The Weekly register. (Ponola [sic] Panola, Miss.) 1843-1844, 1843-10-14

will of the people. The only question
then remaining is, "whether there is
sufficient evidence or not to raise a
strong and reasonable presumption of
such approval9 And whether mere nc
ouiescence is sufficient evidence, or 1
whether more positive evidence is ne
cessary.n The answer TO these ques-
tons will vary according to the fact,
whether the controversy TO be determ-
iRek lies between the State and It's Lee
rislature, or between the State and
third persons. In the former case the
people may constitute thems elves the
Judges, and by mere declaration OF
their will may rebet the presumption
arising from their acquiescence; but in
the latter case, third persons who rely
ing on the presumption afforded by such
acquiesceEce, have been induced thereby
to part with money or some other pos
session for the use Of, or on the faith oil
the State, have right TO full restitution.
This is especially true, where acquies-
cence has been accompanied or followed
by positive acts Of the Legislature tend
ing to corroborate such resumption
This view Of the subject is sustained by
commentators and judges, and fierce as
the hostility Of the Regulators may be
against judicial authority, we will quote
such, as by the common consent Of mar
kind, are most worthy of respect.
In Vattels law of Nations, page 223,
section gig, where the author is speak
ing of agreements made by State, he
saws: eve have shown that stat
cannot be bound by an agreement made
without her orders and without her hav-
ing granted any power for that pur-
pose. But is she absolutely free from
all obligation? That is the point which
now remains for US TO examine. limat-
tiers as yet remain N their orr gtnal stu
alton, the State or the sovereign may
simply disown the treaty, which OF
course is done away by such disavowal.
But the sovereign ought to make known
his intentions as soon as the treaty
comes TO his knowledge; not indeed that
his silence alone can give validity to
convention which the contracting par
ties have agread not to consider valid
without his appreciation, but it would
be breach of good faith in him to suf:
fer a sufficient time TO elapse for tbs
other party to execute on his side what
he himselfls determined not to ratlfy.'
And if, in such case, property or money
has been delivered in consequence o.
The agreement, if the State does no
ratify it, the property or money must be
restored, for says Vattel, page 224
F"Wkcn State thinking she has conclu
ded peace with the enemy, genera
| has In consequence delivered up one o
! her strong places, or given sum o
money, The Sovereign of that Genera
r is undoubtedly bound to restore what h
r has received, if he ICES not choose TO rat
5 ify the agreement.
i 1t is rule of internationg, law. tina
Q the promises, conventions or p.;vat
10 contracts of the State or sovereign ar
y naturally subject to the same rules Q
le hose of private persons [Vattel secho
in 213. The foregoing cases are only /
in Illustrative ofth rule. Where an ind
I'd vidual or State permits third person
ir TO part with property or money, upo
I'd the supposition or belief that they al
1t advancing it upon the faith of son
g. agreement made with the State, if I
v such agreement was made, or if mac
he without authority, it is the duty of Il
hit State to prevent it. If the Legislator
wv with knowledge of the facts permits t
mt party to part with his money or pro
of erty without interfering, it would be
gross fraud, and in both law and mora
oh the State is bound. Many illustrate
IN of this rule might be put. TIA nj
he stands by and sees another convey
me property, without authority, and dc
len not make known his claim, he is gull
he of fraud if he attempts afterwards
ION assert it. Wide I Story, Eq. $40,
lie, Seg.I
W. 1t remains for US to enquire, with t
mt view of a correct application of the fol