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

wov Of necdssary implication, made tie
members ofthe Legislature, and the Ex-
ecutivc, the only judges OF the existence
of that fact.
Bot. again: the members Of the Le-
pis;ure, in a Government like ours, are
the representatives or agents OF the peo-
pie, and their acts are binding and obig-
otory upon the people. Now, tits a truth
that can be easily established that the
Legislature Of the State, which met or
convened subsequentto the execution and
sale OF the bonds, by resolutions did re-
cognize and approve the sale of the
bonds. These resolutions areol binding
| efficiency, upon the State, so that she can
| not now examine eitherinto the validity
Of the execution or sale Of the bonds
lSte is a arty to the contract, or bonds:
and is she moi estopped; after having re-
cognized the validity Of the bonds, 10 de-
ny that she had right to execute them?
Is she not essopped effectually? In the
case Of III commonwealth vs. the Peep.
scut proprietors, reported in the l0!h
| Mass. Rep. p. l55, it is decided that, the
commonwealth is estopped by the resolve
Iof the Legislature, declaring the boun
Diary between its lands and those of a
private company. La an Indian deed TO
tract Of land 10 the company, in. i684,
one important boundary was declar-
ed to be the uiternost falls in Andres
coggin river. There were, in fact,
FIVE sets of falls. In 1897, the Legisa-
ture declared the twenty mile falls, lin
fact the middle ones,) to be the the boun-
dairy Intended in that deed, and ordered
matters accordingly. The court decided
that the commonwealth was estopped,
and held to those falls as the true boun-
dairy So tits clear that the doctrine of
estoppel is applicable as well to the States
as individuals, and the case cited bears
striking analogy to the one now under
consideration. Again: can the State be
permitted to deny the validity of her
bonds, so!cmnly attested and proved by
her Great Seal? That seal, the seal of
sovereignty itself, furnishes the highest
evidence that the bonds were properly
and legally executed. The keeper of
the seal may abuse his trust, but the only
remedy the people can have in such case
is, that terrible rebuke which is admin
iStered in. the exercise OF the esective
franchise.
Butthereisan equitable estoppel which
applies TO this question. If A proposes
to sell a certain tractof land to B, which
belongs 70 C, and G stands by in silence
and permits A TO offer and sell the land to
Bias his, G is estopped in equity from
denying AS title. Here, recolect, the
fee and real title was in G to the land, and
to pass the fee and title, the law regu-
larly requires deed or conveyance from
C. But here is no deed or conveyance
but still his right and title has depart
ed. Why? He stood by when the con-
tract of sale was made and consumma-
ted. he did notsdeny the right of A to
tell: he permitted B 10 purchase it, and
the law therefore says, he is forever
estopped from setting up his ti:!e-be
cause, IT would be encouraging a species
of fraud. Now, apply this principle 10
the bond question, and you perceive hoy
it will operate. After the sale of the
bonds, and before the last four millions
were paid over to.the Union Bank, the
Legislature Of thisState met. They were
timely Informed Of the sale and negotia-
ton Of the bonds Did that Legislature
repudiate them? Did they deny their ie-
gal execution and sale! Did they say to
the purchasers, pay no more money for
| the purchase of these bonds; for we in.
tend to resist their payment, upon
the ground that the act authorizing their
issuance was not regularly published
No. Then it is contended that the State
viii be estopped from relying upon any
such defence as the want of publication
] forif permitted to set up such defence.
it would he legalizing the worst of
frauds-af fraud committed by a sovereign
State.
i 1t will not be expected that I should
notice all the objections which are urged
against the payment. of the bonds. 1t
would be idleanduseless TO dose. tits suf-
| fclent to review the most prominent ar
guments which initiate against the opin-
ion have expressed. Ii is said that the
faith of the State was to be pledged, and
the bonds executed only upon the per
Torrance of certain conditions stipulated
IN the charteror contract to be perfom-
ed on the partof the stockholders of the
bank for whose use and benefit the State
was to pledge her faith and credit. Let
us for a moment direct our attention to
the true intent and meaning of the char
} ter of the bank, for this branch of the
question depends upon its construction
The 9Th section of the charter pledges
the faith and credit of the State, and al
SO provides for the execution of the bonds.
as to form and amount. The 9th section
makes them negotiable instruments and
authorizes the President and Cashier of
!. the bank 10 transfar fhara - L.