l charter, but it was passed
in aid of the original charter.' 'Campbell _v._ Union Bank (6
Howard 625) _cited and confirmed_.' 'The liability of the
State, under the operation of the charter of the bank, attached
so soon or whenever the bonds were legally executed to the
bank, and the execution of the mortgages was neither a
condition precedent to the pledge of the faith of the State,
nor the condition on which the State bonds were to be executed
and delivered.' 'It does not appear from the facts that the
bonds were sold for less than their par value. Held that the
sale was neither illegal nor void.' 'If the commissioners in
the sale of the bonds received 'sterling money of Great
Britain' at the rate of four shillings and sixpence to the
pound, that is not such an act on their part as would avoid the
bonds.'

Here, then, the whole case was again fully decided in 1853, by the very
tribunal to which Jefferson Davis, in 1849, invited the bondholders. And
did he or the State then yield or pay the obligations. Not at all, but
they adhered to the repudiation of these bonds, disregarded and defied
the decision of the court, and have never paid one dollar of principal
or interest, and never will, so long as slavery exists in Mississippi.

And now, after the almost unanimous passage of the supplemental act in
1838, the sanction of the Legislature in 1839 and 1841, the decision of
the Circuit Court and Chancellor, and of the High Court of Errors and
Appeals, how strange is the assertion of Mr. Slidell, that 'The Union
Bank bonds were issued in direct violation of an express constitutional
provision.' It is a well settled principle of American law, so
adjudicated by the State Courts, as well as by the Supreme Court of the
United States, that, 1st, To authorize the court to decide that a law is
unconstitutional, the repugnance to the Constitution must be '_plain and
palpable_.' 2d., That the interpretation given by the _highest court of
a State_, to a State law, or constitution, '_is conclusive_.' But the
truth is, as is proved by Mr. Slidell's own letter (having never resided
in the State), he knew nothing of the subject, or he never would have
spoken of Jefferson Davis as 'Governor,' or alluded to 'his
administration,' when he never held that office. But it is of some
moment, at least to the unfortunate bondholders, that the minister of
Jefferson Davis at Par