The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-01-28

Mr. CLAY | wish to isquire whether this is the bill
o MAKING roads ads leading Sa s.s
s have very different opinion about II from that
pressed By the senator from Illinois. shall certainly.
The PRESIDENT The bill will be read.
The bill accordingly read together with the
amendment OF the committee, directing the amount with
held TO be applied by the legislature of Missouri 10 roads,
canals, and works of Improvement within the limits OF
the sad State.
Mr. CLAY Mr. President, Il think a. a proper ,ime
when am in better state OF health, shall be able to
prove 10 the Senate that Missouri not creditor OF the
general government, for that two per centum fund 10 the
amount OF cents but that the contrary the general
government is greatly The creditor Of Missouri refer
ence to that two per cent fund But sir. really came
to The Senate this morning with reluctance. having
been conhned day two by indsposition, and being
lsd No. ~ .sei = 81 sss q Ss ~, fsSsss
me passage 81 5s 6 n \ e q i9a u S1ss af ~
posponement as would enable me to present to the
Senate the views which have upon the subject, accord
ing TO which lihnk can show that not one farthng is
due from this government TO the State OF Missouri.
Mr., BENTON. have no objection TO short post
ponement of the bll-say till to-mouow--and there
lore move that ii be laid on the table, with view to
| taking il up 10 morrow morning
The motion was agreed TO.
UNION cAs.LrcHr COMPANY DISTRICT OF
LuMBiA.
Mr. MASON In behalf Of some OF the people OF this
District whom in part represent here, TO certain ex
tent under the orders OF the Senate ask the Senate
take up the bill to he Union Com
last session. II will occupy but few minutes, and
shall be glad il the Senate will take i up.
bin taken up for consideration and read second time,
| MIR. WALKER Think MIR. President there ought
10 be provso in The latter part OF the bill which in
hb,s banking, and therefore offer the following amend
ment:
P,opidsd That holders of stock in said company, tho
time any debt or liability shall be incurred By said com
such de bt or LIABILITY to the amount OF stock they may 90
hold or have held"
Mr. HALE asked for the reading of the section
| amended; which was then read as follows sU
Iad be it further enacted That OF The stockholders
in the Union Gasgh C,npan shall be liable, in his or
Individual capacity, Tor all the debts aud liabilities OF
aid company however contracted or incurred to be re-
covered by other debs liabilities, before the court
havns jurdcton Of the Provided That hoier; Of
stock said company al the time any debt OF liability
shall bo incurred by sad company, shall each lie mo
ydualy and severay liable for any such doo, or lia
held held ~
| Mr.. WALKER. | perceive that the amendment i.
inappropriate and therefore withdraw IT, would call
attention. however, TO the bill, which makes no provision.
il will be perceived to the lime of the liability 1t 10
for the Senate TO determine whether they will x that or
| not.
Mr. HALE. hope the bill will not be reported to the
Senate i, is. would ask the chairman OF the commit
it is the reques, OF the stockholders that this quail
Mr. MASON. Why, sir we had bill before US no,
long since extending the charter OF insurance companies
in the District OF Columbia, in which the House OF Repre-
sentaves inserted such provision as this and the Son
refused TO strike out II was for that reason the
committee put similar provision in this bill imysslfdo
not agree TO it, but thought il had better remain.
Mr.. HALE. am not gong 10 make any noise about
this BILL but opposed to the principle that Is here in
@ b. b.
senator from Wisconsin (Mf. WALKrR1 is far as the
national legislation ought TO co. and far as the public
safety requires US TO that s to make the individual
stockhoider liable for the amount Of his stock. am
utterly opposed to the principle OF making the individual
stockholder personally responsible for the whole OF the
debts o the corporation and without making any fur
ther noise about it, will not vote for the bill II the other
provision is retained IN II.
Mr. UNDERWOOD II understand this bill rs re-
ported by the committee, il makes each individual stock
holder liable for all the debts created by the corporation
without regard to his amount OF stock. Now, that is
certainly wrong and that il not the principle adopted
in reference 10 the insurance companies. The principle
which adopted IN the case OF the insurance companies
was, make them liable for the amount OF their stock
That prov ison stated by the senator from New Hamp
SHIRE regarded sufficient guarantee 10 the
pubc-as not unreasonable unjus, 10 the sockhod
ers Blu, this principle of making them liable Tor all the
debts OF the company would be outrageous, II seems to
me, applied to The interest OF a single sockhoder
The debts contracted may be thousands or hundreds Of
thousands and the stock held by the individual may be
hundred or five hundred dollars and if you make him
liable Tor the whole of these debts without regard to the
amount he holds, may operate to his utter prostration
and ruin forever do hope shall limit il, as we did
in the OF the insurance companies, TO liability, in
OF the failure of the institutions, TO the amount OF the
stock which each stockholder holds That far though,
ii right go the other case. and that far am viii
ling to 20 now. hope IL will be so modified
Mr. MASON am apprehensive, Mr. President, this
unhappy little bull VIII kln0ne1e ana mere
fore strike that section relating TO individual
liability, and to substitute the amendment which was
offered by the senator from Wisconsin, (Mr. WALKER
il but subsequently withdrawn
i Mr. UNDERWOOD | think the senator had better
strike out the words "or have held in that amendment
The proper amendment, in my opinion. that should Be
made TO make the sockhoder liable for the amount Of
the stock he held at the time the debt contracted
That was the principle adopted AT the time we dis
cussed the other case, according TO my recollection
| Now, sr this amendment as II stands Will operate
in this way Ii sell my stock TO after the debt has
been contracted one part of that provision holds re-
sponslbe for the amount which he holds and also for
the amount which have held 40 that here is double
responsibility for the same stock IL my consruchon
correct therefore, that provision is certainly wrong.
| Will not the gentleman modify il 40 ~ 10 NY 1.-The
amount of stock held by him at the time the debt Was
/ contracted p 8
1 Mr. WALKER. That is Just what il does now az.
acty except that IL expresses what time he 10 TO be
held liable for the debt which contracted fMr w
here read the amendmentl II will be perceived that il
they held il at the time the debt ontracted then they
viii be held liable for the amount of their stock.
/ Mr.. UNDERWOOD. The amendment il certainly
wrong The expression is, the holders OF the stock At
the time the debt contracted shall be responsible for
the amount Of stock that they then held have held"
Now. sir suppose before the debt is contracted holder
of fifty shares has been the OF hundred shares
do you not put the liability him for the whole hun
dred sharesl Such is the construction that will be put
upon the amendment whereas the individual ought not 10
be held liable hut for the fifty shares II you strike OF
the words or have held" il will be right move nat
| amendment TO the am endment. 4
Mr. WALKER. II it is in my power, VIII suner tne