HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL. 



to stockholders. If by sale of stock, the new stockholders 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 condi- 

 tions it did impose. It 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 distri- 

 bution like any other stockholder. It seemed best, however, not to adopt either of 

 those plans, and another was devised, by which creditors were given preference, and 

 the United States remitted for their indemnity to the fund which might remain after 

 all the debts were paid. To this the corporation assented, and the stockholders can- 

 not now complain. Creditors were protected, and the stockholders not injured. . . . 

 The decree of the Circuit Court must be reversed, and the case remanded, with 

 instructions to enter a decree directing the payment of the sum of $1,500,000 into 

 the treasury of the United States, by the commercial board of finance, before any 

 division of the remaining assets of that corporation is made among the stockholders.' 



"In 1884 an act was passed loaning $1,000,000 to the Cotton Exposition, to be 

 held at New Orleans. This bill was fully and exhaustively debated, and finally passed 

 by a vote of 132 to 87. The caption of the bill was : 



" ' An act to make a loan to aid in the celebration of the World's Industrial and 

 Cotton Exposition. 



"'SECTION i. That the sum of $1,000,000 be, and the same is hereby, appro- 

 priated out of any money in the public treasury not otherwise appropriated, as a loan 

 to the World's Industrial and Cotton Centennial Exposition, to be used and employed 

 by the board of management thereof, to augment and enhance the success of the 

 World's Industrial and Cotton Centennial Exposition, in such manner as said board 

 of management may determine.' 



" In the course of this debate the matter was at all times treated as a loan, and in 

 nearly every instance spoken of as such. In a question to Hon. W. D. Kelley, of 

 Pennsylvania, Mr. Bland said : 



" ' I will ask the gentleman whether the provision is in the same language as the 

 appropriation in the case of Philadelphia? In that instance the money was only 

 recovered by the government upon suit in the Supreme Court. In other words, the 

 city of Philadelphia refused to pay the money back to the government, and suit was 

 instituted for it. And I remember that the gentleman from Pennsylvania argued on 

 this floor that the Springer amendment did not reserve repayment of the money. 



" ' MR. KELLEY. An amicable action was entered to determine whether it was a 

 loan or a gift. 



" ' MR. BLAND. The gentleman claimed that it was a gift. 



" ' MR. KELLEY. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Springer] appeared before the 

 court to argue that it was a loan. It was so decided, and the money was paid 

 immediately.' 



" Mr. Cannon, of Illinois, said : 



"'The committee, desiring to guard the interests of the government, and to pre- 

 vent the recurrence of the condition of affairs that happened at Philadelphia, namely, 

 the squandering of great amounts in expensive buildings, to guard against the expen- 

 diture, say, of four or five million dollars, provides in this bill that no more than the 

 one million which we loan, and the amount which has been subscribed and might be 

 donated, should go into the buildings; and then the bill further provides to secure 



