The Yazoo Whig and political register. (Yazoo City, Miss.) 1840-1842, 1841-10-01
From the Natchez Courier.
The supplemental Bill-Par value

The supplemental Bill-Par value.
1t is commended By the Anti BOnders, that
the supplemental bill is unconstitutional
a nulIity-and the bonds are chiefly TO be
Irepudiated because they were not sold tor
par UGLWc. The only provision for the sale
Of the bonds for their par value, is in the
Supplemental bIl-if that bill be uncOnsti-
tulonsl, it was so at the disposal Of the
bonds; if the unconstitutiOnality Of the
Il bill renders it now a nullity, it was Of course
a nullity at the time of sale. 1t is inCOntes-
tably results from these promises, that the
Unconstitutional supplemental bill being
nullity and no law, could not bind the COM
missiOners of the bank, and therefore any
thing in it in relation to the sale of the
bonds, is and always has been of no impOr-
lance whatever.
We are perfectly willing to grant, for the
Isake Of argument, that the bill is uncOnsti-
tnional and a nuIlity-the requirement,
that The bonds should n0l be sold under
par value, is also nudity; and we ask our
opponents, these pOstulates being granted,
as they demInd what authority they can
find for denOunCing the sale of the bonds be.
Cause they were made under par value? The
ar ginal chlrtsr is the only law 10 guide and
guvern the bank, the supplement being a
mulIIy-iS there a solitary provision in it
rrymlIlimg the sale of the bonds, either for
cash or un time, either under, or above par
value? Not one word. Is there a single
prohibition, or enactment TO restrain The
bank from selling them, if it chose at dis.
count Of fifty or sevenIy-fve per cent. and
that not payable for ten or fifteen years?
+ No one word.
UpM what then must our opponents rest
their leasnning, when they abluTe the dis
pOsal Of The bonds, because they were not
sold at par value and for cash? Upon this
. supplemental bill and this only. But do
/, they not say, that it 8 an unconstitutional
, act, aud in fact nulIity2 Certainly they
do, aud they trip up their own and their On-
~ fooIhold by this asserlion.-They blow
e hot aud cold-they involve themselves in
: dilemma, OF their own handwork-they take
q two positions, utterly irreCOnCileable. may
actually snbVersive of each. These posi-.
tons are like the Kilkenny cais-they eat
each other up, and the tale, which the anti
bOndeTs. have possessed themselves of is
utterly worthless.
How can the State avail herself Of pro-
e vision in null and void law 10 escape the
:, responsibility, which constitutional, aud
r. sound law impose upon her! The charter
is constitutional, is valid, few or none dis
ipule It so far as we know, the charter con-
tains the pledge of the faith of the State
. land one can extract from it any word, or
e words, forbidding any act of the commits
e siOners of the Bank Now, the anti-bOn-
ders contend that the sale is void under q
null law--nOt under the valid chatter
and, for this reason, ask the State TO refuse
10 TO pay up the bonds. We put it to any man
at OF common sense, if this is not absolutely
4 making null and unconstitutional act of q
If greater force, Of superior power to that
e possessed by constitutional and valid law
!, Does not the supplemental bill nulIity,
: push aside, and overcome the charter, q
= firm and correct law? Does not the act
l. which ought to have no effect silence that,
r which ought to bind the States Andis not
3. sCch contemplate mockry Of reasoning too
II PrePOsturOus, too absurd to gull men OfcOm'
N mon sense?.
n lfpeople would look at this subject, With
8 the cool eye Of sober reason they would
] ] scout those illogical and self destroying
4 dOgmas, as too pitifUl for noticing.