The Yazoo Democrat., 1853-03-23
e II E DE NJ OCR A T
PHILLIPS & PERKINS. EDIroas.
coMmUNfcATEr
CoMMU NtCATED.


tain If the legal reasoning embodied in YOU
opinion is akin to that by which YOU satisdel
yourself that you were very proper person tt
3 pass Judgment on your State. We have no doub
: that you were g calm" during the examination
foryour opinion every where displays more d
the narrow astuteness of the lawyer. than of tbs
= dIgnlhed comprehensiveness of the Judge. You
: say that the original charter of the Bank. was
d passed and approved on the 5th February. 1893
}, in conformity with the 9th Section OF the III
{ Article OF the Constitution which provides thai
''no lac shall ever be passed to raise loan o
money upon the credit of the State or to pledge
the la th of the State for the payment or redemp-
ton Oh any loan or debt, unless such law be
proposed IN the Senate or House of Representa-
tives, and be agreed to by majority OF the mem
b.rs of each House, and entered on their journ,
ais. with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and
be refe rred to the next succeeding Legislature
and published for three months previous to the
next regular ee etion, in three newspapers Of the
State; and unless majority of each branch Of
the Legislature so elected, after such publications
shall agree to pass such law /; and IN such case
the yeas and nays shall be taken and entered on
the journals of each House." Why, in this ex-
tract from the Constitution have you italicised
the word la,o 2 Is it that you would give us ear
Iy intimation that you intend to decide this
3. grave and important question by play upon
a word? Such trick might be attempted by a
cunning attorney, but would certainly never
have been thought Of by jurist learned in the
law.
You say g the State does not raise any ques-
tion touching the validity of the sale of the bond
sued on" The ia is would not admit of any
such question. With oracular brevity you dis
pose here of point which was thought to be Of
some importance at the time the Union Bank
Bonds were rcpudiatea by the people. Would
you have us to understand By this language that
as " Chancellor" you are not bound to notice
any thing but such questions as the attorney
general may raise" on behalf of the State p
What if the attorney general omis 10 " raise"
pretext which makes a complete defence on be-
/ half of the State ami which is vet in evidence
and fully understood by you Under such CIR
cumstanees are you 10 condemn the State be-
cause the proper defence has not been insisted
on by her attorney7 The gross injustice that
would follow the practice of this kind of rea
soning may accord with the views OF bond-hold-
ers, bat can certainly never be approved by or
dinary men. Unless you had determined to look
at nothing but such questions as the attorney
general had " raised" wh, did you not furnish
us with your reasoning to prove the validity of
the sal The original charter as well as the
| supplemental Union Bank act was in evidence
before you. Why then should you have confined
the range of your investigation to such 'ques-
tions" as the attorney general might :. raise on
behalf of the State? If you wished to satisfy
the people, or to administer justice between the
parties, every thing growing out of these acts
should have been fully considered. Were not
Commissioners for the sale of the bonds appoin-
ted by virtue of the Supplements" Were not
these Commissioners required by the "supple-
nent' to sell them at par value Did not the
Commissioners take along with them this act as |
their letter of instruction, and spread it before
the purchaser when they sold? 1t is presumed
they did. 1t is unnecessary for us to point your
Honor to the law which requires such presump-
tions to be considered as facts. Why the pur-
chasers were bound to inquire into the limita-
tions of the authority of these agents. See Sto- |
ry on Agency, page &c, s. 81 and page 60, S. 72. /
In such agencies, if the instructions are not /
obeyed. the purchaser is considered participant
in the fraud and the whole contract must be
declared void. If the bonds had ever been the
property of the State, under the circurnst tances.
she might now recover them by an action OF
Trover. Story op Agency, page -2l9, S. 224.
The Commissioners 90 to hunt bond purcha-
sers, they carry with them the act by virtue of
which they become Commissioners, they negoti-
ate sale, and yet, in violation of their instruc
tions so arrange it as actually to receive same
hundred thousand dollars less than the par value
of the bonds. This violation Of instructions
rendered void the whole contract See Story on
Agency, page 157, S. 166, and page lis, S. l26.
Unless they received the par value they had no
power to sell. Under the circumstances the
State is not more liable than if the bonds had
been given away, or than if the Commissioners,
by fraudulent combination with the purchasers
had used them TOR individual purposes. The
Commissioners may be liable. See Story on
Agency, page 279, S. 27. The bond holder
should get your Honor to hunt after them if he
wishes to recover any part of the money that
was got by the violation of the powers os their
agency. Were these facts before you2 If they
were not. you might easily have had them, if
YOU had wished to administer justice properly to
the State. sa
| By our reasoning on the facts, we think we
conclusively show that the State is not liable to
paw, and yet the argument is founded on the