True Democrat. (Paulding, Miss.) 1845-18??, 1846-01-21


exclusive right Of banking in the State 10
singiC corporation, for series Of years.
There was nothing in the constitution OF
1917 expressly giving this right, and the
Legislature of 1918 was assuming too
much perhaps, when it undertook TO fore
stall the action of each subsequent legiSla.
ture to the year 1884, when the charter of
! the old bank was to expire.
On the mind of those who believe the
Legislature has the power 10 repeal bank
charters, the argument that the " Planters
Bank" contlicled with the rights "of the
Mississippi Bank" will fall as seed sown
on stony ground" And TO those who be-
lieye with me, that the powers Of one Lc-
gi9iturG are commensurate with those OF
arDher, where no exclusive constitutional
rights are given TO one over another 1t
will seem almost conclusive that the LIE
/ gislature Of 1918 had no right to assume
the exclusive and entire control over the
subject of banking, as they did Tor period
Of L years.
Tne, the opinions Of gentlemen distin-
/ guishld for their legal ability, have been
invoked, a.d are sad to sustain this posi-
/ ton. These gentlemen may have been
wrong. Ifthgy meant 10 say that the Is
suauce OF these bonds was unconstitutional
it is, TO my mind, most palpabe that they
Were so.
-Hbere was nothing in ,he constitution
| Of 1917 which forbid the Legislature TO
pledge the public faith for a loan Of mo
ney, They did pIcdgei,, and on thar laitL
borrowed 100000 dollars, which was in
vested in Planters Bank stock, Oh which
the State, for many years, received tie Ii
yitCndS; and would doubtless have cont
uuod to receive them if the bank had con
tinped to declare them. | do not now un-
dcrtake TO coutrovert the unconstitutional
ity of the bank charter that is not mate
nal 10 my purpose. The State received
the money, aud she had a constitutional.
right TO receive il in the way she did; ii
size invested Tin the stock Of al uncousli- /
tutlonai bank, OF her own creation, such /
Investment does not in my Judgment. !.
weaken the obligation which she IS under .
to pay it back. But the argument Of IFS T
Unconsl.tutI0ua'ity, if solid, only applies .
to the first 10000 dollars. The people T
OF the State assembled IN convention III /
1882 to revise and amend their coustlu- .
hon. Dythg Jtl section of the 1tha.tcLe .
q the constitution which they then made, .
they imposed limitations and restrictions T
on the power Of the Legislature TO pledge
the public lai,h for loans Of money. And
ROW, as evidence that they We're satisfied
with the disposition which had been made,
of the 100000 dollars, they expressly pro-
vided "Mat a3thiHg IN this (gH Sccii5p
IN acL) ShqN b. SO construed rs 20 pre-
reaiHc LecjHliurc Gen ac@cagt;ag T
fulhlr laa az oue nU.9R and hair
do}larS and UesiiRrHe SaUle ~ stack re-
Sergcd 10 the SIaic By tic charter Of IKE
Planters EuRk q The State of lEsSts-
Sigyi"
1t is BOW suggested that the convention
did not mean to weaken on 10 give addi-
tiCaa, force 10 the pra-egis,iug obligation
incurred by the net of 1880. That they
did uo, intend to incur an obligation even
to pay back the zone million five hundred
thousand dollars" which they Were thus
particular in roacgvmg to the Legislature
the power to borrow. IN short, that they
meant 10 leave the whole matter where
they found it. Such a suggestion does but
iItrC credit to the wisdom or integrity
Of the men who framed our constitution.
~ = 4