The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1870-05-26

the State is as clear: as il would be
against the individual stockholder. n Tho
In the one case as in the Other.S Nor Ia
Fit lessenad because in the case OF the in.l
dividual tbs order or decree could en-.
force his duty, while in the case Of the
State its courts have no such process.
But it cannot be supposed that O State
will need any process, when it has the
sense OF duty in regard to its obligations
announced in its own courts. If the
State had not withdrawn from the Bank
the whole of it's capital, the creditors of
the Bank would be paid. TO those who
would become creditors of the Bank,
the State had pledged that capital. At
various times the courts of the State
have declared that the capital of the
Bank was pledged to its creditors. The
pledge of the State and the judicial de-
claration of it in the case of this Bank,
was that which had been everywhere de-
clared to be the law governing such
corporations. The principle that the
capital belonged in the first place to the
creditors of the corporation, and not
until they were satisfied, to the stock
holders, is settled beyond dispute. And
equally we'll settled is it, that stock
holders who have withdrawn capital be-
fore the claims Of creditors are satisfied,
will be forced to bring it back.
The statement that the whole of the
capital has been withdrawn by the State,
has been made very positively by Mr..
Furman, the President, and Mr.. Waring,
tho Ia u1,inr nd D,oll l>o, l.
of its correctness.
In giving force to the Act OF 1888, and
recognizing the prior equity of the Gre
ditors under that Act, could not fail to
observe the pledge of the faith of the
State which it gave to those who, in that
matter. became its creditors. UnQucs-
tionably the creditors of the Bank have
right to nsk of the State that it's pledge
in relation to that bank be redeemed.
They only ask the Slate to give back to
the Bank that which belonged TO it
which was its property, and which be-
longed to its creditors, and is their pro
perty.
In the discussion Of the case some
thing was said concerning the inhibition
of the State to provide for the bill
holders, because of the amendment to
the Constitution forbidding the payment
by the seeding States Of debts con-
tracted in aid of the war The point
thus raised cannot be sustained. In the
first place, the claims are against the
Bank, and the State is involved because
it has taken the assets of the Bank. The
Bank can have no more reason to ques-
tion its liability in regard to its bills than
would any other party to q contract who
had entered into lawful engagement
during the war. But another reason is
all sufficient. It is proved the bills now
in question were not issued in aid of the
war, but to relieve the necessities of the
people arising from the loan of bills of
an older issue to the Confederate States.
If any bills came within the terms of the
amendment referred to, it is the bills
which have been redeemed by the State,
by the issue Of it's bonds.
It was also said that the bills proved
in this case had been purchased at low
rate, and that the claim for their face
was unjust and extortionate. It would
not be easy for one who had sold these
bills in open market, at less than their
face, to purchaser bona 6tle, to come
into Court and claim that he who had
purchased should not receive from the
Bank moro than he had paid for them
and it would be equally difficult to un-
derstand how the Bank could claim that
it was only liable for the amount paid by
each purchaser for its bills. Within q
comparatively recent period, the public
securities Of the State were sold at very
reduced prices. If the objection now
made to these bills be we'll taken, it
would seem to be equally applicable to
all public securities. And yet. few things
would more affect the value of the pub
lie securities of the State than such an
objection seriously pressed by those hay
ing control of it's affairs.
But this objection considered in con-
nection with the Bank ceases to have any
claim to consideration. When the Bank
issued its bill, it promised to pay the
holder the amount specified on its face.
That promise was made either to create
valid legal obligation, or to work
fraud. AS it is not conceivable that it
was made for the latter purpose, it must
have been for the former. For every
bill that it issued, the Bank received con-
sideration. For. that it made promise
that is contained in the bill. Aud there
is nothing afterwards and between other
no oo kIot ooo