Mr. JOHNSON. And that is now the doctrine. They have more than once reviewed it and always with the same result. That being the case, a corporation, in the eye of the Constitution, according to the doctrine of the Supreme Court, is a person, is a person entitled to sue and liable to be sued in the U.S. courts where the jurisdiction of the courts of the U.S. depends upon the residence of the parties, as we know it does in cases where they must be citizens of different States. That being so, it would seem to follow necessarily that a corporation also is a person who may become a bankrupt. To consider it as a person for the purpose of con: tracting debts and suing for their recovery and liable to be sued to enforce debts which it may owe, and not to consider it as a person against whom any other remedy can exist in favor of creditors, would appear to be almost absurd. Now, what is the remedy which the bankrupt law affords? 1st, the compulsory pro: cess is but a remedy. It is a means furnished the creditor to enforce the performance of his obligation on the part of the debtor, and where it exists it is almost as potential, and is rather more potential in its actual, fruitful results than permitting the creditor to go into the courts and sue the corporation. If it is fit and proper that a creditor of a corporation should be entitled to the remedy of collecting his debts in whole or in part by means of the compulsory process which a bankrupt law affords, why should it not be equally in the power of the corporation to avail itself of the voluntary clause? If we have the right and I do not argue that now, because the Supreme Court have recognized the right of passing a voluntary as well as a compulsory bankrupt law, and if it is right to subject corporations to a compulsory bankrupt law, why is it not, right to give them the benefit of a voluntary bankrupt law? But there are other motives, if there was any doubt on the subject, which I think are persua sive to show that the law should be made to operate upon corporations. I do not mean of course to charge it universally as true of the corporations to be found within the several States; but the most gigantic frauds, the frauds which have done more than anything else to unsettle confidence in the integrity of our people, both at home and abroad, have been the frauds perpetrated through the instrumentality of charters. Everybody can recollect the case of the Ohio Trust Company, chartered by Ohio, composed, it was thought, of some of the best men in that State, and at the beginning so it was. They got involved after receiving upon deposit millions and millions of money, and having their offices in nearly all the commercial towns of the country, and particularly in NewYork, all at once, either by fraudulent misconduct or mistake they became bankrupt and ruined1,000s. If there had been a bankrupt law in force at the 1st moment it was discovered that they were about to get into a hopeless state of bankruptcy their assets might have been taken advantage of and the creditors might have saved themselves from actual total loss. Look at the railroad companies. How many of them have almost ruined their creditors? They 1st exhaust the whole amount of their capital; they then contract a running debt, and that will not do; the road is not completed; and then they mortgage a 1st and 2nd and 3rd time, to the injury of those who are creditors upon open account; and the 1st mortgagee goes into the courts of the States and closes up the corporation, and all the debtors are ruined, where they are in a condition to be ruined by the loss of their debts. So in relation to banks. What was the case here the other day in this city? A bank, with a capital of some 2 or 300 thou localled “national, ” and therefore obtaining a confidence which the name alone gave because sanctioned by an act of Congress, went into debt to the amount of millions, and not a creditor will get, perhaps, ten cents in the dollar. It was known for several weeks that they were in a ticklish condition, and if some of the creditors had then been armed with the compulsory process which the bankrupt law affords their debts might have been saved. The other question, and the one which I said is not so material to the beneficial operation of this bill, is to what extent will you carry the remedy? The bill provides that the franchise itself is to be forfeited, the whole concern wound up. Upon reflection I think it would be advisable to change that part of The the bill. effect of it ‘.; be that if you proceed against any of these corporations who have property worth nothing except as it may be used in connection with a franchise, you destroy the value of the property if you put an end to the franchise. As is suggested !. my friend behind me, [Mr. SHERMAN,) a railroad is worth nothing unless it is worked. The U.S. by this bill and ace ording to my view they would not have the authority to do it if the bill or any other bill undertook to do it declare that the franchise may be forfeited. I will not stop to inquire whether they can forfeit the franchise or not. That is a question “not necessary to be discussed, as I think, because unimportant in the view which I am about to Present. We declare by this bill as it stands that if a railroad company is declared a bankrupt, either upon a voluntary or a compulsory application, the franchise is to be forfeited and the concerns of the company wound up. Many of those franchises are of inestimable value. The franchise itself is property, and it is only valuable as property as long as it remains a franchise. To extinguish it is to strike out of existence the property itself. The assignee in bankruptcy therefore might be authorized to sell the road or to sell the franchise instead of providing that the franchise itself is to go with the bankruptcy.