The Yazoo Democrat., 1853-03-23

"the facts would not admit of any such ques.
tionp We would now invite you to accom-
pany US to the examination of another Of your
positions You say s'the statements of A. G.
McNutt cannot'be regarded as part Of The facts
in the cause" We would expect. that IN your
opinion, McNutt would be a very improper per
son TO give evidence on any great qnestion.
wherein the people Of Mississippi were intro
duced. To keep unimpaired the out.works Of
a naked technical rule that ScHooimen invented,
you tel US that the Court is not only of opinion
that the statements referred to are incompetent
evidence, but, even If admissible, they would
have no material bearing upon the question in
dispute. We would ask if these ''statements
do not constitute part of the records Of the
legislative proceedings that were had on the I'm
ion Bank Bond question in 1912? Do not all
kind of legislative proceedings furnish record eT-
idence that is admissible in every Court, except
that wherein you preside? It certainly requires
the cunning ingenuity Of "a Scott to separate
these statements" from the Legislative resoIu-
TONS predicated upon the information they
afford. Bat would the technical rule, under
which the Chancellor sees proper TO exclude
these Statements have been violated, in fact,
by their admission? The propricty of providing
means for the payment of this and other SINH
lar bonds was he question at the time before
the Legislature, and of which they had exclusive
jurisdiction. The bond-holders and the State
were the parties, and the Legislature was the
investigating Court. The proceedings were pub
lie. Any one interested would have been al
lowed TO crosS-examine the witness. What if
the agents of the bond holders did not see proper
to pay attention to this investigation? Is neg
iigence sufficient cause to justify the suppress
sion of the evidence of McNutt? The law
books we have read instruct us that the evidence
taken in a controversy before any tribunal au-
thorized TO make the investigation, may be read
in all other controversies between the same par
ties in every other Court. If this be law, what
right had you to exclude the statement of A.
G. McNutt| Do you now admit that in ex-
cuding his evidence you mistook the law, but
yet insist that "if admissible, the statement
would have no material bearing upon the ques-
ton in dispute p We have no copy Of these
statements" If we recollect Alright, McNutt
on oath declared, among other things, substan-
italy that band of greedy speculators suroun- |
led and intimidated and forced him 10 sign the |
supplemental act" though at the time he con-
sidered it wholly Unconstitutional, and that they
further forced him to issue the bonds, though he
ieemed the act beyond the scope of his legiti-
mate powers. III these be facts, were they such
IS "could have no material bearing upon tie
question in disputes" ?" why, if the authorized
gent of private individual, under such circum-
stances, should sign his bond, you would not
hesitate in your Court to pronounce the instru-
nent nullity. And should not the oState' be
allowed the same kind of justice which you
would at once measure out TO an individual
We fear you are imprudent in some of your ex-
lressions. From your language and our reason
ng, plain men might be induced to suspect that
10 facts which tended to form valid defence
lgainst the payment of bond, would be thought
~ you to have ga material bearing upon the
question in dispute" We cannot follow fur
her after you until our next. B.
I