Louisville messenger. (Louisville, Miss.) 1842-1843, 1843-08-26

Nhf fBiNNffNH NFHN y ~ - a Il
ioei 10 tic control Of Others. u ibs
Iihe case With the Legislature Of
Mississippi No, They, under Tho
Constitutions, afc bound To propose
tho question Of loan upon the cred
he Of the State. i0lhc people OF the
| State, and when the people have APP
proved Il, then they eau confirm lllo
proposition by n second cnaclmcnt'--
They have no power 10 make sue u
loan, without the people ~ ihelf
discretion" see proper to authorize
them 10 do ~. The court gay, mat
tho question Of "powcr' IN the officer,
Gn Ibis case the Lcgl'silurc) may
arise" The question ut once pre-
sents itself, had the Legislature pow
er" 10 make the loan Of five millions,
rs IL was nader All! that is The
question. | boldly affirm they had
net; aud unless Mr. Yetg'r proves
they had, the opinion cited by him
IhllS 10 sustain nllll'
call upon him to show, where
the Legislature derives any power
to Legislate but from the ConstiIu'
ton. Let him show. if he pleases,
where the Legislature obtains "pow.
er" to violate the Constitution, II
he cannot do this he must prove the
law, by which the loan was obtained
to be Constitutional, before he can
prove the Legislature had "power'
TO make the loan. This he cannot do.
Of course the opinion of the Court
avails him nothing.
"traud in the party" is another
question that may arise. The party
in this case,-Nicholas Biddle was
the purchaser of the bonds. The
Law under which the agents who
sold the bonds, and the special power
OF attorney under which they acted,
prohibited a sale of the bonds for
less than their spar value in current
money of the United States" The
law and power of attorney were laid
before him, which fact he acknowl-
edges over his own signature in the
articles of sale. Yet while he knew,
that he traded at his peril, ifhe made
contract contrary to the stipulations
OF the power Of attorney, he made it
as one Of the commissioners who
sold him the bonds, has sworn, an
indispensable condition to the con-
tract, that all the interest that had
accrued on the bonds, from their dale.
and all to accrue, up to the dates of
the respective payments which he
agreed to make, should be thrown
in; and that for evGy dollar for
which the bonds called, four shil-
lings and sixpence stefirg should be
paid. BY this contrac, if submitted
to, he would deffaud he State, out
ofupwards of one millDn dollars! II
need not quote authoities 10 prove
that fraud yitiates tn, legal obliga-
lion of contracts. Thy are numer-
Gus, and known TO evry lawyer
The opinion of the Curt quoted by
Mr.. Yerger, shows it may be made
a question.
The next case relfd on by Mr.. |
Yerger, is the case If Perkins VS.. |
Fairfield in the supreme Court of
Massachusetts,, IL Mas. Rep. 277.-I
"lhe question:" he says, was as to
the validity of sale of real estate,
made by an administration by virtue
OF a licence from the Court of Com.
mon Pleas"
The Court says
"Ihe order Of tile Court OF Com
mon Pleas, under which the admin
lstrators made the sale, in this case,
was licence to them to make sale
Of all the real estate of their intestate.
That Court had Jurisdiction of the
'ubject matter. II the Jurisdiction
vas improvidently exercised, or in
manner not warranted by the evil
fence from the probate Court, yet it
$ not TO be corrected at the expense
If the purchaser, who has a right to
ely on the order of the Court as an
authority emanating from competent
n |
II the above opinion of the court
AN be applied to the case before US
It all, it is only on the superstition,
hat the Legislature has acted, IN au-
horlzing the issuance of the five mil.
IONS of bonds within the scope of its
.uthority. The Court above named
lad authority to order sale of the
cal estate of the intestate, but had