Southern Argus. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1834-1842, 1841-08-31

oohSdtloh OF The state; referred the naked
unconditional oblig .tion contained in the
9th section, and merely exhibited the plan
OF the proposed arrangement (subiect like
all other laws not affecting vested rights,
to the action and amendment of the sue.
ceeding legislature that they m ;ght com.
pete the obligation of the State, and
raise the loan. The Legislature no doubt
toresaw, that some difference of opinion
might arise, as TO the particular mode of
securing the state, against ultimate loss.
They therefore agreed to refer the 5th
section alone, as an unconditional "law"
/ proposing TO raise loan ofmon4y on the
faith ofthe State, for all object about which
Ikhey were agreed and satisfied, but wise.
lett the details of the charter, TO be. all
tered or amended, as to the representa-.
tlves ofthe people might seem fit and pro.
| per. The state loaned her credit and
pledged her faith, to the purchasers of the
bonds Internationally, designing to make
such arrangements with the stockholders
of the bank as would secure the State,
against loss, and yet not affect tho holders
of the bondz.
We conclude therefore, lst, That tie
| oh section is the "law" pledging the faith
and credit of the state to raise the loan.
I'd, That it is absolute; andiunconditional.
and Sd That 9th section of the 7th article
of the constitution was strictly complied
with in its passage.
But, even suppose that il was true, that
| tho bonds uya re i.S,,od opI eaiJ .,;.L-... -
thority, as contended for. Still on the
strictest principles of law and morality.
the state has become bound for the nav.
ment ofthe money raised and used for her
benefit.
| In Rutherforth's institutes, page 557, the
law is stated as follows:
"Sponsions or engagements are
compacts made by an inferior magis.
trate or officer on behalf of the State,to
which he belongs, without being au-
| thorized to act for it. Such compacts
since they are made without authority
Of the State, do not bind it unless il
confirms them after they are made
But it is not necessary that the confr-
nation should be an express one
The State to which the sponsors be-
long tacitly binds itself to fulfil what
they have engaged for on its behalf by
acting under the engagement as iii
understood itself to be obliged"
5 "The State whatever it may know
OF the matter has no occasion to SPEAK
about it, SO long as nothingis obtained
; by it,or nothing is done in consequence
: OF 1t, and certainly the silence Of tht
!. State or its neglect to declare that
: does not consent to the Sponsion
# whilst there is no occasion TO say an,
0 thing or to make any such declaration
: is no evidence Gifts consent 10 the I'm
! authorized acts Of some of It's mem
: bers."
But if the sponsors beside thei
c bare compact; have given the persol
e with whom it was made. possession
} ofsome corporal thing which belong
r to the State, or if that person incense
)! quence ofthis compact,exercises som
. right, which affects the state, then in
!, deed the knowledge and silence c
d the State, about what has been done
G its neglect to reclaim the thing or
r stop the exercise of right, is an evi
}, dence of its consent to the Spor
q sion."
: Grotius Lib. Q. oh. Is SIG, is equal
- explicit:and Vattel 332. who in the O.
inion of Chancellor Kent "is the most Poi
~ uar and elegant writer on the law of nj
:, lions" expresses himself to the same e
" feet and states that the ratification of the
n sponsions may be either express or ia
- it.
~ In Wheatons elements of information
y, w law p 1876, the same doctrine is asserte
ho "Such acts Or engagements" says t
az writer, ''when made without authority
exceeding the limits of authority und
bo which they purport to be made, are GALE
!, Sponsions. These conventions must
~ confirmed by express or tacit ratldcatio
~ The former is given in positive Terms a
- with the usual forms The latter is i
~ piled from the fact of acting under
ov agreement as If bound by its stipu
ii. tons"
nc eff however il has been totally
u. partially executed by either party "a
he ing in good faith, upon the suppositi
he that the agent was duly authorized.t
of party thus acting is entitled to be
he demni6ed, or replaced in his form
sse situation" Wheatons elements of
' 'er irrational law p 1S6.
~ ~ The promises, the conventions,
~ private contracts ofIthe sovereign
'a - naturally subject to the same rules
:" those Of private persons-Vattel p 8
i Rutherforth Inst. $40 lst Kents &c
nm , 3, ID Masons R P AS.
the There is no doubt that a principal n
n ratify the act of one who has acted in
for behalf, though without authority, or
mi. has transferred hisHpowers;and in this
faes give validitr to the act, as fit had b
. Strictly authorized in the first instance
in This ratification may take place not G
" directly but by collateral acts 3 WASH
was ton reports P l54.
But An authority may not only be expr
the " created but may be implied from
aise duct. IsLevermore on Agents, 40.
bout be presumed from subsequent acts.
the lev on Agency, p. I43. In % Ken
an Cid Is such an acquiescence IS decls
an. to be equivalent to an express auth
pur ty."
that A party is absolutely concluded By