Columbus Democrat. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 18??-18??, 1841-07-24


IA pontu' avs, and have come TO 70 the same les1
conclusion, but rot from me same premises, b., n
puini VI n0rds, as ! understand tir Governors Ua-
sihuns cannot concur precisely wI,h she Executive
q Tie SAID bonds were executed BY suthOniy !
mean with The consent ui Tie people, aud 10 aecor-
dance with lac constitution and laws Of the SAFE,
ami were sold, though Improperly and even Illegally
winch believe Was lie tact, aud believe also, thai
tom lie fraud IA Tie purchase 81 aid b4nds By The
Bank of he United States, OF Pcunsy through
Mr. Nicholas Bidde, that uu rght oi EITHER properly
oracuon exists in iaw or in equity, either m favor OF
sad Unliej States Bank or SAID B.ddIe On said
bonds; and u The State received The money un SAID
bonds, part otit, though there NAV, aAd | thuk
does exist good defence, at aw AMI in equity, a.
gaiust Tie payment 81 said bonds. or the interest
thereon, either t. said United State Bank or 10 said
Bdtc, or 10 any oue claiming sad bonds. 81 her
through sud United States Bank or said Biddc, vel
with due difference To Tie opinions tolher gentle
men ! am strongly inclined 10 believe, under such
circumstances, that street justice and uiallly re-
qulrr, that the sum and amount received by the
State at least Should be refunded 10 the person or
party who parted with 1t, whether such person or
party has OF has not a right at law or 10 equity 10
caimt Il; and would also here remark, that If SAID
bonds were pat into existence, under the original
charter OF sad Union Bank, and negotiated aTly
I
&c has, under the provisions Of the charter of SAID
Union Bank, aud sccordin, to the constitution and
avs OIL lhls State, ughl action on said bonds, eth
sr lor the principal or interest," either first at law
against the Uniun Bank as the eHdorser oil SAID
s1udS or IN equity 10 enforce the execution of the
lru3 conferred on It; second, IN Chancery against
+ the state, as the drawer OF said bonds and third,
~ cIancery against all the stockholders To oreclose
Their mortgages, and have the property mortgagsd
/ sold, aud Ia have the proceeds OF as much as NAV
he necessary, appropriated by lhe ctancviorCo tie
payment oil SAID bonds or The interest due thereon,
OF both and that upon he trial oleither OF these
actions, the consuutinnaIity OF said supplementary
act, aud HE SAID bonds would b. fairly legally and
| eqaltaby tested, by the judicial tribunals Of the
country, and which, IN my vpnion, would result Ia
/ tally Ia the bond holders. This however, shows
that the bond holder Is not without remedy 10 test
his rights.
now arrive at the only ground assumed by nv
! opponents, To lcgalze said bonds | mean The re-
cagnIllou or ratification Of the act creating the la
bhiy of the State, for said supposed Stale bonds.
uchlIemtn opposed Ia me contend That The State
The people o the State, have accepted, reeopnizfd
aud ahed the actln relation 10 SAID bonds, by re-
| ceWlng The money mol indeed into the treasury of
Tue state but lulo the hands OF the agents oil the
olale, the Mississippi Union Bank for the use aud
| purpose OF The State, aud the acts and doings Of
/ he Executive of the Stale, and also the Lers1a-
tnre oil the State Now deny, positively, that II
po at oil law or morals, there has been any
rcct 'SnIlloh or ratification OF The act, and posI-
| lye5 dtny thai the STATE has received Inv itself
| or It's agents, any money for said bonds and
| deny lha' the State has any agent connected
with the Missississlppi Union Bank. 1t NAV not
! be impr0pe Tor ine here TO enquire INTO and define
| the act, who IS sand 10 be recognized and ratI-
! fed bv the PEG lie OF thus State. Then what is the
act said To be ra 'bedf LII an act palpabIy and
grossly violating tie constitution OF the STATE and
the liab hty IN doa S and cents oil at least i've mill
hons Of dollars Tor ba sing purposes it IS mol on
| y paIpable and gross violation o the cons,tu-
lon Of the State, winch il rallied subjects the
peope OF the State to ponlfTous liability, and sub
eeis the honor Of the State At least to be question
cd nut IS also gross and raIpable aHd On the
constitution ol the State NoAV sir, let me ask. can
an acI papably and grossly INV relation OF the con
s''uuon OF The Slale, be recognl.'ed and ratified
ana can an act which is gross aH. bic fraud
on the constitution OF the State ana ne rights ol
'ne people Of the State, be recognized and II both
~ @ uc zone, may be permitted 10 ash Whal klhd
VI ID" ana what kind OF morals is used To- the pur-
PoSe OF sanctlohng, by recognition and RAJ ,lca ton
an act paImbly. and grossly violating the c1nstl-
'utoh OF the State, and also an act which q ross
ana papabe fraud on the constitution Of the ST. le,
shd the lshts OF the people OF the Stat. hohS
gentlemen opposed 10 me, will give their respec.
1--WE codes, book and page that may share IN
Their novel production.
contend that il is a violation Of the con,,i,u.
ton OF the State, to recognize and ratly an on.
constitutional act Of the Legislature of tho State
as much SO as 10 pass the act IN the first instance,
and that such recognition and ratification, would
therefore be nullhy, and that if it was cnnslltu
honalIy practIca6le 1t can only be done under the
constitution OF tins State,b hs express action for
that purpose, by two successive legislatures, with
a general election intervening and contend
thal It Is a Breach OF good morals 10 sanctlty by
recognition, ratification or otherwise, gross and
palpabe fraud of any kind, much less fraud on
the body polite OF the State And AS 10 the le.
I ce'pl OF money by the agents of the State, have
now to repent what have before said on this &C.
cas'on that the SAID Union Bank, and the numer,
Gus agents connected therewlih;are not the agents
OF The State, but # agents at all, for any purpose,
are The agents Of the individuals who were mem.
hers OF the Legislature of 1898, and WHO voted
Tor and passed said supplementary act 10 the char
ter Of ne said Union Bank and Their copartners
/ 10 the Illegal transaction.
lhow tiatie. myself that have demonstrated
two propositions first, that the State, the neonls
oil The State are not consttulioGaly bound TO pay
SAID proposed State bonds; aud secondly, tha, the
people OF the Staten their aggregate government.
tai capacity and character, are not morally bound
'opay supposed State bonds if so, have sus,
) famed the two causes Of demurrer 10 the replica
f ton OF my opponents. and now propose to de.
monsirate from The same facts that TO enforce the
payment OF SAID supposed State bonds BY taxa,
e ton Oh lhe whole population Of the State is unjust
immoral and dishonest and in this last pIonns,
I Ton agree win my opponents, that the question
, as 10 paying sad bonds, Is purely question Of