e are great reprobates, and it is not Mississippi, but 'THE
ENGLISH GOVERNMENT' which has repudiated their own public debt.

From such angry epithets and fierce denunciation, the reader will be
prepared to find very little argument in Mr. Jefferson Davis' second
letter. He denies that Mississippi received the money. But a bank, of
which she was the sole stockholder, and whose directory was all
appointed by her, received it. They received it also for her exclusive
benefit, for she, _as a State_, was to derive large profits on the stock
of the bank, which was hers exclusively, and was paid for entirely by
the proceeds of these bonds. Mississippi then, as a State, through her
agents appointed by her, received this money. All governments must act
through human agency, and the agency in this case, which received the
money, was appointed entirely by the State. But this is not all. The
Bank, which was exclusively a State bank, and based entirely on the
proceeds of these State bonds, with no other stockholders, was directed
by the charter to loan this money, the proceeds of these bonds, only to
'the citizens of the State,' sec. 46, and so the loans were made. The
State, then, through an agency appointed exclusively by itself, received
this money, the proceeds of the State bonds, and the State, through this
same agency, loaned this money to 'the citizens of the State,' who never
repaid the loans. The State then received the money and loaned it out to
its own citizens, who still hold it; and yet this money, obtained on the
solemn pledge of the faith of the State, her citizens still hold, and
the State repudiates her bonds on which the money was received, and Mr.
Jefferson Davis sustains, indorses, and eulogizes this proceeding. Never
was there a stronger case.

Mr. Jefferson Davis reiterates in this letter his arguments contained in
his previous communication of the 25th May, 1849, so fully answered by
the editors of the London _Times_ in their money article before quoted
of the 13th July, 1849. He elaborates, particularly, the legal position,
that the bonds were invalid, because he says not sanctioned by two
successive Legislatures as required by the Constitution of Mississippi.
This statement is erroneous, because the loan, in the precise form in
which the bonds were issued, was sanctioned by two successive
Legislatures in perfect conformity with the Constitution. This is shown,
as will be proved hereafter, by reference to the