American citizen. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1864-1890, 1872-03-16
The Cotton Money Specula ion.

tOttOu HIotitN lbT IL SbHSs nave D'tn
exceedingly anxious that Gov. Pow
eYs aud the Legislature should, in
some manner, recognize the validity
of their spurious contracts. The
Governor having requested AttOr-
ney General Morris to furnish him
legal opinion in the matter, that
functiolany proceeds TO give the
spectators in cotton money re
markedly black eye. After reading
the able and conclusive opinion OF
the Attorney General, We fancy that
these enterprising spectators will
cOncl.ssle to act on the advice we
gave them some time since, aud ffle
their cotton notes in the same pigeon
GOle in which their Confederate
bonds and Treasury notes are quietly
resting. We present nearly the EN-
tire letter of the Attorney General:
ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFIcEl
jackson, Miss, March 8, 1872. {
SIR: l have had under cOnsidera-
tion for several weeks the petition
of certain persons to your Excel.
lency, alleging that they are the
holders of a large amount of the SO
called ''CottOn Money" issued, as
they assert, by this State under an
act approved December 10, 1861.
have carefully examined the pc
tition, and also the bill accompany
ing it, and which, it is proposed,
shall be introduced in, and passed
by the present Legislature, having
for its object the recognition of the
validity of this issue of money by
the State as valid transaction,
binding, if not on the State, Who it
is said, issued it, at least, and GER
tainiy SO, on the persons, who are
! said to have borrowed it from the
State. and pledged their cotton as ii
security for its repay ent within
ninety days after the date of a proc
lamatien of the Governor of the
State, etc. The petition alleges that
there are S2,3J7 900 of the bonds
given by these borrowers still in the
treasury. and prays, in substance,
that these bonds be put in train for
collection; that the parties who
borrowed the ''money," and they
who became principals and snreties
Oh these bonds. be ut once made Ii
able for the repayment of the ''mon-
ey' they borrowed, or for the deliv
cry of the cotton they pledged: aud
that the State, in thus lending her
aid, and the sanction of her Lesis-
lative, Executive and judicial DOW
er in the revival and fuIfiIlment of
the purposes of the ''act" referred
TO. shall consider herself as only
| .If.,ithruIlu ovo.ufinr
Upon the case thus presented,
and in compliance with the direc-
tons Of your ExcelIency, deem it
necessary 10 submit only brief
statement Of my opinion. without
attempting any extended argument
upon any branch of the subject.
In tire first place, the "act" under
authority of which this cotton mon
ey was issued and loaned, and secu-
rity for its redemption taken, was
not an act of any of the United
States. 1t was an act OF one of the
so called Confederate States. 1t
were idle, at this distance of time
after the historical events which
separated Mississippi, for time.
from the family of States. to indulge
in hairsplittIng refinements and i'm
practicable theories abOnt the in
divisibility of the Republic, however
patriotic and elevafing such exer-
cIseS might be to such as may have
Il taste for them. You and | both
knOw-0ne of us from the Federal
and the other from the Confederate
stand-pOint-and the whole world
knOws-that the government of
Mississippi was. in proportion to her
weight and capacity, as much a
hostile power toward the United
States at the time of the passa ge of
that 'sact," as was the Confederate
government, of which the State was
an organized and integral part. Ii
proof were needed, that proof is
; furnished by the very words of the
''act" The cotton pledged was to
be ''delivered at some city or sea
port of the Confederate States u
Where shall we now find such Il
city, OF such a sea pOrts 1t was not
to be delivered until 1.-The block atle
of the ports of the Confederate
States should be removed" When
shall that be? The ports Of that
power, if legally it ever had any,
will remain blockaded and sealed
forever.
But this is not all. The Legis-
lature which passed that act, took
no oath to support the Constitution
of the United States. If they had
done SO they could not, without per
jury. have passed such an act; be-
cause that constitution fOrbids any
State to ''emit bills of credit" Their
oath, if they took any, was to sup
port the Constitution of the Con
ttferate States, and that COn>titu-
ton contained no such prohibiiiO ion
against the Sta,es, consequently the
transaction, though Iepugnant to
the Federal Constitution, and there
fore void, was perfectly in harmony
with the Confederate Constitution,
and under it's authority would have
been entirely valid. And that these
cotton notes were '.biliS of credit 10y
Il State" think cannot admit of IL
rational doubt.
The Constitution of the United
States (Art. of Amendment NlV,l
declares any deDt, obligation or
claim incurred in aid of inSnrrectiOn