52 



BAGLEY, JOHN J. 



BANK SHAKES. 



good hammering with his pen. Few topics 

 escaped his attention, and he took an active in- 

 terest in political and social questions, quite as 

 much so, in fact, as in those usually considered 

 to belong to the ministerial profession. This 

 was shown in his opposition to the early aboli- 

 tionists of the Lloyd Garrison type, his ear- 

 nest advocacy of the colonization scheme, his 

 joining the Free-Soil party, his strong siding 

 with the Union cause when secession became 

 decided, his vigorous support of the movement 

 which secured the repeal of the "omnibus 

 clause " of the Connecticut divorce law, etc. 

 Leonard Bacon will hold an honorable place in 

 the records of the nineteenth century, and it 

 may be doubted if there be any one in the 

 Congregationalist body who can adequately 

 supply his loss. 



BAGLEY, JOHN J., ex-Governor of Michi- 

 gan, died in San Francisco, California, July 27, 

 1881, having gone to the Pacific coast in pur- 

 suit of health. He was born in Medina, Or- 

 leans County, New York, July 24, 1832, his 

 father being a native of New Hampshire and 

 his mother of Connecticut. His school educa- 

 tion was obtained at Lockport, New York. At 

 the age of thirteen he went with his father to 

 Michigan, settling at Constantine, in St. Joseph 

 County, where for a brief period his time was 

 divided between a clerkship in a village store 

 and farm- work. At the age of fifteen he found 

 his way to Detroit, and secured employment in 

 a tobacco-factory, and when twenty-one years 

 old engaged in the same line of business for him- 

 self, continuing therein, either as sole propri- 

 etor, partner, or stockholder, until his death, 

 accumulating a large property. He was also 

 largely interested in other manufacturing cor- 

 porations, and for some years was vice-presi- 

 dent of a national bank. He served Detroit as a 

 member of the Board of Education, as alderman, 

 and as a member and president of the Board of 

 Police Commissioners. In 1868-'69 he was 

 chairman of the Republican State Central Com- 

 mittee, gaining great credit in conducting the 

 campaign of the former year. In 1872 he was 

 nominated as the Republican candidate for 

 Governor, and was elected by a large majority, 

 running ahead of the Grant; electors. He was 

 re-elected in 1874. During his administration 

 he was the firm friend of the charitable and 

 educational institutions of the State, and urged 

 legislation for the promotion of their interests 

 which he regarded as the interests of the 

 State while his words of official commenda- 

 tion were supplemented by liberal contribu- 

 tions, especially to the university and to the 

 State Public School for Dependent Children. 

 To his recommendation as Governor the State 

 owes the change in its method of dealing with 

 the liquor-traffic from a dead-letter constitu- 

 tional and statutory prohibition to effective 

 taxation and restraining legislation. In Janu- 

 ary, 1881, he was a candidate for United States 

 Senator for .the term commencing March 4th, 

 but was defeated in the Eepublican legislative 



caucus by a single vote. In 1855 he was mar- 

 ried to Frances E. Newberry, daughter of a 

 pioneer missionary, who, with six children, 

 survives him. Governor Bagley was a liberal- 

 ist in religion, and was actively identified with 

 the Unitarian Church at Detroit. 



BANK SHARES, NATIONAL, SALE AND TAX- 

 ATION OF. A provision of the National Bank- 

 ing Act makes it unlawful for a national bank- 

 ing association to loan money upon, purchase, 

 or acquire its own stock, except to prevent loss 

 on a debt previously contracted. A share- 

 holder, who has parted with his shares to the 

 bank, can in the event of subsequent insol- 

 vency be proceeded against the same as the 

 other shareholders. The question whether an 

 innocent person who has sold his shares, with- 

 out suspicion that the bank was the purchaser, 

 is held under that clause of the law, was be- 

 fore the courts for two years, and was finally 

 decided by the Supreme Court at Washington 

 in May. One Laflin sold shares of the National 

 Bank of Missouri to a broker, to whom he de- 

 livered the certificate with a transfer power 

 signed in blank, as is customary in stock-sales. 

 The broker was the agent of the president of 

 the bank, who received the certificate and paid 

 for it with his individual check. He was act- 

 ing for the bank, and the shares were entered 

 on the books in the name of a clerk, and paid 

 for out of the bank's funds. Two months later 

 the bank failed. The receiver applied to the 

 court to have the sale declared void. It was 

 argued that, notwithstanding the good faith of 

 the seller, the transfer was void because there 

 was no legal purchaser, and also that as share- 

 holder he had constructive notice of the bank's 

 part of the transaction and of its insolvency. 

 Justice Field's opinion states that the same rules 

 hold in the case of national-bank shares which 

 govern the sales of other corporation stocks. 

 The delivery of the stock certificate, with blank 

 transfer power indorsed, and the receipt of the 

 price, completed the sale. The transfer on the 

 books was not needful for passing the title. 

 The validity of the sale, without the fraudulent 

 complicity of the seller, was not affected by 

 the subsequent illegal transaction. 



A number of Federal court decisions have 

 been made relative to the State taxation of na- 

 tional-bank shares which favor the State side of 

 the question. In the German National Bank 

 r*. Kimball, in Illinois, the Supreme Court re- 

 fused an injunction against the tax, ruling that 

 the person who wishes to resist a tax as un- 

 equal, must first tender so much of the tax as 

 is just. In the same "State a suit was brought 

 in the Circuit Court, complaining of the law of 

 1880 under which the assessments were made 

 as granting exemptions to stockholders of cor- 

 porations other than banks. The court held 

 that it was not the true effect of the law to 

 discriminate against bank-shares. In Ohio the 

 Circuit Court ruled that compulsory process 

 may be issued by the State courts, requiring 

 the officers to make an exhibit of the accounts 



