Liberty advocate. [volume] (Liberty, Miss.) 1835-1866, 1845-09-06
From the Southron
QUO WARRANTO LAW.

Corporations for barking purposes are
a creation of modern times. On this side
The Atlantic, they are the offspring Of
that go-a-head spirit which invents the
means Of extensive speculatlons, with
the least risk of personal loss. Such cor
porations were unknown to the common
aw. combination Of persons authori.
zed to issue currency without lndlvld-
ual risk TO their persons or property, up
on failure to redeem it on demand, would
have astonished those guardians Of the
law, whose oracuIar opinions constitute
what we call "common law" Anything
to be found in their books is about as ap-
plicabe TO banking corporations which
have grown up under the legislation of
our States, as Gro,en's mare Clsusum,
would be in an action arising from
steam casualty on the Mississippi.
The fact is that at common law, every
man had a right to set up banking. In
the language of Chancellor Kent, at was
common law right belonging to individ-
uals and to be exercised at their pleasure"
In England, this RICH, Of private bank
ing has been often exercised, and such
bankers have sometimes failed; whereup
on, the common law has never failed to
aid the creditors in recovering something
out OF the wreck. do not know how
the fact is in the States generally, but in
The State Of New York, it was in 1904
that the first act was passed changing
the common law right, and taking away
the right Of banking from all persons
no, specially authorized by law in that
State. In Mississippi, private banking
was first prohibited by an oct passed on
the 18th of February, 1910. Up to that
time, banking was not franchise 10 be
exercised by leave Of the Stale, but could
be exercised by any one, provided (for
such was the common law that all the
property and acquisitions Of the bankers
should be liable for their debts. We have
an instance Of common law bank in the
Real Estate Bank of Kinds county. This
bank had no charter, it failed, and its
debts are now under process OF collection
for the payment Of lis creditorS--accor-
ding 10 the common law. If then, the OBJ,
IJCCL VI utI at VI was hOt
to grant the franchise Of banking what
was the effect OF the charters? 1t was 10
enable bankers to issue currency, &c,
without any risk TO their private estates,
further than the amount Of stock each
subscribed. This amount subscribed for
stock and the profits of the concern are
made special fund for the payment Of
the debts of the bank, and in considera.
ton ofth special fund, the charters pro-
tected the corporators from personal liza
bility. Now, | am creditor OF bank.
The legislature having prevented me by
the charter, from resorting to the private
fortunes of the corporators, were they
not bound in common honesty to aid me
in obtaining something from the special
fund, which stands in the place of the La
biity Of the debtor himself at common
! law?
But it is said, that this special fuAd is
forfeited. Let US see. have always
thou yht that forfeiture, being in the ma
ture Of penalty, must be something TO
the detriment Of the party committing
the offence. Now what is the operation
Of the modern doctrine Of forfeituref
These bank directors and stockholders
borrow the money Of the banks, invest 1t
in their estates, and then refuse to pay the
circulation which they have issued -
"Such REFUSAL" says the judge, sis an act
of forfeiture" Of the charter; and "be-
cause of this forfsture," say these new
lights who write for the newspapers,
I''they may keep the money they have
borrowed" II seems to me that ], the