the views of the gentleman from Anne Arun
del (Mr. Miller.) I understood the article to
mean the same as other articles with regard to
banks in other State Constitutions; that
Stockholders of banks should be liable, not
only for all they have paid, but for an equal
amount, independent of their stock; that they
should be liable to the note-holder to the
amount of their stock subscribed for. But
this I now understand to be a totally different
article, and only holding stockholders liable
to the amount subscribed and not paid.
Mr. MILLER I move to strike out the
words "subscribed for and not paid in," in
line five. The stockholders will then be
"liable to the amount of their respective
share or shares of stock in such banking in-
stitution, for all its debts and liabilities upon
note, bill or otherwise." It is undoubtedly
the design of the present Constitution to make
the stockholders liable, not only to lose the
money they have paid in, but if the bank
fails, if the officers squander the money or
contract bad debts, to lose the additional
amount as a guaranty to the bill holders and
creditors of the bank, to the amount of the
shares subscribed by each stockholder.
Mr. STIRLING. I entirely concur with the
committee in the change they have made, and
I hope the amendment will not be adopted.
I have never seen any decision made upon the
provision in the existing Constitution, and
am not aware that there has been any. That
provision has been subject to very great doubt.
There are lawyers who place upon the exist-
ing provision precisely the same effect as the
section proposed by the committee would
have. I have not seen any authority to show
that under the existing provision, if a man
has $1,000 in a bank, and the bank fails, he
can be sued for anything more than the $1,000
he subscribed. I do not think it necessarily
means anything more than that. It has had
no effect except to produce an amount of un-
certainty, so that nobody can tell what it
does mean. Nobody has ever commenced a
suit upon it. As a practical arrangement it
is worth no more than the paper upon which
it is written; and at the present prices of
paper I do not think it is worth that. Will
any man for $10 or for $50, sue a stockholder
and get a judgment against him? The only
possible way would be for the brokers to buy
up a large number of votes, and thus get
enough to make it worth while. So I think
if the provision is intended to be for the ben-
efit of the bill-holders, it will not answer the
purpose.
And I do not see the justice of it. Some-
body may own a share of the stock, who is
a great deal poorer than the broker who buys
the notes at twenty cents on the dollar to sue
upon. The stockholder may have no know-
ledge of, or capacity to know the condition
of the bank. He may be a minor, an orphan,
a widow, or insane, knowing far less about |
the directors or the bank than the man who
brings the suit, having bought up the notes
at twenty cents on the dollar. To protect
the honest holder of bills, the amendment
will do no good, because no man will take the
trouble to sue. for a small amount against in-
dividual stockholders. He does not know
who they are, and cannot find out without a
great deal of trouble. And I believe the re-
sult would be, if the courts were called upon
to construe the section, they would put upon
it as it is proposed to amend it, precisely the
some construction as it certainly bears as re-
ported by the committee.
Mr. PUGH, Does the gentleman mean to
say that there are no such provisions in other
State constitutions ?
Mr. STIRLING. I know there are.
Mr. PUGH. I understood the gentleman to
speak of it as an entirely new thing,
Mr. STIRLING. No, sir; it is one of those
things upon which people differ in this coun-
try. A great many people think there ought
not to be banks. Others think we ought to
have them, and choke them all the time so
that they may not do anything. I do not
think we ought to establish banks, and then
hold our bands on their throats all the time
to choke them. Such a policy operates to
keep honest people from putting their money
into banks; and the States that have adopted
this policy have had a worse banking system
than other parts of the country. The con-
stitutions of the western States are full of
these provisions; and they never had a paper
currency worth a cent. As the gentleman
from Somerset (Mr Jones) states, the wild-
cat banks exist under such provisions of State
constitutions. It is perfectly fair to call upon
a man for the amount of the subscription for
his stock. He knows that be is liable for
that; and such a provision is a guard against
an undue subscription. Every man can pro-
tect himself by subscribing just what he
chooses to pay in. He has become respon-
sible for that amount, and he is looked upon
as liable for it, and it is right that he should
be compelled to pay it. When a man enters
into business with a bank, he has a right to
know what is there. It is their stock in
trade, their capital, and everybody trades in
faith of that. But there is no justice in hunt-
ing up the stockholders who have paid in
their subscriptions, unless you choose to
break down all corporations, and say that
everybody shall trade in a common partner-
ship. Let the banks that are necessary be
restrained by proper regulations—these pro-
visions are all intended to restrain the legis-
lature from making too wide a sweep in char-
tering banks—but do not be so unjust as to
cripple them after having made them. I be-
lieve in making just as few banks as possible,
no more than are absolutely necessary, and
then giving them every facility for transact-
ing the public business. I think the just and |
