Such order shall fully express the terms of said limitation or regulation; and it may be changed or wholly revoked whenever in the judgment of said commissioners the welfare of the depositors in such bank shall so require.
Massachusetts Attorney General George Marston, however, advised banks that this amendment was likely unconstitutional due to its implied favoritism toward certain debtors, and that they should therefore not act on it.
[2] The law "produced instantly the desired effect of preventing runs, and thus secured to depositors full payment of their deposits which they might otherwise have lost".
[1] Between the passage of the stay law in March, 1878, and November 1st, 1879, twenty-four banks availed themselves of its protection, all but six of which resumed at the expiration of the prescribed limit of time, where the order had not been previously revoked.
Of those, 24 were stopped by injunction of the Supreme Court, and twelve of these were obliged ultimately to close their affairs, with only two paying depositors in full.