MORAL OF THE "DAVIDSON AND GORDON" CASE.
TEE judgment to be formed of the conduct of Overend, Gurney, and Co., does not turn upon the question whether certain war- rants were issued after or before the discovery of the fraud ; it does not turn, in fact, upon any one particular point in the whole series of transactions. Neither can it be admitted that the firm or any member of it can make a claim to stand exempt from fair criticism on the part of the press ; a claim alike inconsistent with the spirit of recent reforms in the Libel-law and with the real in- terests of British commerce. How is it that the proceedings come before us I' By process of public law. Davidson and Gordon failed to meet their commercial engagements ; according to the law of this country, they are bound to place their affairs under the control of the Court of Bankruptcy, and they obtain certain privileges and protections. The object of that proceeding is to secure the greatest amount of protection for honest but unfortu- nate trading with the greatest amount of check upon dishonest practices in business. The persons who enter the court do so either as parties to the liability, or as creditors claiming, or as witnesses to the truth. In any case the truest safeguard against falsehood and injustice of every kind is complete publicity. If the law works well, the best guarantee for its continuance is un- checked discussion, removing every doubt which may exist as to its operation. If it works ill, the first step towards a reform is discussion of the imperfections. In short we must have free trade in the discussion of English commerce, of such commer- cial actions as come under public cognizance through the pro- ceedings of a public court, and of the arguments by which men seek to condemn or justify those actions.
It may be true that Messrs. Overend, Gurney, and Company did not issue any warrants after the 13th or 17th of October,—which- ever is the accurate date. But Mr. Chapman has himself stated in court that after the 13th of October, " we discounted some 7000/. worth of bills to enable them [Davidson and Gordon] to take up a loan which we made them on some shells." Money was therefore, furnished to Davidson and Gordon by the help of which they continued the prosecution of their own business in their own peculiar fashion. The very remarkable nature of their transac- tions and the character of their warrants was discovered by a British merchant, and he did not at once send information to the police or warn those with whom he was connected in business that such irregularities had been detected. Mr. Chapman deposed that on the 17th of October he said to Mr. Bois "I will never breathe the air with that man again alone ; and," he added, "I never have." It is true that he said, "we will not defile ourselves with the distillery upon any consideration whatever," and yet Overend, Gurney, and Company were ready "to join in a sale of the dis- tillery after the proceeds were placed in the Bank of England to the credit of whom it might concern " ; and as we have seen, money was advanced for the purpose of recovering the warrants. This last action is very remarkable. We find ourselves unable to draw any distinction between such an act and the payment of money into a bank for the purpose of meeting a forged cheque; it is we nay in the general character of the relations between Overend, Gurney, and Company, and Davidson and Gordon, that the public estimate will be formed.
We have from time to time noticed a rather extensive impli- cation of very eminent houses in the most irregular practices of commerce. We have pointed out an unbroken chain between the Merchants of the highest standing and gentlemen engaged in tr:enimetions-whieh subject them to the penal haw; :and in Ann casev,Mei Chapman. has been severely criticised for his reflation to.
sun temeeetions.' .l'erhaps the experience might mekniii431,04m,, fieekthatIthe sternest, interpratetions upon the concluct.,0( otherw de iaot.tlIways form the most enlarged or just view.• We hang 44 deuhtthat,Mr..Chapmari is an exeeeilingly estimable man, mad eon:View .ocoarrences have scarcely touched the , character of JosepheGneney, .though they are said to have hastened his claistht Bu 'it net possible that those who are the most severely,cone tenined. have also their redeeming points ? There certainly wits ability. in Joseph W ludic Cole ; on nianyn000untswe mightgnese him to be a man of dashing-faculties, and of companionable die" poSition, Davidson and Gordon had their friends, men- w,bo were anxiono for their safety and welfare. They had something, good about them. Awl indeed most human beings have qualities that make them redeemable._ We gain nothing by unqualified repro- bation a a,uyanan,iincl we do not establish our own virtue by de- claring that we-will not "breathe again" with them. Who can refuse to share God's; air with any one of his fellow creatures ? "Let him, that is 'without sin, oast the first stone." There is, in fact, something painful, as painful as it is vain, ia the recriminations which have passed in the Bankruptcy Court between Mr. Chapman on the one side and those who have been placed in antagonism with him on the other, Mr. Gordon and 4r, Cole. We do-not affect to decide between them. There are di s... orepancies in. their statements compared with each other, but there appear to be discrepancies also in the evidence of Mr. Chap- man himself... We do not attach any great importance to that faot. The effect of such inconsistencies is commonly much ex- aggerated. The most truthful men may say one thing at one time and another at another, not only because the memory is treacherous, but because the understanding, never able to eme brace all the points in any complicated series of facts, specially contemplates only a part of the occurrence, and errs by speaking in general terms which are positively right in reference only to a part. It is a trait of vulgarity to exult too much if we are "iii the right" ; it is the mark of an undiscriminating mind to hunt down those who are "in the wrong." Most particularly are those who have been personally engaged in such matters line suited, by their position, to determine what is "the right" or "the wrong" of the ease. We should not willingly accept the opinion of Mr. Joseph Windle Cole on the conduct of Mr. Chap- man or Mr. Gordon ; we should hesitate to take Gordon's estimate of Chapman and Cole ; and Cole and Gordon might just- ly protest against our absolutely accepting the views of Chapman. When onoe you get entangled in lax proceedings, the distinction between. right and wrong necessarily becomes complex and vague. It is most desirable for the interests of commercial mo- rality that the bystanders should exercise a free discussion on the facts that come legitimately before them ; but even here we can- not be sure that we have absolutely exhausted the inquiry, or that the presentment is mathematically accurate. We take the reports with their errors upon them. We cannot, however, be very far wrong if we make due allowance for error, and judge not in a narrow or illiberal spirit of the broad issues. So we say now, that, is-hile it is essential for the vital interests of commerce that we should understand the nature of the irregularities com- mitted—that we should distinctly recognize the practice of issuing many warrants for one consignment, say, of spelter—and that we should he informed if houses of high standing make advances of money which facilitate the continuance of irregular practices; nevertheless when we have established these cases it is useless to persevere in diatribes against the men whose position has been disclosed. We may be quite certain that the worst of them are not without some extenuating considerations, and that the general run are no worse than numbers who have been unde- tected.
This has been the very object with which we have re- peated our comments on such events. It was to show that those who had been unlucky enough to be discovered were not worse than a greater number who went about in all the en- joyment of good credit. The moral of the town eclogue between Chapman and Gordon, is that commerce gains nothing from these recriminations, will profit nothing by specifically allotting the exact proportion of blame to the one or to the other, but that the character of British commerce depends upon its absolutely rising above these nice and technical distinctions. Mr. Chapman is hurt because he is taken to task for saving, "It was most painful to us not to divulge the fraud under Which we were suffering, but its magnitude took it out of all ordinary course of proceedings." Now the very highest view of moral obligation would render such a question entirely independent of "magnitude." Whether it was 'a ease of one sovereign or of a million, the model British merchant would hold himself compelled instantly to report the discovery of anything ungenuine in the security which he had been instrumental in circulating. It is very painful to confront the consequences of such disclosures, but we have had cases even recently of gentlemen who have confronted liabilities to the amount of two or three millions starling; and it may safely be said that after that candid appeal to truth against any kind of questionable protection, the name of John Dennistoun stands even higher than it did before it was mentioned in connection with "creditors" and " allowance of time." There still does exist the spirit which would restore to British commerce the highest standing to which it had ever reached.
Previous page
