Nays—Messrs, Annan, Belt, Carter, Cham-
bers, Crawford, Cunningham, Dail, Daniel,
Davis, of Charles, Davis, of Washington,
Dent, Earl, Ecker, Galloway, Greene, Henkle,
Hoffman, Hollyday, Hopkins, Johnson, Jones,
of Somerset, Keefer, King; Lee, Mace, Mar-
key, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Negley, Nyman,
Pugh, Russell, Sands, Smith of Carroll, Smith
of Dorchester, Sneary, Swope, Sykes—39.
The amendment was accordingly rejected.
Mr. KING moved further to amend the sec-
tion as follows:
Insert after the words "banking corpora-
tion" the words "except such as are"
Strike out the word "except" and insert
the word "and."
So that the section, if so amended would
read—
" The general assembly shall grant no char-
ter for banking purposes or renew any bank-
ing corporation except such as are now in ex-
istence, and upon the condition," &c.
The question being taken, the amendments
were rejected.
Mr. DANIEL moved to further amend the
section after the words "shall be liable," the
words "in proportion," so that the section,
if so amended, would read—
"The general assembly shall grant no char-
ter for banking purposes, or renew any bank-
ing corporation now in existence, except
upon the condition that the stockholders shall
be liable in proportion to the amount of their
respective share or shares of stock," &c.
Mr. DANIEL said: I offer this amendment
in order to render this section certain in its
operations. It was suggested yesterday, in
the course of the debate, that possibly what
the stockholders had paid in might be squan-
dered, and the debts of the corporation might
be very great. The corporation may go on
improvidently and contract debts far beyond
its stock. Now, my object is to make the
stockholders liable in proportion to their
several shares,
Mr. NEGLEY. Suppose one of the stock-
holders is sued. Are not all the rest of them
liable in equity to prosecution? If so, what
is the necessity of this amendment ?
Mr. DANIEL. It may be they are liable in
proportion to what they have put in. I un-
derstand theft counsel have given it as their
opinion that they may be liable for their pro-
portion, not for the whole amount. That is
the question I want to meet, that they may
be required to contribute to the amount in
hand; or, if the whole fund is squandered, it
may amount to nothing. I think it is per-
fectly proper to make the stockholders liable
for the whole amount of the debt in propor-
tion as each man has shares in the bank, so
that it would put a restraint upon banks,
and would cause stockholders and others to
look more narrowly into the management
of the funds of the bank. And I think it
will in every way throw a guard around the |
management of banks, if every man knew
that in proportion to the stock he put in he
was liable for all the debts of the bank, and
not for the dividend merely, or for nothing
if the funds were improvidently managed.
It will make every party who puts money in
a bank, liable for the amount of his interest
in the bank,
It is to meet that question which might be
doubtful, with the present wording of this
section, and which I think is doubtful; and
which might be construed to mean simply »
dividend, or something else. I want every
man who deposits in a bank, or who is not re-.
sponsible for its management as a manager,
director, or stockholder, to have the security
that his money shall be forthcoming on any
contingency, so long as the stockholders have
property enough to pay the amount.
Mr. SCHLEY. The amendment offered by
the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr.
Daniel) refers specifically to the liabilities of
stockholders of banking institutions that
are to be rechartered, or are to receive new
charters. This question has already been
before the convention in three forms. First,
as originally reported by the committee,
making the responsibility referring to the
residue of the stock subscribed for and not
paid in, then by the action of the conven-
tion that degree of responsibility has been
stricken out. And the question, therefore,
now is whether the responsibility to the ori-
ginal amount of the stock shall be adopted
here, or the enlarged responsibility as pro-
posed by the gentleman from Baltimore city
(Mr. Daniel) substituted in place of it. It is
manifestly unjust and iniquitous to enlarge
the responsibility beyond the terms of the
contract, and to make a man responsible pe-
cuniarily for misfortunes, it may be, entirely
beyond his control, I hope therefore the
amendment will not be adopted.
I must also say that whatever degree of re-
gard I may have had for the amendment
adopted yesterday, and which has been re-
considered to-day, lam convinced, upon fuller
deliberation and consideration of the subject,
that it is dangerous to ineddie farther with
this financial question upon hasty proposi-
tions, As has been well said, it is a very
tender and ticklish subject; one but little un-
derstood in these times by even the best finan-
ciers. And therefore it is not to be supposed
that gentlemen, whose ordinary avocations do
not incline them to a full consideration of
financial matters, are probably well posted upon
the subject. I therefore hope that this section,
which appears to me to have had the sanction
of years and experience, as it now stands,
and which, after a good period of deliberation
not only in the committee but in the conven-
tion has not yet been changed very materially
from its original status in the present consti-
tution, will be permitted to stand without any
farther change. |
