The Mississippi Creole. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1841-1851, 1841-08-14

Of this STATE be, and is hereby, pledged.
but AGAIN, il is believed that, to make The
State responsible upon her bonds, i WIS
not necessary prerequisite that the
State should pledge her faith. She nay
not have pledged her faith, and still be
liable. The nature of the States con-
tract is to be gathered alone from the
bonds themselves, which are OF the fol-
lowing form: "Kno,O all men by these
presents, that the State Of Mississippi ac-
knogledges TO be indebted TO the MississiP-
ri Union Bank, in the sum of tiro thousand
dollars, ,chicA sum the said State Of MIS-
sissippi promiseSto pay incurrenf rloAeyof
the United States, to the order of the Pres
ident Directors and Company, in the -
gear -, acith interest al the rate 81 IRE
per cent per annum, payable half
yearly at the place named in the endorse
ment hereto, riz: on The of erery
year until the payment Of said principal
Gun. In testimony ,rhereof, the Gorer--
or of the Stale of Mississippi has sigaed,
and The Treasurer of the State has conn
terSjgned, these presents, and eaEed the
seal Of The State TO be alfred thereto, at
Jackson, this -, In the
qear of oar Lord" Here is an absolute
promise or ccntract--aH express ac-
acknowledgement of indebte dness to the
Bank-together with an express power
given to the Bank to sell and negotiate
them ''to any person whomsoever, or TO
bearer" w hat is the legal construction
of this contract? In ascertaining this,
we must look to lis phraseolgy and see
what-was the meaning and lntantion of
the contracting parties. We. must con-
strue the words of the instrument in
their ordinary sense and acceptation.-
First, there is an unequlvocal acknowl-
edgment Oft the Indebtedness; second, an
unconditional promise TO pay; third, a
direct undertaking TO pay the amount of
the bonds, with interest at the rate Of five
per cent, per annum; and fourth, these
promises and undertakings are witnessed
by the most solema attestations. This
bond is drawn up in proper form and
style, and as instrument detached from
the charter of the bank is thrown into
market, regularly signed and authenii-
Gated, bearing upon its face the
States declaration. "KRotc all men BE-
these presents. that The State of MissiSsip-
pi is indebted &c. The purchaser here
then was commanded by State To know
tn2t she was legally indebted to the Tn
ion Baak, that sine would pay thar debt,
a nd her premise was the evidence that
she was bound anu would pay. But sup
pose that the purchasers OF the bonds
had looked beyond the facGo OF the bonds
TO the charter-the contract 2laue and
entered INTO between the State ard the
Stockholders-who are the parties to sSe
contract? The contracting parties ar
The Stale and the stockholders. TAe bond
hotders are no parties to the charter CON
tract. They are oniyparties u the bond
contracts. The contract entered into be-
tween the State and the stockholders IS a
substantive and independent contract
The stockholders NAV fail 10 perform
Heterogeneous with the State but sure
ly such failure cannot cannot form n le-
gal and honest plea for the State not H.
perform hers.
Another objection which has been rsis-
ed against the payment OF the bonds IS.
that the terms ami conditions upon which
the State undertook TO execute them have
been altered and changed By the supple
mental charter of the bank, which char
ter was acted upon by one single Lagis-
lature, when TO change or alter these
terms and conditions, It required the ac-
ton of two distinct and independent Le-
gislatures. Let us for a moment enter
tain the idea that the supplement- did IN
dertake to change and alter the terms
and conditions upon which the State con
tracted with the stockholders to execute
her bonds, for the purpose of enabling
the bank to raise the Contemplated loan.
what will it avail? Can it affect the va
lidlty Of the execution of the bondsl By
no means. II would only prove that these
attempted changes and alterations were
illegal and void, and being so, are not
binding. They are, il unconstitutional,
as a dead letter, and of no efficacy what
ever. There is no principle better set
tied, than that one portion of 4 Law or
charter may be void aud the rest good
The TACT that one section or provision OF
law is unconstitutional, does not render
the whole void-one part may stand and
the other not So if the original charter
incorporating the Union Bank, pledgine
the faith and credit of the State, be con
stltutlonal, 1t necessarily follows, that. If
any single subsequent Legislature have
undertaken TO alter and change the fea-
| lures of the original chartar Ixh;.h 49,
had no power and authority to do, these
alterations and changes cannot affect the
constltutionality of the original charter
or the validity of the execution Of the
bonds, because these alterations and
changes if illegal, are utterly void, and