Morning journal and courier., 1880-05-06

! tion, and J. M. Barker of Pittsfeld will go in his place. This action of President Seelys is not at all satisfactory to the Springfield Re publican, which says ssThe special reform victory at Worcester considerably consisted in Dr. Seelye's election, and his refusal to act is discouraging failure to rise to the national emergency. No local duty should weigh with that which the best Republicans of Massachu- setts delegated to the head of the Amherst in- stitution, and his noblsst service to the Amherst students would be in
 leading a righteous cause at Chicago"
 Dr. Seelye can hardly be blamed for his re-
 fusal to go to Chicago, for before the conven-
 ton met which chose him he wrote note de-
 clining to be candidate, and gave it to dele
 gate to the convention who promised to read it in the convention if there should be occa-
 sion. He, however, was persuaded not to
 read the note and no attention was paid to
 Dr. Sselye's wishes.
 4 decision of the Supreme Court of the
 United States in an action brought against the First National bank of Carlisle, Pa, seems to settle that national bank may, as part of 1LS ASk1L4A4Ato Du5lA0SS, ICCSlf0 Sp6Clal u0- posits of securities etc., either with or with out compensation, and that whether the bank is or is not paid for the service rendered it will be liable for the loss of the securities re- sulting from negligence. In the csso referred to the complainant had deposited with the bank for safe keeping $4, 1000 in United States bonds. The cashier gave receipt for them and was in the habit of cutting off the cou- pons as they became due, collecting them,
 and placing the proceeds to the owners cred it on the books of the bank. The officers of the bank were accustomed to receive like de- posits from other persons. No charge was
 mads for this service. The bank was bailee
 without reward. These facts were known to the directors. Ths plaintiffs bonds were sto- len, and suit was brought for their value. The jury found that the officers-of the bank were cognizant of all the material facts relating to the receiving and keeping of the deposits and that the loss was due to gross negligence on the part of the officers. On these facts, the Supreme Court holds the bank liable If bank, says the opinion, be accustomed to take such deposits as the one here in question, and this is known and acquiesced in by the directors, and the property deposited is lost by the gross negligence of the bailse, liability ensues in like man. her as if the deposit had been author izsd by the terms of the charter. But, apart from general principles the National Banking act frees the question from doubt. This de- clares that after the failure of national bank to pay it's circulating notes, stc. fit shall not be lawful for the association suffering the same to pay out any of its notss or bills, CT other wise prosecute the business of banking, ex- cept to receive and safely keep moneys be longing to 1t, and to deliver special deposits" This implies clearly, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, that national bank, as part of it's legitimate business, may rs@ive such Special deposits" and this implication is as effeotual as an express declaration of the same thing would have been. ''Ws do not mean," says the court, that a national bank can icon vert itself into pawnbroker's shop" But it is undoubtedly authorized to receive such se curitiss ns United States bonds, and, whether paid or not, is bound to exercise due diligence for their safe keeping.