Lexington union. (Lexington, Miss.) 1838-18??, 1841-02-27

State would be Just as much bound IN the
latter as the former case. The Commits
sioners had Just as much power TO dispose
of the bonds for hogs and horses, as they
had to sell them to Mr.. Stock Gambler,
Nicholas Biddle, on credit, at less thar
their par value, by this means defrauding
the State cut of one hundred and fifty
thousand dollars; as clearly appears from
the report OF the committee appointed at
the last session Of tho Legislature, to eX-
anime the affairs Of the Union Bank, The
bonds of the State bear interest from the
time OF the sale OF transfer, and as they
were sold on a credit, the State loses the
interest from the time OF sale or transfer,
until the several instalments, respectively,
fall due.
The committee labor assiduously to
prove that the State has lost nothing by
the disposal Of The bonds at less than their
par value. They say,
81 will be perceived that the purchaser
Of the first series Of the bonds, was Nicho.
las Bid4le, Esq, of Philadelphia, aud the
payments of the same are in iOstalmenls
of one million each, on the first day Of
November, 1888, and of January, March,
May and July, 1899. The four first in.
slalments at the city of New Orleans, and
the last at the city of Natchez, in gold,
silver, or their equivalents. The trade of
our State generally running IN favor of New
Orleans, where the four first instalmens
are payable, and there being large balan.
ces against our State in that city, the bank
by receiving moderate premium on the
checks drawn against these insialmens,
have enabled our citizens, at low rate Of
exchange, TO liquidaie great portion of
their foreign debt, and at the sumo time
has realized herself profit on The transac
ton, greater than the difference Of interest
on the bonds (paid by the bank) while the
insalments, without interest, are matur-
ing; the result following, that the proceeds
oil the sale of the State bonds, in reality,
amounts to more than their par Value
Two OF the instalments have been PROMPT.
iy met, by the purchaser of the bonds, and
the bank has been permitted to draw large
ly on the March instalment, with a like
profit on the exchange drawn against il
la the face OF these results, doubt cannot
be entertained, but that the sale of the
bonds has been made in strict conformity
with the letters Of instructions from the
board OF managers to the commissioners
and IN accordance with The inlnctions o.
the bank charter"
This IS indeed special pleading, "with
vengeance" | must conrps ih,t tho
high opinion l had formed Of the ingenuity
OF the chairman of the committee (Mr.
Yergcr) has not been diminished by this
report. Here is laborel effort to prove
that, as The Union Bank, in a subsequent
banking transaction, had made prof,
equal in amount to the loss sustained BY
the State in selling the bonds that ,conse-
qnently, they were sold at their par value
The committee were very particular to
give US one instance where The prof, was
made by the bank; but they took good care
not to trouble this honorable body with a
recital of the immense loss sustained bv
that institution in almost every transaction
IN which it ever engaged.
The losses Of the institution will more
than balance against all the profits made
by the bank.
The rec jurse which has been had TO so
weak an argument 10 sustain sinking
cause, verlties The old adage, that''a drown
ing man will catch at straws.''
Butagain we will now suppose that the
commissioners were the agents Of the
bank, and that they acted under iustruc
tons from the managers of the Union
Bank, in disposing of the bonds, this does
not lessen the strength of my position, for
The execution of the bonds was under a
contract made at the time the bank was
chartered, the terms Of which, The State
lad right to prescribe; for all govern,
nents have the power, when they contract
10 prescribe the terms. The terms pre-.
crlbed by the State were, that the bonds {
we're TO be sold at their par value, aud the
'ank, the moment she took the bonds. ac. Is
eded to those terms. L
A contract is binding on both parties or I
either, and if the bank was not bound TO /
ell the bonds at their par value, the State q
} not bound 10 pay them. The conclusion
aen, is self evident, that as tho bonds
yere sold in violation of the contract en-. |,
sred into between the State and the bank. ii
ON The moment oftheir illegal sale, thew b
)st their binding forca unon the State a ID