Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1876-10-13
reform is Necessary. "

The Reformer, in its issue of Sept. 9th,
publishes the letter of Chas. n. Davenport,
Esq, to the directors OF the Peoples Ma
tional Bank of DrattleNoro, dated Aug. 81,
1876, in which he tenders his resignation as
one of the directors of said bank "becdHse
Of irreconci,d6le differences" between them
as to the management of said institution.
According to Mr.. Davenporps letter these
"irreconcilable differences" arose by reason
of his advocating and insisting that said
bank should loan its money at six per cent,
Uhe rate established by law, but was over
ruled by the other directors who favored
the discounting of paper at the rate of sew
en- per cent.
Now was the resignation of Mr.. Daven-
port a voluntary act on his part, prompted
by his pure love of justice and obedience
to the law fixing the rate of interest at six
per cent, or was it forced resignation,
made necessary in consequence of certain
facts and circumstances then existing, TAX
en- in connection with the provision o: the
National Banking Act, which provides that
leach director shall own in his own right,
at least ten shares of the capital stock of
bbO dSoOCldllOh vi W hlNL hS 10 hliNNtOI
Could Mr.. Davenport be a director Of the
Peoples National Bank unless he was the
owner of al least one thousand dollars OF
its capital stock?
Did he not, several days previous to the
time he rendered his resignation as direc-
tor, propose 10 sell his stock at a certain
premium above its par value, and was not
his offer accepted at the time, and thus a
sale con summated TO an extent from which
no business man would attempt to revoke?
Was not said stock duly transferred by
him to the purchaser, Sept. 4, 1876?
His published letter is dated Aug. 3lst,
but was his letter in fact written or deliv-
ere d 10 the bank or its directors until after
his stock had been sold and transferred as
afo resaid, and he had ceased 10 he stock
holder of the institution?
II 1t was in fact written Aug. 3lst, as the
public letter purports TO have been, then
why was it not published in the issue of
the Reformer of Sept 2d2
Wouldn't it have been just as creditable,
and shown just as much virtue and love of
justice, to have resigned for the causes al
legged, while he was a stakeholder, as after
he had ceased to BIS one?
Again: II Mr.. A. finds it necessary to
raise 5000 and calls on Squire B. (who is a
strong advocate of the six per cent doc
trine), for assistance, and Squire B. is will
ing to accommodate providing Mr. A. is will
ing to allow him Stub shot" or bonus of
$50, to which Mr. A. consents; and thereupon
Mr.. A. executes his note dated July l, 1873,
for $3.50, we'll secured, and receives in ex-
change the check OF Squire b. for $3.50, and
thus procures the money and July l, 1874
he pays the Squire the interest on said note
amounting TO $50, and July 1875 he pays
the $3.50 principal and $3.50 more as interest
for the last year, thus paying the Squire for
the use of his $500 for two years SIS as in
terest and $50 as ''stub-shot' or bonus,
max ing in the whole SIPS for the use Of
5000 for two years; what would be the per
cent or rate of interest the Squire actually
received?
Now if men fail TO put in practice the re-
form they are loud-mouthed in advocating,
are they real or sham reformers2 X.