Southern Argus. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1834-1842, 1841-10-26


the necessary conditions" by mortgaglne
property &c.&c., which were requisite TO con.
stitule Linn a ssstockholder' he was not entitled
to share in the profits, and is neither legally
nor morally bound for the losses ofthe Compa-
ny. Its awell established principle Of law
that "a party cannot be liable as partner I'M
less he was partner at the time Of the con-
tract.' (Slarki lO71) The contract ofthe Nc
Even, King Cos banking association was
made with the public when they issued their
bills as company of stockholders" Of which
company Judge Shattuck had never constitute
ed himselfa member.
Was his credit pledged by the use Of his
name to the original instrument Of association!
Certainly not: for the articles of association
shew on their face that there were certain pre-
requisites imposed, with which it was made
necessary to comply before any Individual
should be entitled to the privileges of a "stOck-
holder" or could be made liable for the acts Of
company,with which we had no connection.
We believe we have satisfactorily shown
from the Democrats own document, that
Judge Shattuck is neither morally nor legal
ly liable for the notes of this institution; and
now we ask IN the language of the Democrat
''what must the reader think of an individual"
that occupies so highly important and infuen-
tIal station as the sage and august Editor of
the Columbus Democrat, dealing out. his oracu-
lar dogmas to the great Loco Foco party of N.
E. MissississippiI with all the sapience and
gravity Of the classic bird of Minerva, who
could assert the judges liability, "when he
knew in his soul that facts did exist" which
would go far to "prove The fasity of hi state
ment."
"These facts" were, some of them, in his
own possession, and why did he not proceed
to lay them before the public!" Why
did he not give the facts as they were exhibit
ted on the face of the. instrument,which he IRE
tended to adduce as evidence 10 justify shim IN
applying 10 Judge Shattuck "with unbush NO
effrontery' such unbecoming and unmerited
expressions as "PharsaIcal hypocrisy" fraud
ulent intentions, and faisehood in his state
ment! Was it that he supposed that few per-
sons would be particular enough to call at his
Office to examine for themselves the constitution
and bylaws, which he protested not to be able
to publish on account of tn cir length, and he
would thus obtain credit for openness and can
dor, Wills. the full effects .of a disengenuou Gus
suppression of material facts were accomplish
ed! Why then was it that nothing was said
about the amount OF stock and the valuation of
property attached to so many of the names
whilst nothing appears opposite David o. Shat
tuck! Why was no illusions made to the ma
ture Of the third Rule of the articles of associ-
alton!
These things have an important bearing up
on Judge Shattucks liability, and in arraigning
him before the tribunal of the public, in COM
mon justice it is incumbent upon the prosecu-
tor who volunteers his services and who pro-
fesses to give the facts in the case, to suppress
nothing which would induce. a favorable YER
dict for the accused. This principle perhaps
may not be universally acknowledged as obi
gatory upon lawyer in prosecuting the inter-
ests of his client for fee, but the public are
entitled to truth-and tits certainly binding
upon an Editor, who voluntarily assumes the
position of Censor morum.