The Yazoo Whig and political register. (Yazoo City, Miss.) 1840-1842, 1841-10-15

So 1t seems either that Mr.. Thompson had
not seen the endorsement or wifully misre-
presents it.
Theg gentleman then lays down the doctrine
that the fraud committed by our Legislature
IN passing the Supplemental Charter, in ap-
pointing the commissioners, and in recogni-
sing their doings under their commission,
constitutes the offence, and this alone would
be amply sufficient to justify the State in re-
iusing the payment of these bonds He then,
apparently to prove this position cites case
IN Georgia,-shows how that State disposed
Of that case, and alleges that they are similar
Weare exceedingly obliged TO Mr.. Thompson
Tor calling our mind to that celebrated case.
1t is the only case we know of which bears
so strong a similarity TO the one uuder con-
slderatlon, supposing that our Legislature had
been guilty of fraud. Well, for once Mr..
Thompson and ourself are agreed. We a
gree in the similarity of The two cases, as he
himself states ours, and we agree that the
same law shall decide both. The gentleman
refers to the Georgia case thus: "a Legis-
"lature of Georgia once disposed of the lar
"gest and best portion of our State to few
adventurous spectators; yet a succeeding
Legislature, solely on the ground of fraud
"noL only set aside the contract; but actually
''drew fire from heaven and burnt up the
Journals and every evidence of the cont act
"within their reach"
That they did, sir. That is correctly sta
ted. The legislature of Georgia set aside the
contract, as he would have ours to do. But
did the matter stop there! Shame on Mr..
Thompson! Stand up here, sir, and be con-
Victed of misrepresentation! Did the case
stop there! You know it did not. You know
that the decision of the Georgia case is utter
and entire humiliation Of every argument
that has been made against the payment of
these bonds. You have brought forward the
Georgia case; now let it decide this. The
legislature set aside the contract! Yes, and
the claimants under that contract, fraudulent
and corrupt as it was known to be, prosecu-
ted their claim against the holders under the
Georgia grant in the Supreme Court of the
United States, and there, before the hirbes,
judicial tribunal in the United States, with
Chief Justice Marshall at its head, they sus.
tanned their claim against the repudiating law
OF the State OF Georgia, and held them bound
to the contract. Now, Mr.. Thompson lett
the Georgia case decide this.
But let US be little more particular. Mr..
Thompson has introduced this case and has
told part of the story, now he cannot blame
us for finishing it. For with it we intend to
Kill Mr.. Jacob Thompson, Jr. dead as mack
erel, and also every other anti bond argument
that has been made upon the supposed lille
gGLlty OF the issuance and sale of these bonds.
The repudiating law of Georgia enacts that
the first act or act of sale ''is hereby declared
null and void, and the grant or grants, right
or rights, claim or claims deduced or derived
therefrom, or from any clause, letter or spirit
OF the same, or any part of the same is hereby
also annulled rendered void and of no effect:
and as the same was made without Constitu-
tional authority, and fraudulently obtained
1t is hereby declared of no binding force or
effect on this State or the people thereof, but
is and are to be considered, both law and
grant as they ought to be, ipso facto, Of them
selves void, - &c.
Mississippi could scarcely use stronger Ian.
guage than that in repudiating these bonds.
The case was carried TO the Supreme Court
Of the United States in a suit between two
individuals, where it was attempted to sus-
tain this repudiating act. The case is 10 be
found in Fletcher VS. Pick, Cranch, Cond
Rep, 3O8. BY the way, we ought 10 have
stated before, that Georgia, not only repudi-
ated the sale, but provided for The repayment
ofhe purchase money. Which our anti bond
payers seem rather unwilling to do.
We willonly give few extracts from the o.
pinion of the Court as delivered by Chief
Justice Marshall:
"The legislature of Georgia was party to
"this transactions; and for party to pro-
"nounce its own deed invalid, whatever
"cause may be assigned for lis invaldity,
"must be considered as a mere act of power
"which must find its vindication in atrain of
reasoning not often heard in Courts of JUS
"tice."
Ii "The principle asserted is, that one Legis-
stature is competent to repeal any act which
''a former legislature was competent to pass;
"andathat one Legislature cannot abridge the
''power Of a succeeding legislature. The cor
"rectness of this principle, so far as it re-
"spects general legislation, can never be con
"Toverted. But if an act be done under a
claw succeeding legislature cannot undo
"n.
CA State. then, which violated it's own
"contract, was suabe in the Courts of the
"United States for that violation. Would it
"have been a defence in such a suit to say
''that the State had passed a law absolving
"itself from the contract! 1t is scarcely to be
"conceived that such defence could be set
cup"
There, Mr.. Thompson, is your Georgia
case. And there will be the Mississippi
case if ever it goes TO Court of law or equi-
ty in these United States; for that is the law
of the land. If, therefore all that is said and
written in this case, upon the subject of lille
gGlity was true, and if much more than the
widest man of you has ever limited was
true, it would not in the slightest degree les
sen the legal obligation of the State to pay
these bonds.
But Mr.. Thompson says "the State did not
receive the money" Nor did the law au-