ty in the law
authorizing the issue and sale of the bonds representing the British
consols; would any member of either House propose in Parliament to
repudiate such bonds, and would not such a motion cause his immediate
expulsion? Yet, this is what the Legislature of Mississippi has done,
what Jefferson Davis approves and applauds, and what, _he says_, the
'English Government' _has done_.

The London _Times_ has heretofore quoted the proceedings of the
Legislature of Mississippi in 1839, approving the sale of these bonds
and eulogizing the transaction. It has also referred to the Message of
Governor McNutt, of 1841, nearly three years after the sale of the
bonds, first recommending their repudiation, and to the resolutions of
the Legislature of Mississippi of that date, affirming the legality of
these bonds and the duty of the State to pay them. As these resolutions
are of great importance, and ought to have closed the whole controversy,
I will state, what is shown by the Journals of the Senate and the House,
that they passed both Houses, in great part _unanimously_, and for the
remainder, by large majorities. (Sen. Jour. p. 312; House Jour. pp.
416-417, 249, 324-329.)

The objections made by Governor McNutt in 1841, were as follows:

'1st. The Bank of the United States is prohibited by its
charter from purchasing such stock, either directly or
indirectly.

'2d. It was fraudulent on the part of the bank, inasmuch as the
contract was made in the name of an individual, when, in fact,
it was for the benefit of the bank, and payment was made with
its funds.

'3d. The sale was illegal, inasmuch as the bonds were sold on a
credit.

'4th. Interest to the amount of about $170,000 having accrued
on those bonds before the purchase money was stipulated to be
all paid, the bonds were, in fact, sold at less than their par
value, in direct violation of the charter of the bank.' (House
Journal, p. 25).

It will here be remarked, that the great objection now urged by
Jefferson Davis against these bonds, namely, that the act under which
they were alleged to have been issued was unconstitutional, is _not
enumerated_ by Governor McNutt. Surely if such an objection existed to
the payment of the bonds, it must have found a place in this celebrated
message. Is not this conclusive proof that this constitutional objection
was a mere afterthought and pretext of Jeff