the State,
its highest judicial tribunals have declared the bonds perfectly
constitutional and valid, and to have been sold in accordance with the
terms of the law, for such repudiation of such bonds it is difficult to
find any language sufficiently strong to mark the infamy of such a
transaction.

If indeed the formalities of the Constitution had not been complied
with, and this were not a mere pretext, how easy would it have been to
have passed a new act in conformity with the constitutional formalities,
assuming the debt, or providing for the issue of new bonds to be
delivered to the holders on the return of those alleged to be informal.
But the truth is, this alleged unconstitutionality was a mere pretext
for repudiating a just debt: it never occurred to the Legislatures which
passed these laws in 1837 and 1838, or to the Governor, who signed them,
and was rejected by the Legislature in 1839, and again, in the most
solemn form, in 1841.

And now let me trace the history of this transaction chronologically.
The original act chartering the bank, with the 5th section authorizing
the loan, was passed by the Legislature January 21st, 1837, and again,
in strict compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, reenacted
in the same words on the 5th of February, 1838. Now the bonds issued are
in strict conformity with this law, and an exact copy of the form of the
bonds prescribed by the law. If then, the supplemental act of the 15th
February, 1838, was unconstitutional, null, and void, as contended by
the repudiators, then the whole original act remained in full force, and
the bonds were valid under that law, and such was the unanimous decision
of the High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi, as will be shown
hereafter. It was contended before the court (and by Mr. Davis in his
last letter) that, under the original law, certain acts were to be
performed before the bonds could issue. But here again, it is plain on
the face of the law, and so the High Court of Errors and Appeals of
Mississippi unanimously decided, that these acts were not required to be
performed as _conditions precedent_ to the issue of the bonds, and that
the issue and sale of the bonds were perfectly valid before these acts
had been performed. The bonds then are in exact conformity with a law,
which was passed by two successive Legislatures, precisely as provided
by the Constitution.

In 1836 there was a great pecuniary embarrassment in Miss