Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1855-11-15
..Ranks and Ranking.n

prevented us tlom giving earlier attention 10 your
editorial of the 5th inst, in which you suggest The
following question for Virginia G's'' 10 answer:
ais the contract of bank with deposition an ser
press conlruct7'' a fair examination OF the ques
ton will. We think. Justify an affirmative answe Ell.
.E1Ptess coaracts.'' says Mr. Justice blackstone.
care those in which an agreement OF promise is
expressed by words orln writing" TIE contract
with depcsitor, who takes certificate of depo
Site ii must be admitted is an express contract, for
the agreement is expressed in writing; but the
agreement may also be expressed in words, and
underlL definition, we think the dopositor, who
has his deposite entered on his bank book, 10 the
debit Of tie bank. by the proper officer Of the
bank, can justly claim that his agreement with tie
bank IS as express and oS well understood as that
of The holder Of certificate ofdeposiie. Again.
if be objected that the deposition eau not so claim
because The common heading OF his bank book
does not contain promise 10 pay on the part Of
the bank. although The bauk therein acknowledge,
its indebtedness; and that for this reason, the
contract with such deposition is not an EXPIRE s
contract; surely this heading could be readily SO
altered as to embrace such provision, and thus
ri-e it all the binding validity of certificate Of
de7osite. But we have no idea the rule of law
would make any such objection. And we are right
certain if it should be decided, which we presume
TO be your opinion, that there is no express con-
tract on the part of bank TO pay its depoStorS,
but simply an implied contract (for all contracts
are either express or implie,lI resulting the
Justice and reason of the Transaction; that is, it
would be right TO pay them, and this right the law
might possibly recognize and enforce; we say if
this be the fact. We certain, there would be
less number Of dePostors and much smaller
amount of depostes. But may Lave erred in
p:esuming this to be your opinion, and ii so would
be glad 10 be corrected. We may add in this con-
nection, that we have not relied solely on our own
opinion in this matter, but have presented this
question to gentleman Of this city, whose legal
judgment will hardly be questioned, who had no
le>i,ation in giving his decision, that the debts of
bank to its dePostors are express contract
debts" and such are provided for in the char
tsEs OF the stock banks.
We desire here 10 correct position you make lis
assume. You say. alt is argued that tLeir safety
Chat iSof the stock banks,l lies in the individual
liability the STOCKHOLDERS" We do not so ar
que. Wearsue that the security lies in the ind-
v.dual liza bilily Of the stockholders. We say as
yu correctly quote, and in substance admit in
subsequent part of your article, 'The safety OF the
depCstor lies equ lily in the capacity and integrity
OF the Offices Of the old banks nd the stock BANKS
We a!i, 20 which We suppose you object, 'the
security is wholly with the stock banks" The
safety Uf man regards his soIyencY and ability
10 ply is one thinE,1he security OF auUthrr nnn,
which guarantees that payment is another and We
~ different thing; and it is in This respect We
claim lha preference for the stock banks; they
give that recutity which the old banks do not
,he,r Stockholders not being liable.
You object farther that ''all the real funds of
the stock banks pledged to the note holders.''
We ask IN all sober earnestue>s are the notes or
Londs Of the State any more 'real funds than the
notes OF bonds of individuals? II they are, then
by much mole are the bills receivable of the
stock banks better than the bills receivable of the
old banks, for malt of the Jills receivable of
the stock banks are the bonds OF the State. while
tue bills receivable OF the old banks are wholly the
notes and bonds of individuals: and by SO much
the are the stock banks better able to protect
their circulation, in as much as both Gases OF
bill receivable are applicable to the redemption of
the notes ofthe bank. the failure 10 redeem which
is the first evidence OF weakness on the part OF
bank, and that whichresuIts ultimately in lis dis
credit and failure. II. however, they are no mole
real OF better fnnds.' then your objection wholly
fails, and the depostor is not injured, but in co u
mon with the note holder benefited, by setting
apurt the assets OF the bank for one class of
CREDITORS aud leaving another part equally good
for the other class, and making the Stockholders
individually liable for any deficiency that may &C.
cur in either.
With your permission we will now suggest
question OF two. You say "You admit the old
bank charters silent as 10 depostorS, but make
the assets Of an insolvent bank JiSributabe pro
rata among all its ereditors'' The charters Of the
old banks do however prescribe what ore obIign-
tons on the banks and by consequence those who
are their creditors. By your own showing, which
we believe to be correct. the charters are silent as
10 depoStos query: ore depositorS creditors?
And query second, if creditors are they not sub T.
dnate to these whom the charters point out as
such; and who consequently become preferred
creditors; and thus 10 use your own language " i'll
not they the depostors, have to take what is leftl
We frankly admit that are not learned in the
Law, and therefore submit these queries to your
legal skill and judgment, knowing that we shall
receive satisfactory answer.
We'hink we have now clearly shown in this AMI
our former Communication that, in relation to de-
tositots as well as note holders. the stock bank
system is certainly nat defective. but affords to both
with an equal safety, an ultimate security. which
The old bank system does not.
Before going further in this controversy to which
we begin To think we are probably committed. we
lesre 10 say, we are not the advocate or opologst
Of the RiternaI Improvement policy OF the State,
which we presume will ind its defenders else.
where. We are not the advocate of a Free Bank
Ing Law. such as is now in vogue in some of the
Slates;s and should such law be pressed upon
our Legislature we would urge restrictions such as
would be equivalent 10 special charters. We are
not the avocate Of an Increased Stale debt un-
less it be necessary to do in order to secure