have a bank of issue, because forbidden by the tenth section of the
first article of the United States Constitution--'no State shall emit
bills of credit.'' Surely Mr. Davis must have known, that in the case of
the Bank of Kentucky, a State bank of issue owned exclusively by the
State, it was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, that
such a bank was constitutional, and no politician of the secession
school can object to that decision. (2 Peters 257.) But however this
might be, what kind of a plea is this? Why, if, as alleged by Mr. Davis,
Mississippi had violated the Federal Constitution, by establishing a
bank of circulation, that therefore the _bonds_ of the State should be
repudiated. Is it not incredible that a Senator should assume such a
position on behalf of his State? But, if this be sound, it clearly
follows, that, inasmuch as the Confederate bonds are issued in plain
violation of the Constitution of the United States, those bonds should
be repudiated; so also if they were sold below par, or if there be any
other technical objection. Nor will it avail that the bonds may have
passed into the hands of _bona fide_ holders, for, Mr. Jefferson Davis
says, in his letter of the 29th August, 1849, 'If the bonds have passed
into the hands of innocent holders, the fact does not vary the legal
question, as the purchaser could not acquire more than the seller had to
dispose of.' And again, he says, referring to the alleged inability of
the first purchaser to buy the bonds, 'The claim of foreign holders is
as good, but no better, than that of the first purchaser.' It is
difficult to say which is most astounding, the law or the morals of this
position. At all events, 'the foreign holders' of Confederate bonds are
informed by Jefferson Davis, that this is the law. Indeed it is a
singular coincidence, that one of the objections made to the payment of
the Union Bank bonds by the Governor, was, as he alleged, 'the monstrous
assumption of power on the part of the bank, in seeking to monopolize
the _cotton crop_ of the State, and becoming a _factor_ and _shipper_ of
our great staple.' (Senate Journals, 29.) Why, this is what is being
attempted by these Confederate cotton bonds, although the State-rights
strict constructionists of slavedom would in vain look for any clause in
their so-called constitution, authorizing any such transactions in
cotton. And here, let me say, that the objection of a Senator from
Mississippi