The Democratic Whig. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1842-1843, 1843-09-21

believe the bonds 70 Be strictly l0li1Illa0ie
b the conSihuhon, we nls8 behave and VII en-
dsaror % demonstrate that, even Admitting
fhemfo have hesn executed without Elela|
compliance with the pFoVsions Of the ouustiiu-
ion, refusal 10 pay thom would, undar ezis-
ting Circumstances, Be repugnant to The spirit
q the constiuiion,a and . that law Of conscianee
which God has engFaxen On The human heart
and which a pafsmuut 70 ~ human laws that
auch refusal would Be 4 conversion Of thai IN
slFument which vas Intended only a. = shield Of
pfuleciiun ini1a spear ofiniusIice and rapino-
hat L Would change what vas meant 70 operate
60 . restriction 70 our legislature, into q com
miasion and license to deceive and plumber for
sign natous and individuals.
Eniertaining these views, we DO not hesitate
% aVou and maintain the opinion that even i'd
hitting lhe objections just review ed us valid snd
correci. YET Ne State of Mississippi il bound y
payuvary iot and title Of the bonds executed and
sod 90 the nss ofihs Planters and The Union
BANKS.
The suprsne Court Of the State has already,
IN effect, decided that the original and supple
mental ucts are eoustituiional--thut the Union
bank bonds were executed BY virtue and IN con-
formity 70 tho original charter and that the sup
picmenial act only relates 70 The details Of the
Bank which might eonsdtulionally Be changed
By one Legislature for the purpose Of carrying
more completely into effect TIE objects Of the
original charter. Every citizen entertaining
proper respect for the con itutiOn, ought also 20
respect the decisions Of a tribunal endowed BY
that conaiiiuiion with supreme judicial power.
But the spirit Of reputation g 50 trueulent and
disOrganizing in its nature, and 50 revolutionary
in lie tendencies, that it viii pull down with VIE
lent hands ,hs ismplelOi justice on tho heads Of
iis appointed minister's and erect on lie ruins q
stage for political mountsbsnks and ambitious
demagogues
Wewill not therefore rely on judicial aulhsrl-
Y for the maintenance Of our oaDssi we rely on
the SecisiOn Of the people themselves, who BY
their acquiososnos and BY the acts Of their gov
srnment have approved and confirmed, beyond
the power ofrsvooaliou, the execution and sale
oftho bonds.
We have only demonstrated that the only OBJ
Jet OF the 9th section Of the 7lh article Of the
constitution, was 10 ascertain the will Of The peo-
pie in regard to every measure which proposes
TO pledge the faith Of the State. We have also
shown that The mode ofascertaining the popular
win in such cases is taeit enc, and that The
Legislature can only infer the will Of the people
respecting any particular measure from their
having elected members favorable to is consum,
nation. This is the mode or form Of evidence
provided BY the constitution Cor ascerlaining the
popular wish. L is therefore The highest but
not the only evidence by which that will can be
ascerlsinsd' rhepeOple might, ifthey plsaved
meet in convention and not only authorize 10 that
way, bonds 10 be executed and pledge The faith
Ofihe State for their redemption, but they could
thus susPoud or abFogate the constitution itself
II was convention Of the people or delegates
representing them, which destroyed the old con,
slitution and created the new one, and similar
convention might now in Ike manneI abrogatc
the new constitution, although that instrument
contains a clause prescribing mode Of smend,
ment, without a convention.
II a clause Of the constitution which BRO.
vldes mode Of amending the Constitution
does not take away from the pc 0ple the power
oldoing the same thing in a different manner
how then can It be intended that because The
people have provided in the constitution a mode
Of pledging the faith Of the State. they are
therefore deprived Of the power 10 do the same
thing in aditieFent manner. The truth is, the
constitution does not abridge the power Of the
people. Itonly limits the exercise ofthat DOW.
er BY those agents to whom they have delega.
ted II. This limitation does not retract on
themselves; hitdd, then every man who con.
fers limited power on his agent TO do par.
tleular thing, by the same instrument, limits
hls own power to do The same thing. AND
yet no one will have the hardihoOd to con,
tend that in the case supposed, the principal
would be confined to the limited powers en-
trusted 10 his agent
II the above position be correct and those
who deny its correctness deny also the author.
ily Of the constitution ITSELF il follows fori
or, that the people may sanction and confirm
the acts other Legislature or Executive aftel
they have been performed and that such ap
proyal may be evinced IN mode different from
that which the constitution has provided, fol
the purpose Of enabling the Legislature to as
certain tho will ofthe people. The only ques
ton then remaining is, "whether there is suf
ieent evidence or not TO raise a strong ans
reasonable presumption Of such approval! AM
whether mere aequiescence is sufficient evi
denee, or whether more positive evidence i
necessary The answer TO these question:
VIII vary according to the fact; whether th
controversy 10 be determined lies between th
State and third persons. In the former cas-
the people may constitute themselves tn
judges, and by amsre declaration Of their vii
mayrebutthe presumption arising from thei
acquiescence; but In the latter case thin
persons who relying on the presumption affor
ded By such acquescence, have been induce
therebyto part with money or some other pos
session for the use o., or on the faith of th
State have a right to iul restitution. This
especially true, where acquiescanee has bee
accompanied OF followed by positive acts Of III
Legislature tending 10 oorroborate such pre-
sumption This view Of the subject IS sns
tanned BY commentators and judges, and fioFe
as the hostility Of the Regulators NAV
against judicial authority weiwill quote sue
as by the common consent OF mankind, ar
the most worthy Of respect.
IN Valtes law Of Nations, page 253, seetio
2l2 where the author in speaking OF agreC
menis made By State, he says: ave hay
shown that a State cannot be bound BY A
agreement made without her orders and viii
Out her having granted any power for thi
purpose. But IS she absolutely free from a
obligation! That is the point which now n
mains iorus 70 examine. lfmatlers as vet II
nam IN their original situation, the State