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

Perty,and calling SPECIAL meetings ofthe stock
holders, &c.
9th. Provides that the powers of the execu-
tive committee, in regard to discounting &C.,
be regulated by the articles of association.
9TH. Provides for the annual meeting Of
the stockholders, for the appointment of an ex-
ecutivs committee.
sth Provides against divulging the secrets
If the company.
9th Prescribes what number ofthe commit
tee may constitute quorum for ordinary dis
counts and what number for general bust
ness.
10th Defines of whom the exchange COM
mittee shall be composed &c,
18th Prescribes the kind OF notes that may
be received for discount.
10 Requires all the officers except the Pre-
sdent to give bonds and provides for their sal
aries.
18th Prescribes the duties of the cashier
We furnish the foregoing abstract from the
Democrats copy Of the association of McEw-
en-, King & Co, for the purpose of laying be-
fore the public the 'achole evidence, which this
document furnishes. We happened to meet
with very decided anti-bondman at the Of
flee ofthe Democrat, when we called with the
view of seeing this precious document, and,
after cusorily examining it, we confidently
appealed to him and asked him if he, upon the
evidence furnished in that instrument could
consider Judge Shattuck stakeholder in the
McEwen King & Co.'S bank, and liable for The
issues of that institution. He .candldly repli-
ed he certainly could not, that there are num-
bers of individuals in this community, who
stand in precisely the same attitude in regard
20 the Real Estate and Snag banks of this place,
who had never been regarded as stockholders
nor held liable for the issues of those ,institu-
tons: they had been satisfied with the general
plan proposed in the instruments of writing for
banking, but upon discovering the course which
the members were generally disposed to take
in carrying the institution into operation, they
had pradently declined consummating their
membership by taking stock" Such were
the inferences which'a jealous but candid DEM
ocrat drew and unhesitatingy expressed in re-
gard to this baseless fabric OF facts, from which
the editor of the Democrat has thought him
self justifable in assailing the character Of
Judge Shattrck, with such volley of SANDER
Gus inuendos,and unwarrantable. aspersions.
The articles of ASSOCIATION upon which
these wanton charges in the Democrat, are
based, are nothing more or less than the ex-
press eS terms ola plan, upon which. the SUBJ
scribers agreed among themselves, to enter in
to the business Of banking upon certain con-
ditions being complied with by the subscribe
bers to the instrument. The signing of this
instrument created MODIFICATION to the public.
Before the parties could come under oblga-
tons, to tie public, their operations of bank
ing must have commonwealth mere subscrip-
ton to this instrument could Of itself create
| no such Liabilities. The signing ofthe gener-
| al ag cement was an inchoate act towards a
membership of the association, which might OF
might not beEconsummated into a full member
ship, according to the subsequent determine
ton of the party or his ability to comply with
the terms imposed upon him. The third rule
we have quoted al length shows Tat some
thing more was requisite IN the McEwen,
King & Cos Banking association than 5 mere
subscription to the general terms Of agreement
to constitute person "stockhoIder" and to
entitIe him TO the benefits expected to be de.
rived from the institution.
An inability to comply with the conditions
enjoined, or more accurate observation Of the
course Of policy, which the subscribers might
seem inclined to pursue in their banking oper.
atoms, differing from the original views enter
tanned, ould justify the proprety ofreceding
from an enterprise attended with such imn
ent hazard.
The latter was the case with Judge Shat
tuck.
When this institution commenced its bank
ing operations its issues were made in tn
name of its stockholders its credit was OBJ
tanned upon the faith and solvency Of its "stock
hCIders'' and its liabilities we're assumed IN tn
name ofits stockholders" and not in that {
the subscribers to the original articles Of agree
ment. The company was partnership {
stakeholder and their liabilities attached i
them in that character.
Tho question then arises, was Judge Shat
tuck a astockhoIder!s If he was, will the Den
7 ocrat inform US, what amount of stock he owl
ed, and from what source he derived his info