, 1876-02-03

Tot E'liter Of Tia Chteaoo 7ftbn.~:
Chicago. Feb. 2.--In ananer to tho pubIlcn-
tton in this mornings TntruSE under the above
titlo. we beg 1cayo to submit:
FlrsETho statement that tho caAc OF Butler
"a. WALKER was collusivo aud instituted for the
putpoae Of procuring favorable dooIson from
tho Supreme Court. Ia untruo In fact and in in
ference. Tho Hul: MAS by an actual polteSho}d-
or.-a creditor Of tho Company an ac-
tual elockllotdcr in corporation tho stock OF
vhlost was not paid up. The suit WAS brought
In good fhith to tost his ltahility mud collect tue
dobt. Thcro wns no agreement understanding,
OF stipulation With hlr. WnIkor, Of any kind,
character, Or description. unving bud anco tho
fro OF October, 1871, large amount Of
claima against bankrupt insurance COM
panies for collection, NO woro lol to
examine tho various laus Of this Btate
With tho vlew Of ascortaining whother tboro whs
not aome liability other thau tho asaotn OF tho
companies out OF which collocsious could be
naaao. In tho conrse Of this examination NO
found Tint tho Constitution of 1878 provided
" thRt dues from corporations should bu BecuEed
By auch individual liabilities Of tho curporatora
Of othcr means as mny be prescribed 1y Law"
and that all Of tho bankrupt tnsurauoo coul-
panies Of Chicago had been chartered and orgau-
izo<i under th!s Constitution, and, consequently.
wcro subject to its provisions. Previous to 1869
tho Legislature llad tnken no measures othor 70
regulate insurance companios OF to provide for
tho enforcement Of this individual liability. In
that year tho General Insurance law HAS passed.
bY which Inv all compnuias Waro subjected to tho
supervision Of tho Auditor OF Public Accounts.
WHO waa authorized to o1amino tho capital and
assets and 500 TINT they vcro properly Invested
olarod that tho capital atock Of all companies
organized 11ndor It should DO paid up in full, md
unti! 1t WAS 40 paid up, TINT tho Traetaes md
corporasota should be individually liable for tho
amount OF stock subscribed. It further declared
that al! companies heretofore organized and
thon doing bualneRs IN tho State should he
brought undor all tho provisions Of the law. or
cept that their capital atockH as to amount aud
character, might te1naiu tho sAmo II provided IN
their respective charters. Il further appeared
that the cnartets OF noary ali Of theHo con1paues
voro subject to alteration, amendment. OF 70
poh by tho Legislature. or wore subject to all
fntuto LAWS Which might bo passed. on tho mat
ter OF insurance. With tllcso tacts before us, wo
oamo 10 thcconousion that the Stockholders woro
individually Liable to tho creditors to NJ snonnt
elunl to the amount OF ptock held by onoli. We
Wcro sustained III this oplnlon by counsel Of
larger experience ansi great ability il The pro-
fesBlou. Wo then nntltuted the huts OF butler
u. Walker. not to procure favorable decision,
but 70 procure from tue Supreme Court an ILL.,
depreciation OF tho law, which 80 conceive VIC
had . right to do. 20 long a. NO presented MI
actual caso founded upon fncts betweon real par
tics. II th!s thing hAd boon fiction md NO
Ind Bought TO impose on the euprcmo Court
false statenonta eithor ss to parties or ~ to
fncts. wo would hnve been properly subject to
lust penalties. But NO insist thAt wo wero law
| fully and OF right III thst Court. and that va
rightfully asked lta ioofsiou aH to the law. Tho
itlea promulgated In tho pamphlet signod BY
| tho nlverso counsel tint It IL within tho
rowor Ut any attorney to influence the
| decision OF tic Bup.ome {]ourt On question Of
Law IL, to say the least. novelty in our pTofes-
BionM experience. That Court will certainly feoI
! 1attorad by tho ins!nuattonB Of these gentlemen
| that IL did not comprehend the laHd OF tho
6tnto. II NO had gotten up q fictitious case or
madc mBstatementB, or misled the Court, there
! would 10 just ground for complaint, but this
case wAa Fsalltyi |. was by policy. holder, who
had sustained losa by fro, againbt ntockhold-
er iu q company Of which the capital was not
| paid up. All tho law bearing On tho subject waa
before tho Court. TIM case WAS argued orally,
aud the Court fully informed ~ to tho question
/ Of liability. II the docthion Was o11oneous,
wllsio wo insist that It was not those Is etlos,
forreyewingit- Il anos bar to the'eonsiaerasior,
OF any other OF similar case. II tho Court should
como to tho conclusion that its Judgment was
| not well coDsldered It will probably not
hesitate to opoa It. It ia a common practice for
all appellant Courts 10 reyiew or reconsider tholt
own opiaiona-
EPcond-We do not own ona dollars worth ot
claims aga!nHt any Of those conpanlcs. No did
| not {hor did Mr. Hhufedt) purchase for go Or
auy oshar sum largo amount Of Claims 1rom
| Mr. Wlsheroll, neither did htr. Withe1Gll mako
| this or similar btAtemont to 6ltuon F!orshein
or anybody olso. 80 nuell for these facts AZ to
! tho balance of tho statements. when tho propof
time arrives We shall place them In tho 50 nc
category, HHufE1.pT Il W.s1ovER,
| --