and who does not want to go to the inconve-
nience of giving security, will run round and
give bail, and get himself elected director, in
order that he may borrow as much money as
he wants. I know that one of the largest in-
stitutions in my own county, before this con-
stitution was adopted, was nearly ruined just
by that system of directors borrowing from
each other, and lost immense sums; bat it
was not known, and by subsequent proper
management, it was able to recover, and now
stands as one of the best institutions of the
State. But it was commonly rumored, and
was the fact, that the bank was ruined Just
by this system; and lost thousands upon
thousands of dollars, because A, B, C and D,
happening to be directors, and happening to
be on each other's paper, when one failed
they all failed, and down they went, and the
bank did not get a cent of money.
That can be repeated. A, B, C, and D can
be directors of a hank, and can indorse for
each other, for amounts larger than they have
property, and if one fails they may all fail,
and where will the bank get the means?
They are all gone. Their stock is gone.
Everything else is gone. The bank is the
sufferer. The innocent widows and orphans
who have their funds invested in the stock of
the bank as a permanent security, are the
sufferers—not the speculators at all.
There is a reason for the amendment.
They have privileges enough, and it works
no mischief or inconvenience to any one. It
has not in our county. There is no com-
plaint against it. If the officers of a bank
want accommodation, they can get it at
another bank. And it is better for the pub-
lic safely that they should have no accommo-
dation at all than that they should beallowed
the possibility of abusing this privilege. It
is better, I am satisfied, after years of experi-
ence.
Mr. SANDS. With regard to the remark of
my friend from Baltimore city (Mr. Stock-
bridge,) that this is mixing up in the organic
law what pertains peculiarly to the criminal
code of the State, that the objection is not
valid, because the borrowing of money is not
a crime under the criminal code, and is not a
crime at all unless made so by the organic
law of the State. There is a necessity for
ibis provision here, unless you propose to
put such a provision into your criminal code,
which I do not think you have so far pro-
posed, for I have beard nothing upon that
subject.
However this originated, whether it origi-
nated in a drunken frolic or not, certainly
we, as the successors of the Convention of
1850, are not going to charge that they were
all drunk when they considered and passed
and incorporated that provision into the con-
stitution. I know that my friend from Kent
(Mr. Chambers) will bear me out in the as-
sertion, whatever his views may be upon this |
question, that when the house voted upon
this 45th section, they were sober.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Do you mean every indi-
vidual member ?
Mr. SANDS. I mean the house generally,
and my friend specially. The amendment
reads:
" And upon the further condition that no
director or other officer of said corporation
shall borrow any money from said corpora-
tion; and if any director or other officer shall
be convicted upon indictment of directly or
indirectly violating this article, he shall be
punished by fine or imprisonment, at the dis-
cretion of the court."
Now I ask, in the language of the gentle-
man from Washington county (Mr. Negley,)
whit individual hardship does this work to
any man? The officer of one bank, I suppose,
can go to his next door neighbor, if he wants
to borrow five or ten thousand dollars. That
is all the barm it does, to subject him to that
necessity. That is its sole resulting hardship,
that Mr. A being president or director of a
banking association, shall go to Mr. B, mem-
ber of some other association, if he wants the
accommodation of live, ten or twenty thou-
sand dollars. That is all the hardship that
the incorporation of this clause necessarily
works.
On the other band, may not its omission
here result in the robbery of innocent people?
Has it not done so? I believe it has, in
many instances, all over the country. And
if there is this bare possibility,—supposing
even that there never has been a case—that
innocent people may be robbed in conse-
quence of the omission of this clause; and if
all the hardship consists in requiring Mr. A,
a bank director, to go to Mr. B, connected
with another bank, if he should chance to
desire accommodation; ought we not to
adopt it? Are there not sufficient grounds
for retaining it in our constitution?
My old friend near me reminds me of the
old case of the Citizens' Bank which went
through the mill, I believe, precisely ill that
way. There have been such cases, and our
old inhabitants know of them, and we have
read of them, and of the consequences grow-
ing out of them. There have been such cases,
and they may be repeated to-morrow, unless
you incorporate this provision into the con-
stitution, which the committee ask shall be
stricken out upon the two grounds that it is
an interference with the criminal code of the
State, and that the convention of 1880 were
tipsy when thy adopted it.
I say that in all the criminal code—and I
think I have read it from end to end—I have
never read that borrowing money was an of-
fence, even if it resulted in the robbery of in-
nocent people, that could be reached by in-
dictment, trial, conviction, fine and imprison-
ment.
It was necessary in making this provision |
