Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1877-04-03

follow that future dividends are to be made on
such deposits, notwithstanding the provisions of
section 9? Although the deposit was past trans
action. is not future dividend new transaction
| Mr.. Smith is of op MON that law prohibiting
the payment of divid ends on all deposits over
$1,000, previously deposited, would violate the con-
tract between the Banks and the deposition. But
what is the contract He has stated it correctly
TO repay the money, with such dividends as the
statutes and bank rules allow And the Legislature
has power 10 change the law regulating DIVIDENDS
at pleasure. Ii that body can pass an act requir-
ing Banks to divide all their profits then impose
tax which takes away a large share OF the profits
in the shape of a State tax; then require another
large portion to be set aside as reserve fund /;
then fix the dividends at per cent. per snnum !;
subsequently reduce them to per cent; impose
condition that depositors Of more than $1,000 shall
be charged with the T. 5. tax on such deposits !;
and generally vary the most important proSis-
ions of the laws regulating Savings Banks al
every session,-it is difficult to perceive why the
same power cannot restrict all future dividends to
deposits of not exceeding $1,000. And if the Leg
islatue has power to do all these things, all con-
tracts made by the corporations with depositors
are made subject 10 the legal authority of the Leg
slaturc liable TO be exercised at any session, and
of course are not violated by the actual exercise
of the power.
To allow depositors who hal over $1,000 on de-
post before the passage of the act, to draw divi
dends on sums which no other persons can deposit,
would be to create small privileged class IN the
enjoyment of exclusive rights and benefits.
That this was not intended, appears from the en-
actment of the second prohibition in section 81
which, on Mr.. Smiths hypothesis, would be Who'll
ly nugatory and uncalled for. Nor is his argu-
ment sound that the words transactions hereto
fore had must re fer exclusively to deposits pre-
viously made, as there are other transactions to
which those words m ay and do refer. And so far
as they do refer to such deposits, they do not JUS
tify subsequent dividends forbidden by the second
prohibition in section 0, as dividend is obviously
a new transaction, though declared on deposit pre-
viously made. Nor is the second prohibition void
as violation of existing contracts, for the reason
that the contract is only to pay such dividends as
the law allows, leaving the Legislature at liberty
to change the laws at its Town sweet will"
That many of the changes made have been inju-
rious to Savings Banks against the interest of de-
positors and departure from the true policy of
the State appears to be too plain to be disputed
When this succession of untriendly enactments
will cone TO an end is a question more
easily asked than answered. But it is to
be hoped that it will cease before these
institutions are wholly destroyed by the con-
tinual interference of legislatures, and the
constant agitation and anxiety occasoned by the
unwise and uncalled for fluctuations in the Saw
ings Bank laws. For number OF Yeas past, de-
positors have been kept in fear and apprehension,
not knowing what unexpected and often extraor-
binary changes the next session may bring forth.
Ky