Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1857-07-18
For the Standard.

For the Standard.
EDITORS OF THE SrANDARD-Gentlemen: In your
editorial of the 18th instant on the rejection of the
charter continuing the Bank of the State of North
Carolina until 1885, you very correctly take for
granted that in the future operations of the Bank,
the same liberal aid heretofore extended to the
treasury of the State in its financial affairs will be
still continued and that the business OF the nstitu
ton will be conducted in such way as to produce
as little detriment to the public as possible. Indeed
there is need, in winding up its affairs, that any
embarrassment should precede or follow the expira-
ton of it's present charter. Neither is there any
need with wise legislature at the helm that ten
twenty local banks should be created to supply the
place of the Bank of the State. If bank is
established with large capital and power to create
| branches where they may be needed whose provis-
ions will command the confidence of capital the
demise Of the present bank will not be felt. II
none such is established it will be the fault of the
legislature, and not of the capitalist
In some respects however, I think that your
remarks calculated to prejudice the stockholders
in public estimation. l ksow that they were ex-
ceedingly anxious to take renewal and l feel
assured that they were Influenced to decline, not
less by their regard for the public welfare than by
concern for their private gains, Cor with not
few of them their mere stock was minor consid-
eration) If, indeed, the latter had been their sole
motive it cannot justly be the subject of censure,
for the State did but propose partnership and the
terms not being deemed acceptable were declined.
or, but equal and independent proposer to do
joint business. In this light the meeting received
LDcanvassed, and decided upon the proposal And let
assure you that, although the vote was very
decisive. it. was given with great reluctance. do
not propose now and perhaps never to lay all their
reasons before the public but allow to say that
there were many provisions Of the charter, of high
Importance, which were wholly irreconcilabIe with
each other and utterly incapable of construction.
Persons who have not read them will be astonshed
to find so many within SO small a compass of COM
position.
would not hesitate to appeal for the justification
of the stockholders, to any body party of intei
gent aad impartial men who might be assembled to
decide the question. Besides the ncongruities in
| the act the capital much too large and
wieldy for profit After carefully looking over the
| State for its employment, we were assured by our
President that it could not be used and if it were
possible to it. that it could be done only by stmu-
lang the public into unnecessary loans, extravagant
| expenses, and runous specuation-results which
have ever followed, and will always follow, excessive
| banking.
Now, gentlemen, ought the stockholders with the
apprehension of such evils before them nave con.
trbuted to introduce results so disastrous to the
habits of an economical people and the industry of
our staid farmers? Besides general demoraliza-
ton, the losses to the bank had been ruinous The
subscription Of $500, 900 in State bonds was, you
say, great objection. No time was specified for
their redemption, and the Treasurer did not feel
authorized to give them run of less than thirty
years. Such bonds now at about ninety To
have taken them at par would have been paying
| down at once bonus to the State of $50, O0O-an
exaction, am sure, not contemplated by the legs-
lature. There is no provision for redemption at an
early day, and there is expectation that, within
any reasonable time, the treasury will be in a
dition TO redeem them. The sinking fund is pledg-
ed only for their final redemption at the end of their
time. If the Bank should have been pressed and
sold them, the loss would have fallen equally on
ecery corporator. Now, just suppose that ndividu.
ais had claimed such privilege by subscribing their
bonds, what would have been the opinion Of the
| people?
But the most serious mistake in your remarks is
to be found in the following sentences:
eff the stockholders make fair profits the School
fund and the University fund must make fair profits
also. If the stockholders should be cramped in their
operations and their profits be lessened, the School
fund and the University fund must suffer loss in
their income in the same proportion. The interest
of the stockholders and of the State u.s. therefore,
one and indivisbe; and this being the case, it was
not, in our humble judgment, to be fairly, rea-
sonably, or justly presumed that the legislature
would refuse to make such alterations aud amend
ments in the charter as would be deemed best fol-
them and itself'
| You forget that the School fund and the Univer.
sty stock are not taxable while that Of individuals