
who never saw- one of those scrip-notes, who
does not know what the terms of the contracts
were. These are merely promises to pay,
like an ordinary bank note. I say the recov-
ery upon them has gone by limitation since
1842, twelve or fifteen times over.
Mr. HEBB. I will state to the gentleman
that the canal company has by resolution
agreed not to take advantage of the limita-
tion of the statute; and has issued a large
number of certificates and bonds upon which
the creditors have obtained judsimeiit,
Mr. MILLER. Then the creditors have the
judgments. How does the sale of the State's
interest affect their rights under them? If
property is seized, or you can get judgment,
ttie sale of the State's interest ought not to
affect it in any way whatever. An illustra-
tion was put the other day by my friend from
Baltimore county, perfectly unanswerable. If
I am a stockholder in the Chesapeake bank
to the amount of $150,000, a nd the baink has
outstanding notes and obligations and debts
to the amount of $200,000, andi wish to sell
my interest in the bank to anybody, does
that affect the right of the noteholders or
creditors of the company to go against the
corporation and pet their claim? Would it
not be a most monstrous proposition to say
that las a stockbol'ler in ibis b.ank should
not sell out my interest unless I secure all
those outstanding debts? That seems to be
the proposilion.
When the State comes into these internal
improvement companies, it takes the place of
a private corporator or stockholder in it, and
financially occupies no other posilion what-
ever. it is just like an individual. The
sale of its interest in this company should be
clogged with no other conditions than the
sale of the interest of A, B, C, or D in the
company. That appears to me to be a plain |
