The Democratic Whig. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1842-1843, 1843-10-05

Which was knosn By The name Of he Pre-
smH,i0n Law.
In The Union Bank charter, thsre are tEs
laws; The lss law has for Is object The raising
oflhe money necesv ~ 70 carry into operation
The Union Bank; tho % contains provisions
for the establishment Of tho Bank. The LEI
Is found in the Isl and 5th sections Of the char,
teri the rest 81 the act contains lhs necessary
provisions for The Incorporation, establishment
and regulationof the Bank. An act Of ineor-
poraiion need not receive The action oftho two
legislatures to render i constitutional; but The
constitution Of Mississippi requires hat a Law
pleJging the faith Of the STATE, should be passed
BY two succeeding legislatures to render il va.
I'D. Ia the act Of interpolation Of The q. bans
for which Mr.. Brown voted, onlv ihs la'r ~
viding Tor raising ne Funds BY pledging the
faith Of the State was referred 10 two egisla-
lures; that was alf Tat was deemed necessary
10 be referred in conformity with The consiitu-
ton. Mr.. claytoi cited several ether acts in
which the faith ,fthe State was pledged, and
for which Ger Brown bad voted; IN all oftkese
only that p,flion Of the bias pledging the faith
Of the safe was directed to be referred to
succeeding legislature. Among these acts
WIS one providing for the internal improve
meui Of the State" by which the faith Of the
State was pledged for FIVE millions, and anoth-
er was to aid the Commercial Rail Road ant
Banking Company Of Veksburg to prosecute
the work Of Internal Improvement by which
the faith Of the State was pledged for one mil.
lion. For both Ofthese acts Gen. Brown vo-
ted, and in eachit IL provided that tne sections
Of the acts, whereby the faith Of the Slate is
pledged, be referred to the succeeding leglsla.
ture, thus showing that the members Of the
Legislature and Mr.. Brown among them took
the same view Of the constitutional reduisilion
in regard to referring the law pledging the faith
Of the State to succeeding legislature, which
Sir. Clayton did, and be therefore concluded
that so much Of these acts as required but one
legislative action could be altered and amend
ed at pleasure. Mr. Clayton said that it had
been Intended that the execution Of the mort
cages contemplated in the act, for the security
Of the State, was a condition precedent, aud
as hat had been omitted to be done, that there
fore the state was UNDERGO Obligation to meet
It's bonds, Mr. Clayton satisfactorily answered
this objection; he said, suppose the mortgages
hal not been executed, but il had been repre-.
sented By The commissioners that they had,
and the Governor under llis ibpiesioa had
issued the bohda. Ca ss lnh5aeal purchasers
Or lhese bonia Be aasa8 6 sdasl 81 I'D ifb,
Iessaess Of oue aus igsals; eaaHt
lie showed todclasvely that Nc. Browns
position in having voted against the supple
Din whilst he voted for the original
charter did not in the slightest degree justify
biz present advocacy ofthe doctrine Of re5udi-
alton or make his Inconsistency less than il be
had voted Tor both bills. lie asked, did the
supplemental act change the original design Of
the acll No sir, il provided sor the States be-
coming a stockhpldey in the Institution, and no
one, he presumed, would assert that the State
could not take stock in this bank as well as
any other Mississippi. The only changes
which this supplemental act made, were, to
provide for the States taking five millions Of
stock, and an alteration Of the original act pro-
yiding for the appointment ola provisional d.
rectory, which under the supplementary act
was required to be composed Of the commits
sioners selected BY the provisions Of the second
section ithe charter. These changes neither
affected the law p'edging the faith Of tho State
nor interiered with the object proposed in the
charter, but were alterations in the details Of
the bill entirely unimportant. Me-. Clayton
then in forcible and unanswerable manner
exposed Mr.. Browns inconsistencies on this
subject. He mentioned the fact that whilst
be was in the legislature Of 1880, he was a
member Of a committee, which introduced a
oill giving additional privileges to the U. bank,
by which bonds len millions Eve hundred thous-
and additional dolls. were proposed to be issued
and sold for the benefit Of this institution. He
voted for this bill at its passage, and after il
was vetoed by Gov. McNuit voted for It's pas
sage over the Governors veto, BY the cOnsti-
tntional majority Of two thirds. The question
arises. why was The sum Of one million I've
hundred thousand dollars selected for the O.
Of bonds proposed to be issuedl The
answer is obvious, because this sum and the
first five millions, which had already been ne
9ociated, together made up the amount provi-
ded for ia the original charter Of the Union
Bank, and establish tho fact, that the Honorai
able A. g. Brown did not at that time attach
any Importance TO the States not having been
secured BY mortgages for the Eve millions
which had been obtained. This pretezt Is an
for as a member Of the Legisla'
turo acting under the solemniIy Of an oath be
could not have considered The execution Of the
NOR tgages q condition precedent or be would
not have supported this measure Mr.. Brown
also introduced into thehouse resolution thai
the two housss proceed to the election Of Ten
managers; when a motion was made for The
postponement Of his resolution devoted againsl
it and evinced the utmost anxiety to have thl
bank carried into immediate operation, Wills
Alsbury and Tucker and others, who were op
posed to the bank, threw every obstacle. in biz
way. The honorable gentleman knew YER