the money in the bank, and go into a scheme
of wild speculation, and utterly ruin the
institution before the public is aware of
it. I do think it is a salutary restriction
upon banking institutions. If a director
wants money, be can get it from a neighboring
bank without any trouble. There is never
any inconvenience in that—would not be in
Baltimore, or anywhere else—and I hope for
the safety of all persons outside the banking
institutions, that the provision of the old
constitution will be inserted.
Mr. NEGLEY demanded the yeas and nays
upon the question of reconsideration, and
they were ordered.
The question being taken, the result was—
yeas 34, nays 23—as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Annan, Belt, Carter, Dail, Davis, of Charles,
Ecker, Galloway. Harwood, Henkle, Hoff-
man, Hollyday, Hopkins, Hopper, Johnson,
King, Lee, Mace, Markey, McComas, Mitch-
ell, Miller, Morgan, Mullikin, Murray, Neg-
ley, Parker, Russell, Sands, Smith, of Carroll,
Smith, of Dorchester, Swope, Sykes, Wick-
ard—34.
Nays— Messrs. Abbott, Barron, Brooks,
Chambers, Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel,
'Davis, of Washington, Dent, Earle, Greene,
Hatch, Jones, of Somerset, Keefer, Kennard,
Larsh, Nyman, Pugh, Schley, Sneary, Stir-
ling, Stockbridge, Wooden—23.
So the 42d section was reconsidered.
Mr. NEGLEY submitted the following amend-
ment :
Section 42. Amend by inserting after the
word "otherwise," in the sixth line, "and
upon the further condition that no director
or other officer of said corporation shall bor-
row any money from said corporation , and
if any director or other officer shall be con-
victed upon indictment of directly or indi-
rectly violating this article, he shall be pun-
ished by fine or imprisonment, at the dis-
cretion of the court,"
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I hope the gentleman
from Washington county (Mr. Negley) will
give us some sensible reason forgoing into
the details of criminal legislation in the constitution.
This is a matter competent for the
Legislature to enact at any time. Are we to
go into the business of establishing a certain
crime known neither to the common law,
nor to the Statute law of the country, and
not only establish the law but fix the penalty,
and thus introduce into our constitution
itself, * part of our criminal code ?
It was shown here yesterday—if the
gentleman had been in his place to bear it—
from the manner the provision originally
came into the constitution, that it is a perfect
absurdity, an excrescence that never belonged
there. I presume, if he had been here, be
would have concurred in the opinion that
the committee acted wisely in excluding It,
Unless he shall give seme reason for deviating |
in this respect in our constitution from most
of the States, I shall be disposed to vote
against the amendment.
Mr. NEGLEY. There are many and very
grave reasons for the insertion of that article
from our old constitution in oar new. It
needs no elaborate argument to prove to any
mind at all conversant with the management
of banks, that the community cannot throw
around the proper management of a bank,
too great or too carefully drawn safeguards.
If you do not put that clause in, as it is in
the old constitution, you put the entire assets
of a bank at the mercy of eight men, who can
by indorsing and re-indorsing each other's
paper absolutely abserb every dollar of money
in the bank, and keep it employed, so that
the bank ceases to be a public benefit, and is
nothing but a private convenience to the
directors. Eight men may by possibility, if
the directory be so large, obtain a majority
of the capital of a bank, and thereby have
themselves always returned as directors, and
make all the balance of the stockholders of
the bank contributors to their speculation.
Since the adoption of our late constitution,
there have been no failures in Maryland.
There has been no frond committed by the
banking institutions of Maryland. The pub-
lic has not been injured. A few years ago
there was a bank in Lancaster, that absolutely
squandered the whole of a capital of $400,000,
and a great deal more besides, just by the
officers using the moneys of the bank. It is
to prevent such outrages upon the commu-
nity as this, that the amendment is offered.
A few men, a majority of the directors, by
combination with the cashier and the presi-
dent, can have the entire control of the bank,
and use the entire money of the bank; and
in times when there is great temptation to
speculate, they may not be proof against it.
But if you put it out of their power to use
this money, you have the best possible guar-
anty that the bank will be carefully managed.
Use the language that was contained in the
old constitution, and there is not a bank that
will bemismanaged; because they will not
render themselves liable for the penalties
there prescribed. It strikes at the root of
the matter. I don't care how it originated.
It may have been in a drunken frolic. 1
have heard the origin of it. But however it
originated, it is a principle that has been
found to work well, lo guard the public
interest, and to prevent frauds upon the
public.
In times past, there has been a great outcry
against banks. Why? They are a public
benefit, properly managed; bat they are a
public nuisance and outrage, improperly
managed. Insert this clause in your consti-
tution, and you have the greatest possible
guaranty that any State institutions that may
be chartered, will not be mismanaged. Other-
wise, any man who wants to borrow largely, |
