FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168  
169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   >>   >|  
under the original act. But the truth is, the bonds were not sold _below par_, but _above par_, as shown by the High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi, in the decision hereafter quoted by me. Indeed, all these four objections of the Governor, as well as those of Jefferson Davis, are shown in that decision to be as unfounded in fact, as they were in law or morals. But suppose the bonds were sold below par, that is, that the State had lost $170,000, or less than four per cent., on bonds for five millions of dollars. Was that a just or valid ground for repudiating the whole, principal and interest? The plea of _usury_ is always disgraceful, even if true, especially where the security was negotiable to bearer and had passed, for full value, into the hands of _bona fide_ holders. But if such a plea is disgraceful to individuals, what shall be said when it is made on behalf of a State? And what shall be thought of those who make such an objection? What of a Governor, or of a United States Senator, who urges such objections on behalf of a State? Do we not feel as if the State were some miserable culprit on trial, and some pettifogging lawyer was endeavoring to screen him from punishment, by picking a flaw in the indictment. Yet such are the pleas on behalf of a State, urged by Governor McNutt and Senator Jefferson Davis. On reference to the letter before referred to, of Jefferson Davis, it will be found that he does not confine himself to the constitutional objections. In his first letter, before quoted, of 25th May, 1849, Mr. Jefferson Davis says, 'Those bonds were purchased by a bank then tottering to its fall--purchased in violation of the charter of the bank, or fraudulently, by concealing the transaction under the name of an individual, as may best suit those concerned, purchased in violation of the terms of the law under which the bonds were issued, and in disregard of the Constitution of Mississippi, of which the law was an infraction.' These positions are deliberately repeated by Jefferson Davis, in his second letter, before referred to, of the 29th August, 1849. That is, the State should pay _none_ of the money received, because the purchaser, as alleged, had no right to buy the bonds--and because the sale was, as erroneously stated, an infraction of the law, that is _usurious_, or a sale below par. He insists the money was not received by the State, because, he says, 'Mississippi had no bank, and could not
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168  
169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Jefferson

 

letter

 

objections

 

Governor

 

behalf

 

purchased

 

Mississippi

 

disgraceful

 
infraction
 

received


violation
 

Senator

 

referred

 
quoted
 

decision

 
Errors
 
Appeals
 

tottering

 

fraudulently

 

concealing


transaction

 

charter

 
Indeed
 

reference

 
McNutt
 

constitutional

 

confine

 

purchaser

 
alleged
 

insists


usurious

 

stated

 

original

 

erroneously

 

issued

 

disregard

 

concerned

 

Constitution

 
August
 
repeated

deliberately

 

positions

 

individual

 

security

 

negotiable

 

bearer

 

passed

 

holders

 

dollars

 

millions