Liberty advocate. [volume] (Liberty, Miss.) 1835-1866, 1843-07-29

-.
vocalcd the measure, believing It would
furnish a sound currency--open an av-
enue TO wealth and prosperity, ana con-
SO auentIy it was made a hobby upon
which candidates for the legislature rode
Into office. 1t was agitated long enough,
for every personsto make up his mind,
whether TO support or reject the charter
in contemplation. 1t was not done pre-
cipitately But it has been contended, that
1.-The supplemental act, conflicts with thel
oricinal charter, and consequently relea-
SEES The State from the legal obligation tol
redeem the bonds. The lallacy of this
position is very obvious. If the act
pledring the faith Of the State was con-
stilulionaI, which have shown conclu-
sively, (and believe it is generally ad-
mitted) it is equally clear that sthe
supplemental act, does not come in coils
sion with il; nor does ii increase the plight
ed faith Of the State. The object of the
Aedge is not changed, and as such the
fifth section above alluded to, remains
valid to all inlents and purposes. Butin
Ias'much as this section whereby the faith
of the State was pledged, was passed IN
conjunction with the charter, and the sup
Elemental act, was designed to carry out
the original charter, the details Of which
it changed to a certain extent, it is ur-
Iged that the constitution was violated,
and therefore The original charter IN
which the pledge was made, is null and
void. There is nothing in the supplement
which affects in the slightest degree, the
fifth section, Of the original charter,
(which is the only part or section that
pledged the faith Of the State. And II
was MOI necessary, that any otherpor ton
OF the charter should be published, and
subsequently passed at a future legisla.
lure. The supplemental act changed the
relation Of the State, from the receiving
an accommodation loan of two hundred
thousand dollars, to that of stockhol-
der to the amount Of 1--WE millions Of dol
lars. and made some other slight changes
in the details Of the original charter, but
it must be recolected that the entire char
ter did not pledge the faith of the State
consequently any change or alteration OF
its purport and meaning, would not affect
the position of the State, provided that
the section in which her faith was pledged
was no; repealed. But suppose that the
supplemental charter was void, does thai
annul the original charter? Most certainly
, not. |. is an established principle in the
| construction OF a statute, that part there
= of may be null, while the balance may DC
enforced. If law is passed and every
G section except one, is in violation OF the
= constitution, that part will be OF iull torct
. and effect.
The next plea which is set forth against
i the payment Of the bonds, is the ilegallty
or lloir oolos on the grounds that the
United States Bank of Pennsylvania, VIC
lated its charter in the purchase OF the
bonds; that they were sold on a scredIt
and for less than their par value. These
v arguments must fall harmessly to the
a ground. In the first place Nicholas Bid
J. die was the purchaser, and not tho United
l. States Bank as falsely alledged. The
}, bonds arc now in Europe; they did not re-
d remain in Biddes hands. Secondly--lf
o they were sold on credit and for less
than their par value, that did pot exempt
tho State, inasmuch as she ratified the
{ sale. The legislature after having re-
: ceived the report of the commissioners,
y appointed TO sell the bonds, give them a
= vote of thanks, for having effected sale
y highly advantageous to the State, under
her pecuniary embarrassments. 1t is an
: established principle in law, that the acts
= = of an agent, vested with power to trans
= act business, are binding upon the prnci-
y pal; then if that agent transcends his au-
thority, the conformation Of the employer,
y will render it of full binding and force.
= With regard 10 the bonds being sold Tor
less than their par value, if any plea at
> all could be set up, it would only bar the
recovery of the amount Of money, which
the commissioners failedto recover. Even
} then it would be ltigated question, whe-
: Their the State after confirming the sale OF
the bonds with a knowledge OF the CIR
cumstances, would have any recourse
, whatever. It would by no means cancel
? the whole debt. So much for the illegal
! ty Of the sale.
!, Again, the constitution provides that
r the State may choose court IN winch
! suits may be brought against her. The
coult Of chancery has been designated as
!. the tribunal in which, suits must be
y brought against the State This being a
. court of equity and justice is perfectly
o competent. In as much as State is de,
n fined to be moral person, and all qaes,
v lions relating to honor could be fairly de-
r cided, by a court OF conscience-and lur-
i. Their, the chancery court, has an equity
e jurisdiction, and it is not expected that a
e State will try TO take advantage of the
J. technicalties Of the law. Those who
o deny the legal obligation of the State, can
h have the matter fairly tested Bot the
e bond holders regard it as a debt of honor,
q and while they know that the State is