Mississippi Democrat. (Carrollton, Miss.) 1844-18??, 1845-07-23
NO. 80.

mount. We have no original grantor Of
lands retaining rovisonary rights, and
nothing could DO more prepostcrous, than
thai man who had sold house and lot
to banking corporation, should claim that
the property for which no had been paid.
reverted 10 him as tho original grantor.
whenever the bank should have forfeited
ils charter. Equally unjust would hold
an eschoat 70 tho state; the grant Of tho
state was d corporate franchise, that, ia ac-
cordance with tho terms Of the grant she
may reclaim; but |. is anlitAmerican 10
seize the property Of individuals; L is tho
plundering practice Of British confscalon.
Our laws provide for the execution Of
criminal, butt is contrary 10 tho genius
Of our government 10 interfere with The
rights Of his creditors, or heirs. Ono Of
our earliest reforms was tho cxpulsion
from among us, Of the English practice Of
confscation, and attaindcr. should be
sorry to see In the minds Of any, n wish 10
adopt a measure so german 10 the oxpel-
led practice even against the now odious
banks.
The law as il stands on tho statuis
book, is expeditions, and seems adequate
to protect the rights Of all parties from The
time the information Is filed alter the bank
has been condemned, there Is no reprioyo;
after il has been executed, ii cannot be re-
vived. If tho bill had stopped at tho death
Of the corporation, il is BY no means pros
bable that the creditors, and stock holders
would have abandoned their rights without
resort to tho courts, and long cumbrous
litigation, must have been tho result
The provision for tho appointment Of trus.
tees, with the guards, and checks il con-
tains, hus made the law, SO far as | can see,
all that we want
Already it has received judicial dcci-
sion in lis favor, tho statute stands The nd
Indicated law Of the land, and !, for one,
prefer to leave Il undsturbcd, until expc-
rience points out It's defects.
Ofthe two classes, creditors and debtors,
the former certainly have tho higher Claim
to kind consideration. Legislation has in.
terfered with the collection OF their debts
thus they were prevented by special law
from collecting of the debtors Of tho iu-
solvent banks, any thing better Than tho
paper of.hosc banks and, at subsequent
period, another law was passed prohibit
| ing the banks from transferring lis bills 70.
ceivable, to satisfy the demands Of noto
holder. II we should now declare that The
| forfeiture Of bank charter cxpungcs its
debts, well may the creditor complain Of
our government as having locked up tho
assets OF tho banks until Il was ready to
apply the sponge to all from which he could
hope indemnity.
Though our present condition forms an
exception, ii is nevertheless general rule,
that the few borrow, the many hold, The
notes Of the Banks il surely must DO elsc-
where than in.the ranks Of tho Democracy,
that advocates are to DO found, eoniending
for the exemption Of tho few, by sacrif.
cling the rights Of the many.
4 Though labayc, 10 answer a position
sometimes taken,) treated the subject as
though Bank under judgment Of forfeit.
ure was convicted criminal, the reverse
10 generally known 10 DO The fact. Tho
Quo wa,rdnio is a civil proceeding; and
corporation, after forfeiture Of its fran
chse, 10 analogous 10 a deceased person.
Aifer the death Of q natural person SUITS
could neither DO brought or defended in
his name, without legal provision TO that
effect, and to my mind, the Trustees Of q
i deceased (artificial person. corporation,
are no more Than the Administrators or
Executors Of deceased natural person.
81