Southern pioneer, and Carroll, Choctaw and Tallahatchie Counties advertiser. (Carrollton, Miss.) 1840-1842, 1841-07-24
] q q q q q
FROM THE vIcKsRuRa WIG.

FROM THE VICKSBURG WHiG.
HISTORY OF THE STATE BONDS-No
In our last we promised to examine little
farther the moral obligation of the State to pay
the bonds issued and sold for the benefit of the
Union Bank. We have already shown that
the sale of $5,0O0,000, made by the commits
sioners appointed by the bank, was solemhly
ratified by the Legislature at its regular ses-
sion in 1889, and that not single voice was
raised against it, by any individual in the
State, public or private, official or unofficial.
Our agents rendered us an account Of their
stewardship, and we received the money, with
out uttering solitary word of objection or
condemnation; and this in the eyes of all hon.
est men, if no other evidence of obligation
existed, would bind US by every consideration
of honor, justice and morality to pay the
bonds thus sold to the full amount of both
principal and interest. The argument now
offered, that the bonds were sold for less than
their par value, and the proceeds squandered
by the bank. will not weigh feather with any
honest man in the community. The violation
of the charter, if any there was, was commit
ted by the commissioners, and, if they tran
scendcd their authority and committed
breach of trust, the purchaser OF the bonds
cannot be made the sufferer, but whatever of
loss or inconvenience arises from the transac-
ton, must necessarily fall upon the party en-
ploying the commissioners. As the agents oil
the State and the Bank, they might have pot;;lS-
eted the whole $5,000,000, and taken the first
ship for Europe, and there squandered the mo-
Iney a Ia S,Cdrtuout! This would have been
considered breach of trust on their part but
it will not certainly be contended that it would
have afforded the state an apology for repudi-
ating the whole debt! And yet the argument
is quite as plausible as any yet offered. Our
agents, Legislators, governors, &c., say the
anti-bond payers, have been faithless to their
trusts-they have violated the constitution,
and borrowed money, and we will not pay
the debt. Well suppose they did? They
were the agents of the people, clothed with
full powers, and if they acted either impru-
IDENTIFY or dishonesty involving US in heavy
debt, it was certainly not the fault of the pur-
chaser of our funds. He knew the contract
ing parties only as the accredited and consti-
tutional authorities of sovereign state. and
he could not know that they were acting dis
honestly or in violation of our constitution
and therefore he cannot by any principle of
justice be made to suffer for wrong commit
ted by us. And especially he cannot be made
SO suffer for that wrong, after zoe as State
haze ratified 1T If he ever could have been
held amenable, the state forfeited its claim by
recognition of the contract as lawful one.
So much then for the violation of the char
ter which it is pretended was committed in the
sale of the bonds. We think we have shown
that if the charter aods violated, that the state
is by its own action effectually stopped from
taking any advantage of wrong committed
by its agents, and that, SO far as that point in
the controversy is concerned, the state itself
has conceded the question.
Again; in relation to the alleged violation
of the constitution of the state in the issue of
the bonds.
In our last we think we demonstrated that
a refusal by the state to pay the bonds on the
ground that they were unconstitutionally iss-
ued, would be base fraud. We showed We
ry plainly that Mr.. Biddle could not know
that the constitution was violated. and as the
question was not raised here where the peo-