Holly Springs gazette., 1843-09-29
HON. C. p. SMITHS ADDRESS.

| HON. c. II. SMITHS ADDRESS.
We cannot refrain from laying before
our readers the following extract from tho
address ofthis distinguished democrat, upon
the subject of the bonds. We would ad-
ly publish The whole of it, bat for its great
length Alter an onanswerable argument
upon the constitutionalty OF the bonds. upon
which alone, we think he might safely
have rested the question, he takes up the
subject Of the subsequent ratification, by the
State, and moral liability to pay the bonds.
resting upon the people. Many Of our bond
paying friends are not convinced of their
consttutionality, who are none the less,
strenuous bond-payers, upon moral and e
Guitable grounds We wish this class of
bond payers would read Judge Smiths ar
gumen: upon the constitutional question, we
think j: cannot fail to satisfy them We
have a few pamphlet copies at this Office,
which we will lend to these who will read
and reject
admitting that we have failed to sustain
every position which we have heretofore as
sumed we maintain that the state Of Aissis-
sippi in her sovereign capacity, has bound
herself by a subsequent recognition and
ratification of the law authorizing the loan
and acts Of those persons who executed aud
negotiated these bonds, and received tie pro-
ceeds thereof You are doubtless fully a
hare ,;,ase oflhe arguments by which this posi-
proper briefly to state the ground OF those
arguments and the conclusion deduced
Il is assumed that the people OF Mississip
pi, in their aggregate or sovereign charac-
ter, are Incapable Of performing any act, un-
less il be done through one or all OF the de-
partmeats of their government, and IN con-
fornity with the directions Of organic law
That the government over the subject OF
loans possesses a special aad limited author
ity. That ia reference to the exercise of
this peculiar power, tie legislative branch
Of the government is but the agent ofthe
state. whose euer of attorney Is the constltn
tion. and that any act fsach agent attempt
ing to pledge the faith Of the state TO raise
loan If money! will not be obligatory, IN
less the letter OF attorney Is strictly pursued.
frba, the same ceremonies or acts which are
r4ooIred 10 pledge the faith ofthe state to
raise a loan s: Goney. would be necessary
10 bind tbe fsilf of the STATE l0s repayment
of money illegally obsained II aer name by
her agent That assuming The bonds were
negollated under void authority, subse-
oaeng reeaDtion Of the money BY the agent.
and an express promise IN her name 10 pay
it, is not obligatory on the state, the promise
to pay by her agent not having been made
in The same manner in which the agent
would have the authority to pledge ske laith
OF the state to raise loan And that as the
people of The state have no right, In their
sovereign character. to express an assent TO
the acts of her attorney in fact, the govern
ment, no obligation could or has attached 10
them in their aggregate or state capacity
We endeavor 10 stste fairly the argument,
and in as strong terms as we could en- pioy
We denv the validity ofthis assumption,
or that the history of our institutions sus,ains
it. We believe that il Is essential Y despotic
in its tendencies; that the theory on which
| it is based, should it be practically applied.
would render nugato:y, 10 some extent, the
scheme ofa Representative republic and if
enforced in this instance, by yon. weud on
your part, be a himsy constitutional fiction.
with which is sought TO cover palpable
fraud.
We say that it is despotic IN its character
because if the people. in their sovereign ca
pacity and apart from the government have
no right to express an opinion, 10 form a
Judgment, or to assent to the acts OF their
government, it follows. as an inevitable con
sequence, that they could not dissentffom
its acts, however despotic they might be
that having once adopted constitution, and
established government, The rights OF ultl
mate sovereignty would be surrendered
and that no re-org rganization of their fa ada
mental law could ever be effected, howevei
unt qnal. unjust, or impoIlic i night be. un
less their gocernors should concede til,
rigbf 70 do 50.
4 Is manifes,ly inpractieable for an,