Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1868-01-08

state Bank Of Tennessee.


Some a1citement prevails in regard 70 the re-
demption Of the notes Of The State Bank by the
bonds or other funds Of the State, which Of
interests the taxpayers and note-holders Of the
Bank.
We have devoted some thought 10 this subject,
and advised with the best Of legal minds, we'll as
consulted The charter Of The Bank, and the judicial
construction given 10 certain portions Of said char
ter by our Supreme Court.
That the State il lisble for tho redemption Of the
outstanding issues Of this Bank we do not believe
and that the Supreme Court Of the United States
before whom this question is pending win sustain
this view Of the subject, we have no doubt. Yet
there are those who believe otherwise, and per
haps a. conscientious 10 their conclusions those
who coincide with our opinion in the premises.
When we look 10 the law however, under which
this Bank sprang into existence, we end not sec
tion clause syllable word which, by the most in
tense torture can be construed 10 bind the State for
the issues Of the Bank
The act establishing this Bank provides an ordi-
nary, or If desirable an extraordinary, ineopora-
ton for certain purposes, among which is to raise
funds Tor Common Schools, County Academies and
internal Improvements This incorporated Com
pany, under the title Of The President and Direc-
tore Of the State Bank Of Tennessee was clothed
with authority, among other things, 10 Issue bank
notes, which, far as indebtedness TO the State was
concerned, was recognized as money on condition
they we're made payable and redeemed in gold and
silver coin.
The State continued TO scrupulously perform It's
promises in regard 10 receiving the issues Of this
Bank for taxes, and other monies due the State as
long as the Bank kept is faith and redeemed ils
issues with gold and silver coin.
Tie Bank violated its contract BY failing 10 re-
deem is iote aad by every principle applicable to
contracts the State was relieved from all obligations
on it, psrs But Il il said the State was interested
Ia, and derived profit from the Bank, because Of
being the s:ockholder in said Bank and that there
fore the State is bound for the liabilities Of the
Bank.
This in our opinion, is not good law Il is a
principle recognized by the Courts Of the country,
that the stockholders are liable no farther than the
extent Of their stock taken in incorporated compa-
MES, and when they have paid this they ere dis
charged. The State paid over its stock TO the in
corporators Of the Bank aud is therefore discharged
nom any further liability.
But coneedng that the charter binds tho State,
and that certain notes Of the Bank were issued on
such conditions rs TO bold tho State responsible for
them IL would be madness 10 assume that the notes
issued BY and IN aid Of the rebellion come within
ire BaFview Of The law that is appealed to on this
point.
No laca il more universally known and admitted
than tina, the Bank was used as an instrument Of
the rebellion: that thousands Of Confederate sol
diers were paid for their feryices in Its issues that
il was seized by those engaged in armed hostility 10
the government OF the United States, and while
making war, "open and asgrsnt," on The loyal peo-
pie Of the State they removed its assets beyond the
limits Of Tennessee and controlled the Bank con-
trEry - law.
That the State is not liable for any Of the notes
Of this Bank put in circulation after the treason
able seizure" has been strongly intimated by the
Supreme Court in the case Of Niehol vs.. Furman,
and expressly decided. We mi ght say that before
the State, in the strongest possible contingency,
could be made liable for the issues Of the Bank the
no,e-bolder must show he received them before
is,ch reasonable seizure, and before the repeal Of
she charter BY She last General Assembly. We feel
confident that il the note-bolder had faith in the
supreme Court Of tho United States declaring the
state bound 10 redeem these notes by receiving them
for taxes or otherwise that they would not accept
the bonds Of the State under the law now proposed
for their redemption nor would they bring such
prsssure 70 tsar in order 10 have the bill now pend
ing become law. Upon the happening Of the
passage Of the proposed law, the note-holder would
no doubt test the question of show far the State
nav be ultimately liable fer the Issues of this Bank
and II successful they would not accept the depre-
eis,ed bonds of the State, when the Courts would
give them par money dollar for dollar
But it may be wise for them TO push the law
through, and in the event Of adverse decision of
this question, they could fall back the action OF
the Legislature and accept the bonds. For the
same reasons We think it would DO equally wise for
the Legislature 10 await the action Of the Courts.
II the forthcoming decision is what many OF the
best lawyers r the State predict the State may or
may not redeem these notes, as she may determine
upon principles Of moral right and apancAl policy
As the note-holders have appealed unto Gear"
Jet Cszar decide at least for the present
We have felt called upon 10 say this much at
present. ana may perhaps say mere on the same
subject In tins future.