well founded, in the same proportion as the
State banks are forced into liquidation, in
that proportion will their stocks from time to
time become more and more depreciated?
Were they ever of higher value than they
are now? Was there ever. an opportunity
when larger amounts could be obtained for
these securities than can be obtained now?
Is it not wise, when we find that we can get
par and more than par for this property, to
avail ourselves of the opportunity, particu-
larly when the application of the proceeds is
to be made to the extinguishment of a cor-
responding amount of our own indebtedness?
Why should we continue to hold stocks
merely for the sake of being a holder of
stock, and at the same time remain in a cor-
responding amount of debt? Would any in-
dividual here, finding himself in debt to the
amount of $100,000, if he had assets from
which he could realize $100,000, continue in
that condition and remain in debt; knowing
the fact that his indebtedness must be paid,
and that the probability of his realizing a
corresponding sum from his assets was only
a probability? the one certain; the other, at
this time equally certain, but in the future a
matter of doubt?
We know now that we can sell our bank
stocks and obtain an amount of money suf-
ficient to retire a corresponding amount of
the public debt. But we know not what may
be ill the future. They may be so seriously
affected by the force of events and circum-
stances we cannot now foresee, as to be ren-
dered comparatively valueless. These views
influence me earnestly to ask the house to
consent to confer the power upon these fidu-
ciary agents, in the exercise of their vast
discretion, looking to the circumstances that
surround them, to dispose also of these bank
stocks if they believe that the public interest
will be subserved thereby.
For these reasons I adhere to the proposi-
tion I have offered. I think it best secures
the public interest. If we dispose of these
securities at all, we may be sure that there
will be a party of an interest antagonistic to
the State's interest, which will be in the
market seeking to posse si themselves of this
property, I will not venture to say what
influences there will be; but I have my own
opinion that when this commission enters
upon the exercise of its power, they will find
that all their wisdom, all their skill, all their
ingenuity, and all their integrity will he
sorely taxed to enable them to acquit them-
selves properly of this highly important pub-
lic duty.
Mr. PUGH. I wish to ask the gentleman
from Kent what is meant by the words "as
can be sold or exchanged for not less than
an equal amount of the present public or
stock debt of this State." Does it mean
from the sale of the works in the aggregate—
the aggregate amount of the sales? |
Mr. CHAMBERS. No, no, no. The parties
are authorized to sell no stock unless for
such stock they can get an equal amount,
dollar for dollar, of the debt which is to be
liquidated,
Mr. NEGLEY. If the convention adopt this
amendment, it will entirely preclude, as I
understand, the sale of all stock which can-
not be sold at par. Therefore the very ob-
ject which the State is most interested in at-
taining will be completely defeated. It is
not an object so much to be desired for the
State to get rid of its paying stocks, stocks
that you can go into the market with and
sell at par or for a premium, because that is
not much of a burden upon the State, But
you cut off by this amendment the sale of all
those stocks that are entirely worthless to the
State, and that are now used for no other
purposes than as the means of political cor-
ruption. You would not be able to sell the
State's interest in the Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal, nor in any of these numerous cor-
porations that are now under pair. What
would be the use of getting rid of the profit-
able part of your stock, having the unprofit-
able part on your hands? You ought first
to get rid of the unprofitable stock, if you
can. Now is the time, now that stocks are
up. If there ever was a time when the State
ought to sell its unprofitable stock in the
public works, it is now. This amendment,
which precludes the State from selling its in-
terest in these unprofitable works, utterly
defeats what it ought to be the main and
principal object of the State to accomplish.
I shall therefore vote against the amendment
of the gentleman from Kent.
The amendment was rejected.
The question recurred upon Mr. RIDGELY'S
amendment.
Mr. MILLER, I move to amend the amend-
ment by striking out the words, "also the
State's interest in any banking corporation."
I offer that amendment to test the sense of the
house upon the question whether it is the in-
terest of the State to sell its stock in banking
corporations, while it retains its interest in
the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company.
I could not agree with my friend from Balti-
more county (Mr. Ridgely,) that there is
any danger of the banks of this State not
continuing to pay dividends or continuing
solvent. Whatever may be the future con-
dition of the country in regard to the sub-
stitution of the national banking system for
the present banking system, I think that they
will be able to pay off in full the entire
amount of their stock and their deposits.
Or if they choose to go into the national
banking system, it will be equally profitable
to them. It is a profitable investment for the
State. It is entirely free from all political
control or management whatsoever. The
banks have no interest in politics. The in-
terest me State Holds in them never has been |
