Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1839-08-30
From the Vermont Waterman and State Journal.
"SMlLlE AND BANK REFORM"


on this subject, and the sum and substance
of il ali is this Nathan Smile. at divers
times did propose al amendment TO sundry
bank charters. aud majority composed of
Wings and Pan Buren, men, II the Patriot
would admit the tru'h,*( refused TO adopt
1t. That amendment Is 10 The following
words:
"That the privae property of the President, d..
rectors AVID stockholders Of said COZ poraion, shall
be holden 10 redeem the bills, or notes by them
issued, and be subject 10 attachment. on mesne
process, whenever said corporation shall suspend
refuse pa. ment, in gold aud silver coin, for any
of its notes, bills or obligations"
Aside from this, aud another amendment
which is utterly unlmporlant except to
stockholders, Ito enable them 20 back on,
OF bank whenever 1t gets To be in bad
Odouf all the Other stuff IN the four num-
bers OF Nathan Smile" is bat mere wind.
This, then. ia the grand measure OF reform.
upon which the loco tucn leaders endeavor
10 make up the issue: for this, they would
induce the people to discard every other
matter or thing touching the Interests OF
the state: for this. they wou'd Dust officers
OF the stale government, against whom
even they cannot bring one sound ohi"c'on;
tor thus. they would put man ~ lne Exc.
cutive Office who can bring neither charac.
ter, talents. experiences. nor dignity to The
lalIon; and for this, thew would even for
&T that the frecmen of Vermont have the
slightest interest IN The flairs of the nation,
or in the triumph or defeat o. a vast scheme
perpe'ua,e the power of the Executive
for twenty years o come! Indeed, Nathan
m lil,', pI,po NJ ho
tuOs nffair; or. # il Is not after ail those
who would turn The world upside down
about it, must certainly be SAID to be ma
king much ado about nothing" But we
would not underra,e the consequence Of
his bonlIng of Nathan Smile: it certainly
IS of some consequence. for The eril which
IT. would do. Suppose the legislature OF
1927 had adopted this amendment, where,
we beg to ask, would have been he banks
of Vermont, and The people Of Vermont, IN
the universal suspension OF specie payments
which followed the removal Of he deposits?
That suspension. as every intelligent man
OF all parties will admit, was not the lauIi
Of the Vermont banks. The officers of the
banks were driven to suspend as matter
of necessity; aud they did it also as
matter OF importance to the slate: had
they not done u, The suspended banks in
other states would have drawn out every
dollar of specie in Vermont. The stock.
holders, too, were innocent of any. the
least. participation in bringing about that
Suspension. But mark the blow which
Nathan Smiles amendment would have
brought upon them all: the private property
of every one of them wouM hare been sub.
jeet TO attachment to u /orced sale at nuc-
hon-to an immense sacrifte )or costs and
fees. And for whnse good? Why, no
mans save the lawyer, The sheriff and the
heartlcss speCulatur. who would have
bought up bank bills for The very purpose
ct pouncng upon The property Of some
honest farmer, or some widow or orphan.
who might have invested few hundred
dollars in bank stock. The banks would
have been ruined by the operation, and
rum, too, would have been visited upon
hundreds of innocent persons. The bill
holders, even, would have received no
benefit. for the banks were solvent. although
suspended. and did shortly resume spec lie
payments. Such would have been the
operation Of SMILES grand measure OF
"reform" then, and such would It be on The
recurrence of similar event. 1t was IN
view of effects like these, that he leglsa
ture Of 1927. and almost every legislature
since. has rejected this amendment. On
this ground sulely-viz: the dement's OF the
amendtnent-,t has been voted down, and
would, we venture to say, be voted down.
even IN a loco (ocn Legislature. There is
upon the face Of 1t the rankest irjustice ::
the farmer. with his single share. would be
liable TO lose every dollar Of his private
property; and no means for procuring
indemnify from his brother Stockholders Is
offered him. The largest stakeholder
could suffer no more. This injustice is
palrabe TO every man of common sense ;
and so palpable, that even the most sturdy
clamorers for blank reform cannot get
over il. Let US prove oar assertion from
the columns Of the R.fornNr and Democrat
We quote the following from n commune
cation signed "One Of the People," Gated
Orange Coun'y-the author beng, as we
have unequIvocal evidence in The commu-
nicaton rseIf. the loco toco representative
from Slrafford, in the year 81:
"Fhe ntxi proposition of reform that would
notice. is thai the private property, OF The stock
holders Of all banks, should be holden, TO certain
fIPHt, LOT 'ne redemption OF 'hrIr OilIs men
cay that private property shall he holden, don't
mean that if an individual happens to haze a
.fe,o shares of bank stock that all his private
property ,,phether much or little ,shaH be holden.
THIS MUST BE UNREAS ONABLE but
do say, that private properly sufficient TO ensure
the safety of The public against loss, should be
pledged in some form or olher-pe,haps an amount
equal TO The amount Of capital stock would be
sufficient. Losses. by bank failures, seldom ex.
coed the amount Of capital" &c. Sc
Here, then, is loco Joco authority, clear
1T is little singular ,ha, the faithful. honest,
and impartial historian, who has write, The Pa.
iriot articles from 'Nalhan Smile No !, TO ditto
"NO A." inclusive, should have entirely overlooked
the ayes and noes, taken in 1927, or the very
amendment which constitutes the entire grist Of
Nahan's evenlful political he Perhaps there was
a reason for it--and no other than this that the
ulln, Ilaan arn nndo 50,