New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1847-05-20
Neutral Argument.

NJ. r., Saa. on behalf Of its Barnburning
-. ,hu, argues the Corporate Liability ques-
ton: ,.Ao.a, .,,,c,e on sst,,,
A. ,hs Trbune endeavors TO persuade It's readers OF
,s righteousness OF law which would enable Yen men
worth $4,000 each 70 invest oss.asr
ar manufacturing business get into deot sJvOVVV Nsno
n Is easy 10 stretch credit 10 that amount WIN sucn
esptsl5 and then fsshionsby smash leaving ,ne"
san.bl 10 only the amount OF their invested or SUP
,r,bed csuita with $4,000 each clean shaving IA
pockets and the hundred ruined creditors "i'nou'
particle Of redress
Nov the writer of the above has never read tne
bIll he TINS libels certainly never allowed ms fea
de,. q chance to understand its provisions de
tall. them that by the measure we advocate the
.,o.Lhold.rs NAV ran in debt s5oo,Ooo on the
.,,snotb of capital Of $4,000 dollars-that they
NAV 6lch the whole 100000 and then break, pay
ing nobody, and having 100000 clean iwindie IN
their pockets And his readers, two-thiros OF
them. viii take this for gospel and wonder no" so
strocious measure can have received the votes OF
seyen.eighths Of the Assembly
Now this malignant asperson is not only grossly
untrue, but it applies with scarcely diminisneo
force, 70 the bill proposed, urged and voted J0r IN
the Senate By the BarH6nrn'ng enemies o. me As
seDsbiy bill!
Allowing the True Suns statement TO be cor
rect the stockholders In the supposed case would,
according TO the Senate bill, only have 10 pay
over $4,000 each, or 100000 in all, to the Com
pany's creditors they would still be privileged
BY law to steal $500 900. But in truth the Courts
would compel the restitution Of the whole 10 the
rigbtful owners under either bill. Every nan
participating in pro6tiDs by fraud of this kind
would be held responsible at law for bis share in
the robbery The Individual Liability principle
makes an innocent stockholder liable. to the
teot Of all he is worth, for blunders and villanes
which be had no share in--which he oven did his
utmost TO battle and resist. We cannot think this
just c.;
But the danger from Insolvent Corporations,
what of that Why, Sir, fyou have no frm assn
rance that Corporation is solvent and well man
aged, do NJ trust IL. The rule is short and simple
its efficacy undisputed. If you do trust It, do mt
AK an innocent stakeholder to be responsible for
thousands when he gave you fair notice beforehand
that he would be responsible only for hundreds.
The Assembly bill makes an exception to this rule
in favor Of Laborers, on the ground, we presume,
that the Laborer has often no real choice-his ne
cessity constrains him to work for whoever will
offer to pay him, and he cannot stand to scrutinze
the solvency of the employing party. But who
ever has other property to dispose Of and does not
like the security offered him by buyer, find
another. Yet can any one doubt that the security
rendered by Corporations even teHh0w personal
liability is far safer in the average than that OF In
diyiduals Who that has millions, or thousands
or even hundreds due him from variety OF indl
yiduals Of average pecuniary standing would no
gladly swap it for like aggregate due from Al
many corporations Of average standing II Thu
matter can but be examined in the light OF Reason
free from rooted prejudice orparty passion we fee
sure Of Just and benefcent decision.