The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1890-10-07

can be shown that the government
has loaned money, and that the Su,
preme Court has decided it proper and
legal, further objections to the bill
must be confined to its detail.
The act of February Is, 1876,
placed in the hands of the Centennial
Finance Committee ST, 100000 OF
government funds to be used In COM
pleting the arrangements for the Cen
tennial Exposition. This money was
to be returned to the government out
of certain moneys after the close OF
the exposition. A bond in the sum
of $500, 900 was exacted for the per
Torrance of the provisions Of the act.
When the time for payment came
this committee refused to liquldAte
the debt to the government, setting
up a different construction of the act.
A suit was commenced, and finally
taken to the Supreme Court, where it
was argued at length, Chief Justice
Waite giving the opinion of the Court,
u. S. Reports, S. G. "a, Otto, ",
page 5OO) which is given in part:
"The act Of 1876 requires the pay
ment of the United States before a
distribution of profits to stockholders.
Not a word is said about restoring
capital: in fact there is no mention OF
capital at all. The act of 1872 is not
repealed. On the contrary, it is left
in full force in every particular, save
that the liability incurred to the United
States is made payable after those
contemplated by the act Of 1872 are
satisfied in full. In this, the United
States made a concession to creditors
but not to the stockholders. Neither
was anything taken from the stock"
holders; they retain all the rights
which the act of 1872 gave them. If
there had been no appropriation by
Congress, the corporation would have
been driven to the necessity of raising
the required means, by borrowing or
a further sale of stock. If by borrow
ing the debt so created would have to
be paid with the others, before there
could be any dividend to stockholders.
If by sale of stock the new stockhold-
ers would come in pro rata with the
old upon the final division of assets.
Congress might have advanced
the money by loan, as well as upon
the conditions it did impose. 1t might
also have subscribed to the stock. If
a loan had been made, and there had
been no waiver Of the legal rights of
the government as a creditor, this
debt would have preference over all
others in the order of payment. If
stock had been taken, the government
would have participated in the final
distribution like any other stockhold-
ers. 1t seemed best, however, not to
adopt either of those plans, and an
other was devised, by which creditors
we're given preference, and the United
States RENTED for their indemnity to
the fund which might remain after
all the debts were paid. To this the
corporation assented, and the stock
holders cannot now complain. Credit
itors were projected, and stockholders
not injured y x + The decree of
the Circuit Court must be reversed,
Ind the case remanded, with instruc
lions to enter a decree directing the
payment of the sum OF 81, 50O,OOOinto
the treasury of the United States by
the commercial board of finance be-
fore n division of the remaining as.
sets of that corporation is made among
the s oakholders."
In 1884 an act was passed loaning
ST., 900, 900 to the Cotton Exposition
to be held at New Orleans. This bill
was fully and extensively debated,
and finally passed by a vote of 1872 to
81. The caption of the bill a
can act to make a loan to aid in the
celebration of the Worlds Indus.
trial and Cotton Exposition.
"SECT1oN L. That the sum of
$1,000, 600 be, and the same is here
by, appropriated as a loan to the
Worlds Industrial and Cotton Cen
tenniaI Exposition, to be used and
employed by the board of manage,
ment thereof to augment and enhance
the success of the Worlo'~ Industrial
and Cotton Centennial Exposition in
such manner as said boa. i of manage,
ment may determine"
In the course of tbs debate the
matter was at all times treated as a
loan, and in nearly every instance
spoken of as such. IL a question to
Hon. W. D.. Kelley, OF Pennsylvania,
Mr.. Bland said:
al will ask the gentle man whether
the provision is in the sac language
as the appropriation in the case of
Philadelphia In that instance the
money was only recovered by the gov
eminent upon suit in the Supreme
Court. In other words, the city of
Philadelphia refused to pay the money
back to the government aud suit was
instituted for it. And | remember
that the gentleman from Pennsylvania
-