Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1857-08-01
For the Standard.
The Bank of the State Of North-Carolina.

For the Standard.
The Bank of the State Of North-Carolina..
MEssRs. EDITORS: In your paper of the 18TH ~.
slant, find a communication from " A Stockholder
of the Bank of the State, in reference to- and ito
certain extenD apologzing for, the rejection OF the
charter rendered by the last Legislature to that
Bank.
"a Stakeholder" is so much afraid that some one
will attribute to the stockholders of that bank some
other than patriotic motives for the they have
thought proper to pursue, that he has voluntarily
declared that I" know that they were exceedingly
anxious to take renewal, and | feel assured that
they were influenced to decline not less by their re.
gard for the public aoeltare than by concern for
their own private gain 0or with not few of them
their mere stock was a minor consideration
Now, gentlemen, | do not charge the stockholders
with having acted under the influence of other mo.
tves than those assigned by some of them; but
do say that It looks very suspicious to see STOCK,
holder declaring his innocence before he is accused
of being guilty.
The object of "a Stakeholder" seems to be to
Justify the stockholders, the ground that the last
Legislature Through ignorance or corruption, 1or
this language is said to have been applied to them
rendered them a charter which was so very obJec-
tionabe that neither "theirsown private gains" nor
the interest of the State at large would allow them
to accept it, Notwithstanding they were SO excced-
ingly anxious to take a renewal"
So that, according to the views Of ga Stockhold-
err" any Inconvenience or injury which may result
from winding up the bank, either to the Common
School or University fund.- to private interests the
credit of the State is to be attributed to the Legs-
lature and not to the bank-A Stakeholder imagining,
perhaps that the stockholders of the bank are more
dely interested in and Jealous for the inter-
ests Of Common Schools, University, and credit of
the State, than the people, or members ofthe Less'
lature, who are their immediate representatives.
That the stockholders had the legal right to reject
the charter without assigning any reason, will pre-.
sumo, be readily conceded by every one; and that
some of the stockholders influenced by purely
patriotic motives will hardly be denied; but as " A
Stakeholder" has thought proper to throw the re-
sponsibility of any evil consequences which may
flow from the conduct of the stockholders in re ect-
ing the charter upon the Legislature it is matter of
interest, and may become matter of Importance, to
place the responsibility upon the proper shoulders.
But, as it is much easier matter to jump to con-
illusions and publish declarations than to assign
good and sufficient reasons for ones conduct, it is
hoped that "A Stakeholder will favor the public
with an answer to a few nterrogatories, which may
virdicate the wisdom and patriotism of the stock
holders, and be much more satisfactory 70 the people
of the State.
1t is hoped "a Stakeholder" will the in
terrogatories propounded in this and any subse-
quent article in order that the public mind may be
informed of the details of the charter. and OF such
circumstances connected with its history will en-
able them to form correct opinion upon the course
pursued by the stockholders and to fix the RESPONSE
bty where it ought to rest.
"a Stakeholder" declares that they were erceed-
ipgly anrous to take renewal" If they were, how
did they show it?
l. Did they intimate to the friends of the bill to
re charter the bank that they could not accept
charter upon the terms proposed in that bill?
3. Did they intimate to the Legislature the terms
upon which they were willing to continue the part
nership?
8. Did they come forward and confer freely with
N T 1atp Il bol HONS olo
and wait for the Legislature to make overtures to
them?
L. Was the bill introduced, printed and passed in
secret, so that they had no opportunity of making
suggestions to the Legislature in reference to it?
5. Did the stockholders who have been so active
in procuring the rejection Of the charter discover
none Of those insuperable objections before the bill
passed and the Legislature adjourned?
Z. If they did, why did they not, with that spirit
Of frankness and candor which should characterize
those who profess much patriotism and unSeltiSh
interest in the wel-being Of the State, inform the
Legislature that they could not and would accept
re-charter upon the terms proposed in that bill
g. If they wished to continue the partnership with
the State, but objected to the details of the BILL why
did they not inform the Legislature Of that fact and
suggest what would suit them?
Q. But if they desired to discontinue the partner
ship with the State, and wished to wind up the bus
ness of the bank would it have been dScourteouS
disrespectful to have informed the Legislature of
that fact?
TO- Was not their refusal to inform the IegSla
ture that they must either have better charter
than the one proposed discontinue the partner.
ship and wind up the bank, act of discourtesy to
the Legislature?
IL. Did they not know that the Legislature would
charter one more banks to supply the place of
the bank of the State if it had known that bank
would refuse to take renewal upon the terms pro-
posed in that bill?
~ l-,o ~.
sdering, at the time the bill was introduced to re-
charter that bank large number Of bills proposing
a considerable increase in the number of banks and
the amount of banking capital in the State?
10. Did the stockholders not know that the OBJ
jectonabe features of the bill were all placed there
by its friends and not by its enemies, and that they
might rely with implicit confidence upon the ensu-
ing Legislature, or indeed upon any subsequent LIE.
gislature, to make such notifications of the charter
the interest of the State and stockholders might
demand?
IA. Is there any reasonable ground for the hope
that the ensuing Legislature will pass third bill for
the rc-charter of that bank?
Is. If the next Legislature should fail to rechar.
ter that bank, and the Common Schools University,
internal improvements and the credit of the State
should suffer in consequence of its being wound up,
upon whom should the responsibility be placed?
16. Have not the stockholders, under the crcum-
Stances by the course pursued towards the Lcgisa-
ture and in rejecting the charter evnced culpable
Indifference to, and disregard Of the interests of the
Common Schools, University, internal improvements
and the credit of the State?
If "a Stakeholder" will answer the foregoing in
terrogatores and few others hereafter in reference
to the details of the BILL he will very much oblige,
ONE OF THE PEOPLE.
For the Standard
DISCUSSION AT CARTHAGE.
According to previous notice the candidates TO