Liberty advocate. [volume] (Liberty, Miss.) 1835-1866, 1841-10-21

charter, creating the State stakeholder.
could by no possible means enlarge or in
crease the faith Of the State, already
plighted, under the provisions OF the orr.
g,nal &C, Of incorporation. The sum
for which the State has pledged her faith
is precisely the same Blu. il will be per.
ceived that the liability of the State
as stakeholder in the bank, is entirely
distinct from her liability upon her bonds.
As State or sovereignty she pledged her
faith and credit. As a Stakeholder, she as
sumed neW and substantive liabiliy; not
as State or sovereignty, but as mere in
dlVldual--G common citizen; for il State
becomes a partner in trading co npany,
or a stakeholder in any bank, she Invests
he rselE, SO far as concerns that company
nr bank, or her sovereign character.
,, This is a sound and we'll settled principle
running through all the settled authorities.
Then if the State pledged her lah-her
sovereign faith, she did it i'll her sdrereign
aud Governmental name and character ;
as a stakeholder in privAtsl corporation,
she could not pledge her faith, her soue-
reign faith 4; therefore, her liability found
ed npon that pledge, is entirely different
from her liability as a stockholcer As
a stakeholder, she acts in private citl,
zen capucity--in pedging the faith and
credit Of the State, she acts in her sore
reign capacity. Then if hel character as
.,ooI, l. ,IJo. :. J;a1;not crouo har Charno
ter as a state or sovereignty, and she
could only pledge her faith in the latter
chara cter, the consequence inevitably fol.
lows, that the supplemental charter max
ing her stakeholder does not change or
in otherwise alter or affect her sovereign
liability, and therefore is constitutional.
There are other objections which have
been urged against the constitutionality
Of the supplemental charter Of the bank,
which in my estimation need not be met
and refuted. Like those already noticed,
they are entirely groundless and without
the shadow Of foundation in law or rea-
son. | will here remark, that some Of
the views here embodied, have been ad
ysnced in other papers, which were pen
ned by me at intervals Of leisure, and
published in the Southron. Having dis
posed Of the question involving the legal
'ity Of the execution Of the bonds, shall
proceed to examine the communication Of
His Excelency, addressed 10 Messrs.
Hope g. Co., Of Amsterdam.
While regard that document as one
entirely uncaIed for, and of an extraor.
binary character shall trea. it with all
proper respect, coming as it does from the
chief magistrate Of the State. His argu.
ment is based upon the supposed illegal
sale Of the bonds. He alleges that they
we're negotiated and sold at less than
their par value, in violation Of the char
tor of the bank. This allegation is pre-.
cmptorily denied. What arc we to I'm.
derstand to be the meaning Of the phrase
par udluei" II is that value which i,
equal to the intrinsic value or worth o.
the bonds. What is tho intrinsic value !
The bonds were executed tor the sum o.
five millions Of dollars in the current
money of the United S,a.os. Then that
amount in the current money Of the Uni
ted States is the par value Of the bonds
tina, which the bonds purport to be worth
upon their face. Were they then sole
for their par value How are we 10 as,
certain that fact From the terms Of thu
contract OF sale. We must have an eve
to the time they were sold and if the,
were sold for sum equal to FIVE millions
their real value at the time the contract
Of sale was entered into and consumma.
. ted by the delivery Of the bonds to the
purchaser, then they were sold at thei
/. par value. When were they sold 7 o.
the 18th of August 1888. By the con
} tract Of sale of that date, it app ears tina
the bonds were sold for the sum of five
, millions Of dollars, which in law mean.
, five millions Of dollars in the curren,
money Of the United States. Then the
: bonds we're sold at par value, for their val
! must be estimated at tho time Of sae.-
! There is, apprehend material distinc-
ton between selling OH a credit and sell
r ling at par. The commissioners had a
: perfect right to stiPuIate, having disposed
} Of the bonds at their par value, tha. tn,
+, proceeds Of that par sale might be paid
at subsequent day. 1t does seem then
that the bonds we're sold at their par val
ue. But suppose in this that am mis-,
: taken, still it is confidently believed, that
. the State cannot Sc, up any such defence
D TO whom were the bonds made payable
The bank. TO whom we're they deliver.
= ed ? The bank. Then the bank was tn,
5 legal holder, the State the oblgator, auc
! the bank the obigee. The legal inter
. est was vested in the bank. The 9th sec
ton Of the original cnarter made the bonds
. negotiable by the endorsement Of the
President and Cashier. They on behalf
, OF the bank had clear right to dispose
OF them They we're executed for the
purpose OF negotiation and sale. The 10.
gal interest being vested in the bank, il
had right to sell and dispose Of them.
But the 9Th section of the supplemental
cha rtaF IF tho hnvIK IL. II