Lexington union. (Lexington, Miss.) 1838-18??, 1841-08-21

very different condilions-one which the
people, had never seen, and in support OF
which they had never proposed the pledge
Of the faith of the State.
Bot you say that, for the credit of the
State abroad, she ought to pay the bonds;
that she is already brought TO the lowest
degradation, by individual delinquincies
and bank swindiDg; and now, say you,
TO show to the world that Mississippians
are not such rogues and swindlers as they
have been said 10 be, let's do one grand
and apparently high souIed patriotic and
honorable tone which will sound and
reyerberate throughout the whole habita-
bic globe, and dance, and sing, and play
upon fbus leading 10 the intellect and soul
of every individual, and SO tickle, and
charm, and captiyate the heart and mind,
that no: one will ever again be ableto see
the thousands and tens Of thousands Of
fantastic, imaginary Mississippi devils,
which our conduct has brought 20 their
minds.
Now, sirs, | deny that Mississippi is de.
graded; baDk swindlers may be, and |
aver that the motive hereby assigned for
this payment, is itself the offspring of a
deceilIul aud dishonest heart. This one
act which you propose as evidence of
honesty, would be more criminal, dishon-
est aud dishonorabe, than all other acts
of your life. A man who confesses he is
looked upon by the world asa carcass stink
log with rascality. by trying 10 hide his
leprous spots behind veil of apparent
health, that he may deceive the world and
pass himself eff as sound, exhibits evidence
of satanic feelings and knowledge, and
determination TO retrieve his character by
artifce and deception, for purposes which
only the devil himself can clearly unfold.
If individual delinquents and bank
swinders would but pay their acknowl-
edged debts, so far as they are able, they
would do more towards establishing an
honest character than they can do in any
other way. Ii is dishonest, and shows
vie corruption in a. man, when he cam
not pay both, 10 withhold money from hon
est and acknowledged debts and pay it to
another, with a selfish & deceptive motive;
& grossly so when it is acknowledged to be
for the purpose of relieving a degraded
character by hypocrjcy, aud when this
other has no legal claim, and is brought
upon hun by his agent, by treachery and
uansgression.-You attempt to illustrate
the position you have taken or rather the
manner in which you have come to
your decision on this bond question, by
parallels; but in your comparisons you
are dishonest. You suppose cases which
do not apply; but you so arrange them
that careless observer cannot detect your
sophistry. In the first place you do not
make an honest distinction between the
people and their agents. You treat OF
them as two persons, until the agent is
described to transact special business; and
alter that, you treat Of them ns one and
he same person. You say: "suppose a
nan has employed an agent TO borrow
money on certain conditions; and that the
agent has borrowed it on different Condi-
lions; and then suppose The man has sane
toned The agents transactions, by receiv-
ng & using the money. Is he not bound
% payW Yes | agree he is. But now
cts suppose the man did moi receive 8'use
he money but that the agent did and with
)ut consulting he man about it.-Would
he man, in such case be bound even
especially as The person from
whom the agent borrowed the money,
knew the extent Of the agents pow>
9r, the conditions on which the man
has agreed to be bound, and that he had
to the world that he would not
sanction a contract made on any other
han those conditions? "Why, no sir"
| think | hear you say: "but Legislators
are the peoples general agents, clothed
with Discretionary power-whatever they
do is considered done by the people,"
Stop little, sirs: such is not the case;
here are exceptions out Of their general
powers; and in this particular case, they
ire declared to be incapable of exercising
discretion, and bonnd to be governed by
he Will oftho people, cautiously, deli5er~
ltely and conslitutionally expressed.
Another Of your illustrations, your ba-
on story, falls equally short olaccomPish-
ng your object. In this case. the indl-
iduaI signed the note with fraudulent
Intention: he wrote his name on blank
iece Of paper with knowledge that his
riend would write note and pass it off
s genuine obligation. They did right to
,aking him pay it. But 10 the bond case
10 ndIvidual-ihe State did not sign the
ends personally but by agent; and
he people knew nothing of any
auduIent intention. Besides they had