The Yazoo Democrat. (Yazoo City, Miss.) 1844-18??, 1845-10-15

VOL IL No N


people themselves who gave lie cliartBts ID
the banks and authorised their issues b bs
received in payment Of public dues. Be-
sides nlany of them loaned The n0tgs Of oils.
er banks, for Whick ttey noe hOFd t6e notes
of individuals to an Immense amodsit. And
the debtors If discharged after d Judgment
Of forfeiture are released BY The law other
contracts. Ii must also be taken into con.
sidsration, that Of the igsal number Cf bank
debtors at this time i'll more than one
fourth Or one third Of them are borrowers.
Every borrower was required as Il iswell
known to give from two to three endoFsers
or sureties. Hence It may reasonably BE-
calculated, thai three foufths Or two thirds
at least 81 the total numhe Of ban debtors
are endorsers and suTeties. Did these Get
anything on the contracts Of their princi-
pals fromthe banks And when these en-
dorsers and sureties are released and dis
charged by the law Of their contracts, and
from all legal liability BY due course of
law, where is the moral obligation attach-
ing to theml Take the case Of an endor.
ser on bill Of exchange or promissory
nOte--he simply puts his name on the back
Of the instrument, the common mercantile
law in existence at the time, IS presumed
in law, to have been had reference to by
the parties to this contract Of endorsement
and implicitly to have entered into and
formed part Of IL This common mer-
camille law re lures, that ON demand Of pays
ment, refusal Of the drawee and acceptOr
to pay, protest and notice Of non payment
in due time must be shown to have been
made, and given, 81 endorser Is released
and discharged from liability. And afer
an endorser is discharged for want Of these
legal requisites being complied with, did
any man ever hear Of bis being considered
under any moral obligation 20 pay Just
so the law enters into the contract Of the
bank debtors, and when he Is legally dis
charged, ne is moral discharged.
But some Of the opponents Of The meas.
ure contend, that even after a Judgment Of
forfeiture against bank-even IL the
amendment repealed or Unconstitutional
the bank on It's creditors could fls bill in
court Of chaneeTy Cr equity against The deb
tors, and obtain decree against them for
the amount Of their esnectiye debts. This
opinion receives c0unlepance from but few
Of the legal profession and Palpably abb
ssurd to any legal mind not given to the va
carries Of legal speculation. If this relief
could be obtained IN court Of equity, why
was there any necessity Of passing the
amendment at all Ii Why is no such doc
trine to be found ii any law book whatever?
Why are Kent, Blackstone, Coke, Bacons
and Story silent on the sublecti Why do
Kidd, Wilcox, Angel q Ames in their res
Pective works On corporations say nothing
Of such doctrinel The latter, the work
Of Angel q Ames on corporations, new
and comprehensive work. that after being
approved both By The bench and bar Of the
United States, has passed to second and
improved edition, published in I645-and
which the venerable and learned Chancel-
lor Kent, to whom Il il dedicated in the
chapter in the 9Th edition Of bis Com. on
corporations refers 10, IS containing an
able and thorough examination Of every
part Of the learning appertaining 70 this
head, and as being a performance which.
deserves and viii receive the respect and
patronage Of the profession. A new and
enlarged edition Of that treatise appeared ia
164S, and the work * vastly improved and
admirably digesled,D 2 Kents commenta.
ries 9th edition, p. SO, (note ID Such
doctrine exists only ia the brain and imagi-
nation Of mere visionary theorists, and
spectators, or a few partizan lawyers.
A court Of Equity set at naught the law
and q iudQnent Of forfeiture regularly obs
tanned, whehit is a leading maxim in equi-
", that equity follows the law !" A court
Of Equity relieve a setof banking corpora
tions, who have faudulcnily violated their
charters, when Il is maxim IN equity
that g Re who does iniqnitY shall not havB
equity 1" A court Of equity relieve swinds
ling banks from The consequences Of their
crimes, when il Is an established principle,
that suit must come Into that forum iciih
clean hdadsl'' Aud the band eredilors
could only in that view assert The right of
their debtors the bank corporations. Such
al opinion IS almost too prepospero0s %
require arkunent forleeai men. The cone
dilion Of forfeiture for violation Of charter,
The Judgment 0f iorleiiure--and is conse-
uuonees were founded 10 the time honored
wisdom 81 the common law, and in q wise
and wholesome public policy, as saluiary
restraint, (ihe only one thar could be de-
risedl upon hithless and fraudulent corpo-.
raGons 10 deter them ffon violation and
perFersion Of the privileges conferred On
Them by their chariers-t0 inducs them .
perform ille slipulaiious Of tie charters On
fhasr rr4f-nr.l A. carry ont the Bhieci and