The daily sentinel., 1909-01-01

} ed TO the care of "A bank or similar in
stitution must be made imperative
and enforced. Any bank that is get
ting anywhere near shaky financial
condition should be closed at once,
, and before the money of the deposit
ors has been lost. There has been too
much laXity about banking in this
state, and in every other state, and it
seems necessary that the most rigid
enforcement of the laws be Imperative
/ to put a stop to il, and also better
. and more stringent laws passed for
the protection of depositors.
OF course. the immediate cause of
the failure of the Bank of Ouray was
the rendering of the city judgment
against it for over $4,000, an
amount which ii could not meet, but
| that does not detract from the fact
| that the officers were perfectly aware
| of the fact that such a judgment was
! liable 10 fall against them at any
! time. and they should have made
preparation for it being adverse. AS
| far as the judgment itself is con-
| cerned we do not believe, and never
| have, that il was just or right. We
have studied that matter very care
| fully in all its bearings and details,
including the brief to the supreme
court, and are of the opinion that
4 y
for that obligation on the part of the
old First National Bank, to the city.
| on the old Milwaukee Mining az
| Milling Co. note, is very much to be
doubted, and if it ever gets up to the
| supreme court for review we are of
the opinion that the Judgment of the
city against the Bank of Ouray hand
ed down by Judge Shackleford will
be set aside and reversed. In this
opinion we may be mistaken, but
will never think so until the supreme
court says so.
And right in here comes the stick
ing point If the bank did not legally
owe the city that $4,000, then il
was not insolvent, and the liability
of its officers for receiving deposits
after it was known to be insolvent
would not hold, so that much depends
upon whether the final court holds
the judgment of the city to be valid
or not.
\ But even in the event of the high
court SO holding. still there will have
been shown mismanagement on the
part of the cashier of the bank, for
the amount paid the city since the
closing of the bank would not have
kept it on its financial feet, although
it would have helped materially 81
to do.
There is one very patent fact, and
that is that the people have lost their
money, and the natural conclusion
is that somebody is TO blame, and the
natural desire is that whosoever is
to blame be punished in accordance
with law and justice.
In the recent rulings of Judge
Shackleford We shall hold that three
errors were made. In the first place.
no man should have been allowed on
that jury who was either a repre-
sentative of the depositors or of the
bank-eXact fairness to both sides
would forbid that to any person or
any judge desiring to be unprejud-
iced and impartial. In the second
place. the attorneys of the bank
should have been given the right to
be heard on that subject and TO chal-
lenge it's justice. Third, the bail
fixed was unduIy high and out of all
precedent and proportion.
The more we look into bank cases
of failure the more We are impressed
that the proposed new safety law to
be given us by the incoming demo-
cratic administration is needed and
needed badly. and we hope it will be
adequate in every way to protect the
depositors.