Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1897-03-13
ANOTHER STEPHENS VETO.
Prohibiting Corporations From
Preferring Creditors.

Jefferson City, Mo. March l2-(SpeciaI1
Governor Stephens is evidently determined
10 get even with tho Demo-Peps in both
houses Of the Legislature who have sought
10 embarrass his administration because
of his. veto OF the Peers hanging bill. He
sent 70 the senate to-day q veto of senate
bill No. II. which has the following title:
AN act TO constitute the assessments OF
irsolvent corporations a trust fund for the
benefit of creditors; and TO prevent prefer
ences of creditors by insofvent corporations
or in contemplation of Insolvency and dis
liqridntion; and to rpreyide for the .appro-
priafion OF the assets of 3nsolvent co-Dora-
lions to the payment Of al OF their credit
claims"
The principal reasons of the governor
for refusing the bill arc:
The bill makes a decided innovation in
the well established law of this state, and
viii unsettie questions that are now not
open 20 discussion. IL scens 10 ms, that n
will lead to a great deal of litigation. There
are occasions when individuals and co-por-
Htsons should he permitted 10 prefer one
creditor to another. To prohibit such pref
erences in toto would put ~ OUT of the
power OF an embarrassed person or corpor-
alton TO obtain temporary aid or exien-
sions. It has been the settled poliry. Of This
state since the earliest reports to hermit
an individual to prefer creditors The su-
preme court has said: 1T is difficult to see
upon what basis of principle "A distinction
can be eS-ta biisned between its "a co-nor.-
tioRl right TO exercise the powers of owner
ship In respect to such property and tho
right OF control within the Limitations Of
good faith conceded in similar cirrum
stances 10 an individual The right OF the
latter TO give preference to one creditor
over another Is usually grounded on the
power OF disposition incidental 70 the own
ership OF property, That ground exists
with equal strength as TO a business cor
poration in this states';-
1T Is class legislation Of tire piainest
sort a corporation is an artificial person
and its business and trade relations In the
respect covered by this bill. are precisely
The same as those of material person
II Il is desirable TO do Il thing so radicsi Il
as to take away from the owner and nos
Sessor of property the right of disposing of
TO corporations Why should this class of
citizens be singled out and their business
operations embarrassed by such an attack?
Why do not the same reasons exist for de-
privinE all persons of the right 10 dispose
of what belongs TO them?
THE tendency of this sort of laws Is
wrong They discourage enterprise and
seem 10 spring from too prevalent dis
position 10 strike at the prosperity and
thrift which arises from the Fundamental
right Of every person TO make free use of
his own property. Every man who has
had experience in those communities where
business corporatious operate knows that
with them. with individuals they are
often under the highest moral obligation
10 give rather than TO withhold such pref
erenceS as this bill prohibits. In the state
of the law as IL exists they are often able
10 live through business crises. pay labor
and creditors. and avoid ruin. ny securing
accommodations which are given only on
the agreement that. IL disaster come secur-
tty Will be furnished TO the one who. in the
borrowers peril. puts up his money TO
meet his debts. Hamper these corporations.
take away their rights to promise security
or to give IT,, and many wifi die that would
Otherwise lite and prosper.
The real mischief and rank injustice
which this bill. under the guise Of fairness,