The Yazoo City Whig. [volume] (Yazoo, Miss.) 1844-1851, 1845-09-12

the imagination Of Tie BIiscoeiies, for the
law recognizes no such right, and hence has
given no remedy for such a right. LISA
rule Of law laid down BY every common law
writer from Coke down, that right accru.
ing from a possibility upon possibility isno
right atall. Now, if we can prove that, if
The gran,or has such right, lisa right ac-
craing from possibility upon a possibility,
then we are sustained in asserting that ii
is no right a.all, The first possibilitgupOn
which this right accrues is that the bank
commiisa Forfeiture, this every one will ad-
NIT. tits laid down in 2 Kenl's Commens
.taries, gre, that an act Of incorporation is
contract between the government and the
company'-and in Angel and Ames on
corporations, $40, it is laid down shat the
government creating the corporation can
alone institute proceedings against il for
forfeiture since it may waive broken
condition Of compact ma6e with il; 'shence
il is apparent that this right must depend
upon another possibility, viz: that the govern
ment does no, waive theforteiture. We have
shown that this right, which the BriscOeites
contend is vested in the grantor upon his
contract with the banks. depends upon a
possibility upon a possibility, and hence is,
according TO the known and we'll set
tied rule of the law, no right. Now how
can these amendments violate its obliga,
lation Of contracts, and deprive the grantol
Of his rights, when we have clearly shown
that the grantor acquires no right under the
contract? Admitting, as we have done, in
discussing this portion of our subject, that
the common law of England in reference 10
corporations is in force Interference TO banks
lin this country. upon bare Judgment oil
of forfeiture, the grantor does then, and
notuntil then, acquire right TO the proper
", which he has sold to the bank, then it is
the right springs into existence and fastens
itself upon The property. The right springs
merely from the judgment offorfeiture; now
we have shown above from the highest aus
lhority that the government can waive this
judgment Of forfeiture in toto, and most ins
dubitably, fit can dot altogether, itcan do
it in part now these amendments, supposing
The common law to be force, merely waive
a part ofthe forfeiture, which we have shown
the government have the right and the power
to do, then how can they be unconsttu.
,ional and how do they violate any right
of the grantor? But farther, these amend.
ments have been decided TO be constitution.
lal, By the highest iudiciaIcoustin our state.
And it has been decided oyer and over
again by every court in our union, that
bank has the power TO dissolve itself, and
make an assignment of all lis property fo
the benefit of lis creditors, and these de-
cisions sustain the very principle, which iht
Briscoeites contend TO be unconstitutional
We think we have clearly shown that these
amendments, even admitting the common
law to be in force, do not violate the obliga
lion of contracts, and are not unconstitu
tional. But as we think we conclusivel,
proved, in our former number, that the prin
ciple Of the common law which the BFis
coelles contend for never was in force il
reference to the banks, and that the doctrine
of forfeiture, does not apply to them: thes
amendments are merely remedial, substitu
ting in the case of debtors and creditors
new and more expeditions remedy. tia
the hong, tedious remedy in cllancery whic
) the common law gave.
! We have shown that the principle whicl
the Briscoeites contend for is Tninous, dis
aslrous and unjust, and inequitable in its con
/. quences, a pfinciple which was unknown I
+. the common law, and which destroys tn
obligation Of contracts between banks an
), their debtors and creditors: and now whig
land honest democrats Of Mississippi, W
2 leave for you 10 say, whether you can recor
Gle il with your consciences, with the prir
} lciples Of honesty, virtue, and morality
sustain such measure