The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-11-06
RESPONSIBILITY OF DIRECTORS.

The other day these columns announced
the startling intelligence that the Mechan-
les National Bank ofNewark was minus its
entire capital and some 100000 OF de-
posits. Just before that the certified state
ment of the cashier reported the accounts
as being all right and in good condition.
Stockholders were deceived, depositors were
despoiled, and yet that bank purported to
have and did have set of direct
ors whose names stood high in the
community as men of integrity, business
capacities and financial strength. In the
trust that they accepted they had certain
duties to perform, and amopg those were
the examination of the banks books, pa
pers and monies, verifying of the official
statement with the facts as actually exist
ing through their own personal inspection
and knowledge. They were the safeguards
that credulous shareholders and trusting
depositors had placed on post to protect,
with Watchdog fidelity, the widows mite
and Dives deposits. The trust was one of
apersonal nature and otpermissive of sub
stitution or delegation. Themselves
selected the cashier, and by every rule Of
| morals they were responsible for the cor
rectness of their choice. The bank director,
who countenances an exaggerated report,
the railway director who repudiates his
guarantee, is about on par with the trader
who adulterates his goods, misrepresents
| them or gives short measure. And both
can scarcely be thought to be far removed
beyond the genus pick-pocket II was
their bounden business to know
that what they certified to was in
strict conformity with the truth. 1t was
their duty to feel that the derelictions of
their officials by them appointed must be
part and parcel Of their own repute that
any illicit practices of any form or shade
from venial deception to outrageous rob
berry was as soiling to their own garments
as it could be to the brow of the thief that
purloined. For months, perhaps years,
they have been sailing under false colors
and indulging the trick of alluring EN-
ployees to use false trademarks. They can
not be permitted to enter the
plea Of ignorance in mitigation;
they were chosen because of their assumed
knowledge and skill in the department.
They cannot plead that themselves have
been heavy sufferers for this had nothing
to do with their obligations to protect the
property of those trusted to their vigilance.
The truth is that when persons assume a
responsibility they ought to be equal to the
emergencies. 1t is too much the habit in
the organization of corporate bodies to Sc
lect high-sounding names, and, perhaps
as solid ones, in order to OBJ
tain the confidence of those they
wish to have invest in the
enterprise. Too often it is the case that the
very best of those in the list, too busted
with their own immediate affairs, have not
the time to properly devote to these cor
porate ventures. The business therefore
drifts into the hands and management of
two or three of the least competent of the
directory, and then comes the opportunity
of the smart rascal who knows how to
manipulate details as to hide from
the incautious eye the villanies he
has perpetrated or is Matching.
How best to reach and avert this trouble,
whether by imposing direct liability upon
directors, something more than the moral
ccnsure, or in some other way to hold them
for their derelictions, ought to become
matter of thought and discussion by those
most concerned. AS now constituted, di-
rectors are too lax in watching the interests
of those who have trusted to thor names
and regulations Who knows how many
really bankrupt banks there are in Texas
to-day, or indeed other similar institutions
of trust, that are drifting under the man
agemcnt of careless supervision