The Yazoo Democrat., 1853-03-30
COMMUNICATED.

/ beg PERMISSION To reply briefly TO what you are
pleased to call the conclusive argument" Of
zone of the commissioners" We think we can
show by a-iew plain facts that the triumphant
vindcation" wholly fails to establish the legality
of the sale of the Union Bank Bonds The ''N in
dication" says, those bonds, by this change that
is so much complained of, are each one of them
| by endorsement on the back-reduced to, or
made to call for four hundred and fifty pounds
sterling payable in London" Zone Of the COM
missioners" agrees that If dollar was lost the
commissioners are to blame" To show that
the Bank could not become a loser by this en-
dorsement, the commissioner displays pro-
fundity Of learning that "ripe scholars may adj
mire but which is too ''deep" for us to compre-
hend. We would suggest to zone of the com
missoners' that whenever he has to resort to
McCulloch and the fneness Of the carat to illus
trate the legality of the sale, his reasoning how
ever ingenious will always be such as the people
can never understand. We are a plain man.
When by the endorsement the Bank became IL
able to pay in London four hundred and fifty
pounds sterling in satisfaction of the principal
of each bond, though 1.-The rate at which the ex-
coin was feed" yet we had thought she was
made to assume one hundred and eighty seven
dollars more than was required BY her obiiga-
| ton. De you ask how we arrive at this conclu
sion? We multiply the four hundred and fifty
pounds sterling BY four dollars and eighty-six
cents, our ua7ue of the pound. The product is
So. 1877. The satisfaction of each bond would
certainly cost the Bank this amount if she made
payment in sovereigns. We cannot see how
she would make the matter better by changing
them for dollars. In addition the Bank would
have to pay freight and insurance, or sterling ex
change TO get the money to London. Now
would it not seem right that the Bank should
have been allowed to receive erchdnge in bring
ing home her money, if she must lose it in ma
king a payment? The commissioners were au-
thorized to endorse the place of payment and
did not Common Justice require that this should
be the same as the place Of safe! BY the arrange
ment as made, the Bank had to sustain actual
loss of some ten per cent in erchGnge For this
there was no compensating equivalent But
let us sum up the whole loss. By the endorse
ment one hundred and eighty-seven dollars on
each bond. This makes loss on the amount
sold of S467, 800 Let her pay ten per cent ex
chance on this loss and on the four millions that
were to be paid bv instqlnaentS, and it would
amount to S446, $50. Add these amounts and
the whole loss will swell 10 the huge sum OF
1914, $50. This calculation tends to prove that
McNutt ''was booked up in finance, though ne
had never studied NcCuloch or the .f,rensss q
The carat. But we care nothing about this first
charge. Ott Of courtesy, we will ever agree
that zone of the commissioners shall be allow
ed to explain it in his own way, since he seems
so very anxious to refute it. Why should we
care for the first when we can prove under the
second that the sale was illegal? What if mo
body-nobody Of any position or influence Ger
tainlY" should ever follow sin the track OF our
argument" would this make our reasoning the
less cogent? But what is the second charge
In the language of zone Of the commissioners
it is ''that the interest of the bonds from their
date June 9th, 1882 up to the respective pc
riods when the instalments of money received
for the bonds were payable-amounting to
SIS3, ,338-was lost to the Bank, and no equiv
alent ever received" Well zone of the COM
missioners' says s'thls amount was lost to the
Bank bv the sale" Is not this full establish
ment of the charge by confession? Had the
Commissioners any power but TO sell? Had they
right to anticipate the manner the funds might
be used after the sale, and to call any prefts the
Bank might make by dealing in Exchange" an
equivalent for the amount that was lost by
the safe ?" What mean we by the sale of
bond at par value! Is it not where the vendor
at the time of sale receives an money an amoant
equal to the sum called for By has bond What
right then had the Commissioners to sell on
credit, and trust that the Bank, by speculating
IN exchange. might make up the loss? If the
bonds were sold at par, on the completion of
the sale, the Bank would certainly be entitled
to have the funds son1eachere. The bonds were
delivered to the purchaser at Philadelphia
Upon the delivery the Bank was there entitled
to an amount of money equal to that called for
bv the bonds. The money was her property
She had right to bring it home ip ,cdggons, or
to draw on it "bilIs of exchange" How then
could the Bank have ever .sgained" full equiv.
aent for the amount lost on the sale BY any rate
of exchange, that at an after period might exist
between Jackson and New Orleans? This would
/ pc paying her the equivalent" from the profits
made by the use of her own funds It would
require ga McCulloch'' to satisfy us that these
kind of equivalents were Of much value
What when make sale is not the money for
which the property has been sold, mine? IF the
money belongs to me, are not the advantages
that may result from the use of that money
Tr II