The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1895-11-20

II Is NOFEMDEN ~.
should be left to the general assembly
Mr.. George Johnstone said he coulc
give them the history of this ac
known as the IS per cent. act" They
had adopted this act because the radi
cal rag required it. The gentleman
from Spartanburg speaks of creditors
The creditors inquire into the credit ot
the person to whom they are extend
ing it. Can't the individual inquire
into the condition Of the corporation
Certainly they can. Yesterday we
incorporated provision for public
examiner to inquire into the condition
of the corporations. That is the very
best method to control the corporation.
Others should be considered. Look al
the orphans and widows anG women
Of your land; almost Invariably their
scanty earnings are invested in these
corporations, because they cannot be.
come active agents in business. And
here it IS sought by the gentleman
from 3partanburg to have the invest
ors responsible, almost entirely re-
sponsible, for the dishonesty of the
corporations. The creditor takes
everything. What more does he
want? am with the gentleman from
York and again move to lay it on the
table.
Mr.. Gage-The Constitution of '6S
leaves the matter with the legislature.
If our Constitution provides that the
stockholder shall not be responsible
above the value of his stock, the world
knows it and it will be no injustice.
AS to the other consideration, if man
puts 500 into the corporation, he
looks after to save the 800, to save the
100 cents and not the 5 per cent. The
clause submitted should be adopted.
Mr.. Haynsworth said: There is an
other reason why this should be de-
feated. I don't think the liability is
proper without incorporating with it
these provisions that protect the inno-
cent creditor.
Mr. Stanyarne Wilson moved to
strike out section Is, but the conven-
ton refused to strike it out.
Mr.. Bryan moved to add the follow
ing to the end Of the section:
Provided, that the stockholders of
every corporation or joint stock asso-
citation for banking purposes shall
also be individually responsible to the
amount Of their respective share or
shares Of stock in any such corpora
ton or association for all its debts and
liabilities of every kind.
There was a running debate on this
motion between Messrs. Johnstone,
Began, Henderson and Sheppard.
Mr.. Sheppard moved to table, but
withdrew the motion.
Mr.. Gage thought the matter should
be investigated fully. No one would
deny that stockholders were liable for
100 per cent. The difference between
banks and other corporations is this:
You start factory with a capital of
$4,000 and the plant is liable, but
bank has capital of s25, 900 and has
deposits of 1000 I think those de-
positors should be secured. In order
to make it secure, that people should
90 there and deposit this money, Of
fer this substitute for the amendment:
Provided, That stockholders in
banks or banking institutions shall be
liable to depositors therein, in a sum
equal to their stock, and over and
above !he same.
This amendment was subsequently
withdrawn.
Mr.. Bryans amendment was tabled
by a vote of SIS tc IL.
Mr.. Ragsdale then spoke. Why do
the banks want to be relieved of the
responsibility It is a sound trust
fund, and they ought to be liable for
something more than their stock. II
they get in shaky condition the
stockholders are the first who know
anything about it. What considera.
ton does the depositor receive for de-
posting his money? Very rarely
anything. These stockholders are the
owners Of the bank, and if they take q
mans money and lend it they should
be responsible for it.
DR.. Timmerman-As rule banks
don't do business on the money of the
depositors. They do it on the capital
stock, and when we undertake to say
that stockholders shall be responsible
we virtually drive out banks. No
man of sense would put his money in
bank if this prevailed.
Mr.. Stanyarne Wilson offered the
following as substitute for the whole
matter:
Section is. Debts Of corporations
shall be secured by such individual
liability of the stockholders and other
means as may be prescribed by law.
Mr.. Wilson spoke in favor of his
substitute.
Mr.. W. ]. Montgomery thought no
stockholder would take stock in a
bank if this provision was in force.
He was in favor of Mr.. Stanyarne Will
sons amendment. We could not tell
what restrictions would have to be
placed upon banking institutions in
the future They were doing as much
for the State today as any one thing
in the State Every one would &C.
knowledge that the establishment of
local banks had been the means of do
ing away with the ruinous commission
business, enabling the farmers to run
on a cash basis.
Mr.. Montgomery said he was always
in favor Of regulating SO as to control
corporations. but he did not wish to
pass measures to choke them off. At
the banquet last night there was much
talk about the future prosperity of the
State. They should not now try to
keep such institutions out of the State.
It was part of the history of South
Carolina that, without a bank eXamin-
er, there were fewer failures of banks
in South Carolina than anywhere else.
The other point was that these institu-