Louisville messenger. (Louisville, Miss.) 1842-1843, 1843-09-23

nNN Nsf n
lIycs and properly, Knowing thai
ssefy mentor Of lhr nasoelaiIou
alnn1s lolomnly, nnd inoraIly bound
TO protect lhtm. Suppose again
lint eleven members OF III. asset Ia
lion conclude 10 contract a dab II
tho nnmc of tho community. aud III
violation Of The conditions OF tlis
compact. II Ing u nnj ,rity. iliey
influence the agency 10 manage lllciI
affairs, 10 cract u law f,r that pur
pose. Suppose, while this Is going
on, ard the loan or debt il crentcd
and the money spout with the appro.
bailon Of this majority, four more, OIL
the little community stand by In ~
lencc, and the oihcp four, expostulaie
with the majority against this usur'
patton Of power--rtfnlnd them that
their act isa violation Of the compact
into which they have entered, and
subvcrs;ve Of the great end for
which the compact was formed. /
ask, If tbcse, last, four individuals are
legally bound for tho debt? They
cannot be, because they never agreed
to it, and the act Of Inc majority was
an usu patton, declared BY the com
pact TO be void. Is there any moral
obligation on the last four persons to
pay the debt' No, for the debt was
contracted without their agency, or
consent; and no man is bound, reli-
giously, or morally, for tine acts OF
otheres in which he had no partici-
patton. The act ofthe majority in
this case being unauthorized BY the
compact, whence all their authority
to legislate is derived, was not a
governmental act. If nota govern
mental act, it must have Ieen an act
Of individuals, in their natural state !;
and as we have shown that no liabili-
ty, either legal, or moral, can rest
upon the minority, it must ret upon
those who contracted the debt, and
who received and used the money
But this majority does not comp Sc
the stale, community, ora ISOLATION,
but only a part of it. The aci Of a
part Of community, is not the actof
a whole community; and their act,
not being authorized by the compact,
on which the community was form.
ed, it was not their act, in their pc.
litical or social character, but in their
individual or natural chara ter. To
assume,, then, that such act was
governmental act,---an act OF the So
ciety, and that the obligation rests
upon them as a society, to discharge
the obligation, is unfounded in fact;
and the consumation Of such doc
Lrine, would involve tie Innocent in
the sins Of the guilty. 1t would be
tyranny of the most outrageous char
acter. 1t would be at war with the
genius and principles Of orr govern
meut, and subyersiye Of all religion,
and all morality. Yet, this is the
doctrine plead for by Mr.. Yerger Il
the Union Bank bondpayers. This
is what they call honor, justice and
morality. The honor, glory and
dignity Of the State Of Mississippi.
depends, then, upon an act, subver-
sive Of justice, religion and morality!
In "repudiated" public faith, in tyr
amy, in oppression, in the practice |
Of doctrines destructive Of republican
and Constitutional government, and
which, when cousumated, must end !,
IN anarchy and despotism!
But great sympathy Is manifested
by these "honor and dignity" gentle
men for the poor, unfortunate indi.
'iduals who purchased these bonds,
'ignorantly," supposing them to be
he bonds Of the State! Who was
he purchaser of these bonds? Mich
'las Biddle, ostensbly, but really the
United States Bank. What a pity
hat Mr. BIddle had not been sent to
chool, so that he could have learned
o read! Could he have read, as he
undertook to be an extensive stock
obber and financier, he would pro-
,aly, at least have read Chitty on
contracts, ard Kent on agencies.-
lie would, if he had profIed by such
eading have looked over the consti-
ution, and the law, and power of
ltorney, under which The bonds