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


pay the bonds, for the security and pro.
lection of the State, which conditions were
never complied with by the stockholders |
We answer that the Legislature of 1887, |
who "proposed" the Law "to raise the |
loan" did not attach or annex any condi. |
dItlon, fo+te 'Laac' proposing to raise the
money upon the bonds of the State, nor
did they SO design. Else, why did they
rJer the 9Th Section alone to the succeed. |
ing Legislature? Why. by the rcferea ;e |
OF that section alone, make to them the
unconditional proposition contained there.
y separate and apart from the rest of
act. Here is the reference.
''S AZ. Be 1t further enacted, THAT
the ffth section of this act, whereby the
faith of the state is pledged for the
payment and redemption Of the loan
contemplated by this act, he referred
- the next legislature Of this state, in.
pursuance Of the ninth section Of ne !
seventh article ofthe constitutions"
1.-THE legislature had designed to annex
any condition to the obligation OF the
State, would tLey not have referred that
condition with the obligation Itself? III
they designed that the State should have
been secured, before the State should be-
come bound by her bonds. would they not
have referred the whole charter, as
this was necessary to have made it
a condition precedent? But the Legisia-
ture had no such design. They proposed
to execute the bonds acithout condition, for
the purpose of enabling the bank to realize
the money to be raised thereby. They
never contemplated that the holders of the
State bonds, were to look TO and protect
the interest the State; nor that the mon
ey was to be borrowed upon the faith or
credit of the State-upon condition that
the State should not be liable or run no
risk of payment.
That the Legislature, did not intend 10
Snnex any condition 10 the obligation of
the State, is not only deducibe from the
fact that the 9th section alone was re-
ferred, but from the language of the ela,c"
itself;which declares thal"in order to facii.
tate the said Union Bank for the ban of
SIS, 5OO,0O0,the faith of the state "Be and
is hereby pledged &c. The language of
the bonds oo,import an absolute acknowl.
edgemeut Of Indebtedness and an uncon.
ditional promise to pay.
Neither did the next succeeding legis-
lature, design to annex any conditions to
the payment ofthe bonds; else, why pass
the supplement, changing and repeating the
very conditions, which it is contended were
annexed to the contract? If, for instance,
they regarded the execution of mortgages
and bonds by the stockholders, for the Sc
curity ofthe State, 0s condition prec,.
| dent, why did they authorize and re.
| quire the Governor, by the LIST section Of
the supplement, to subscribe for $4,000
shares of the capital stock Of the Bank;
thereby waving the Uery condition upon
/ which II is contended the State was 10 be
liable If they understood that the whole
charter was submitted to them, as par
ofthe contract pledging the faith of the
state, why did they with the knowledge
that it required the concurrence of two
legislatures, repeal.a portion ofthe charter
and alter some of its material provisions
1t was their ardent desire, to render the
contract valid; to bind the state for the
paymen, of the bonds, that they might
raise the money on her credit. They did
not aim to render the slap" creating
anobligation on the state a nullity. TO char
ter the bank and to raise the loan of mon
ey TO bank upon, at the cery earliest perIot
possible was the great desideratum of tn
people and their representatives. 1t
clear therefore, that neither the Legisla
] lures of 1887 or 80, ever designed Il
2 annex any Limitation or condition, t
the obligation of the State, 10 pay tn
!, bonds.
, Again it is said that by The Both sectio
of the charter, the bonds were MOTTO hay
}. been issued by the Governor, only as tn
e stock subscribed for was secured to tn
satisfaction of the directors; and that h
: did issue them, without the security {
u Bonds and mortgages as required.
5 This provision was not referred 10 th
second Legislature, as a condition or pa
If of the proposition to pledge the faith c
Y credit Of the State,or TO raise the conteH
= plated loan, nor was it necessary to haN
i referred if as it did not propose any sue
= obligation. The second Legislature b
y the 10Th section ofthe supplement, repea
l. ed, $50 much of the original charter,
L conhicted with the provisions of the SUI
le plement." And the first Section of IL
II supplement "authorised and required Il
Al Governor s'to subscribe for in behalf
a. the State, fifty thousand shares, OF Il
= original capital of said bank" The
- two provisions of the supplement, rePeal'
the 30th section of the original chartt
= which required bonds and mortgages
IS be executed by the stockholders for
in security Of the State, so far at least,
OF the State stock was concerned
It's When the State therefore according
,e the provision ofthe tst section of the 81
: p|ement. took the stock allowed her,
= Governor very properly issued bonds
Sil the amount of the stock subscribed
er on behalf of the State, without req
ne ring from the State, bonds and mortgag
nd TO secure herself.
Nv But it is urged that this resulted
nv binding the state without any security
he whereas by the original charter she '
! to have been secured. This is true.
= the constitution does not require, that
,or State should not pledge her faith or "a
ne a loan of money upon her credit, 'rtta
w, security. The loss of security to
in State does not therefore render the s'td
he binding the State to pay the bonds
M constitional, or in any way affect the ?
~ chaser of the Bonds for the reason