The Arkansas banner., 1844-12-11

 only promoted the of the Bunk by facilitating is operations but realized By their nyesnen profit the Bank of upwards of thousand dollars oraeeong the opinion of Davies about in making such negotiations preserve the credit of the Sate but the Secretary the Treasury raised the character and val of all the bonds i'll which the State of ANans was interested
 enabled Ashley and Bertrand dispose of the thousand State bonds entrusted them and enabled the commissioners themselves, to sell the other thousand bonds belonging the Real Estate bah to | D. Beers before stated From the foregoing if be evident that tie commissioners within the their nstcion We WI" extract farther rom the instruct gwen W lj as FIe sdent the Bank, viz Little Rock ethe 9th 03Slhe words recaiepa not Jess a par oa w the opinion of the board of directors fully authorize sale al less than value abroad Ii the
 e expresses receive par value home and the bank realizes not less than value from the proceeds of e sale in specie or is equiv aen And conclusion of said instructions Davies uses the follow ing lansuageAs heretofore you again left exercise your discretion and judgment in all things connected with mission, and with hope lat may carly terminate faydly lSee exhibit marked t) With this information before the committee the last
 session of the Legislature (and they had right make the charge of anscendng the bounds of their instructions unless they knew what the instructions Were3 hemaoy of that committee could have the conclusion that the commissioners had not acted within the legitimate scope of then suens for thus far, we see no violation of them in any particular
 With the above facts, and the testimony of Ashley and Df Laurie n yi would any unpendeed sane man come to the conclusion
 that the compensation gyento the broker Cocomn extravagant? See lis testimony
 And the compensation given to Seye for his services as Gomnns onef 2o00 This according the testimony of Ashley and Newton, not eXtyagant, and for the responsibility risk and trouble which he underwent this business, certainly thing but what reasonable and right
 Upon the of funds upon the Southern and Western Banks the eai Estate Bank was enabled to realize and did receive more than par value And prove that the interest ohe Bank to have had her capital within the vaults of the Bank the testimony
 Itappears from the testimony of Mr. Woodruff herewith submitted that the Southern and Western Banks resumed specie payments the first day of January lS39 and continued to pay specie until
 Then the Bank had ample opportunity have obtained and Western finds with the advance aforesaid she had desired do and if she failed avail herself of that opportunity, and there some loss upon small of Mississippi money ceaIy not the fault Of the Gomnssones For they had placed her capital convenient to her. and points suitable her operations without loss, cost insurance, and this certainly M that ought to have been expected of them.
 The committee also find testimony A. H. Seler became subscriber for stock, the Real Estate Bank the 10th day of September @ that hs mortgage 10 secure the me, was eXecu ted to the Bank porto September 1887 a the land morgagd valued at the 32 200 and that he exercised all the p veges of soehoder in said Bank until l84l when he transfer red said stock Joel Johnson with the eansent of the Bank See NeWtons tcstinony.)
 The contract between Seye and Bank consnated when he became stockode in accordance with the provisions of the charter and the legal effect of was that he became creditor and the Rea Estate Bank s debtor m the u sum oi fifteen thousand dol lars equal half the value of the lands mogaged The thus made binding both parties and could no be a fected impaired subsequent action of the board of directors, without violating constitutional noysion
 Under this contract when seyier turned the Southern and Western funds Davies louisville already spoken of he retain ed the of i430O The majority of tie committee of the last session of the Legislature concluded that he had right do this; and of the grounds Of their conclusion that he had not fected his stock Upon this point would remark that he had and exercised the privilege of oSoder Jas according the tes hnony he hae the mere form Peecng his e was unnecessary in order give him inc right to the sum of money aforesaid
 If the committee, their vigilance had turned to the pmpletaes of 1886, page ls5, they would there have found passed aid of e giving the persons to whom andoce certificate had been gyen the power mortgage the lands mentioned the ce cae for stock in the Real Estate Bank full and ample the land called for in his certificate paented and fur whose district the land lies should be gyen stating their belief whether the would be patented Hence, contend that the pecng of the title stock did not effect the between the Bank but here deem proper that the failure Seyer perfect his sock because his right the mongagd quesoned but because of the ncompeency Judges Baker and Johnson sit Judges and render Circuit Court of Chcot county See the testimony of Johnson and Baker
 Then is clear from the above facts and the the Legsla ture that Seyier sockholder.
 The 7h section of the charter of the Real Estate Bank provides that each anu every ofoder shall be entitled credit equal half of the total amount of his stocks"
 then appears that Scve ad the Bank stood in all the relations of debtor and creditor and ought have been governed by the law that regulates between debtor and creditor
 There is principle in civil jurisprudence generally reog- nzed better settled than that the creditor possesses the right aning the money of the debtor in his hands isa principle by all classes in tie community, and the justice of the practice nquconabe as its legality If the debtor honest correct in his dealing, he will object because, pesumed that precisely what he would do hmse and if he unwilling pat furnishes the strongest for making the appropriation The d- and president of the Real Estate Bank, knew and eo nzed this principle of Justice and than likely that nyc- would have been quconed but for the very ygan committee of the a session of the Legislature The attorney who collects money for his client authorized to retain the services; and would ask what reasonable thought denouncno breach of trust or any way wrong? What would be listened who had malice folly enough make the charge On what ground the retainer authorized? Obviously because there is debt due from the client the attorney and implied promise to pay it. have fears in asserting that there is substantial diff ference between these and the retention the stock by Sey In fact he occupies the solid ground because