I stood beside the altar with a friend,To hear him plight his faith to a young bride,A rosy child of simple heart and mind.Yet two short years before, on that same spot,I heard the funeral chant above the bierOf a first wife—a woman bright as fair,Or blessed or cursed with genius, full of fire—Who loved him with a passion high and rare;Whom he had won from paths of fame and artTo walk unknown life's quiet ways with him.My mind was with the past, when the loud swellOf music rose to greet the childlike bride,The organ quivering as with solemn joy:Alas! another voice breathed through it all,Reproachful, haughty, wild, but very sad;Near, though its tones fell from that farthest shore,Where the eternal surge beats time no more!Sadly I gazed upon my friend, to markIf his new joys were quelled by the weird strains:He heard it not—he only saw the face,Blushing and girlish, 'neath its bridal veil;Saw not the stronger spirit standing by,With immortelles upon its massive front,And drooping wings adown its snowy shroud,And sense of wrong dewing its starry eye;Nor heard the chant of agony, reproach,Chilling the naïve joy of the marriage song.* * *'Say, canst thou woo another for thy bride,Whilst I am living—ever near thee still!Renounce the faith so often pledged to me,Forget me, while I dream of thee in heaven!When the wordlovefirst fell upon my ear,I was a dreamer wrapped in pleasant thoughts,Dwelling in themes apart from common life,Nor needed aught for bliss save my still hours,My studies, and the poet's golden lyre.The stars revealed to me their trackless paths,The flowers whispered me their secrets sweet,And science oped her ways of calm and light.Yet love, like ancient scroll, was closely rolled;I had no wish to read its mystic page;Its wooing wakened in me wondering scorn,Its homage insult to my virgin pride;If lovers knelt, 'twas but to be denied.And yet it pleased to know myself so fair,Because I loved the Beautiful. We met!Dark, fierce, and full of power thy features were,Yet finely cut, chiselled and sculptured well,Reminding me of antique demigod.The dream of the wild Greek, maddened with lightFrom Beauty's sun, before me living stood.Ah! not of marble were thy features pale!Like summer's lightning, lights and shadows dancedAs feelings surged within thy stormful soul.Full of high thoughts and poetry wert thou:I left the paths of thought to hear thee speakOf love and its devotion, endless truth.All nature glowed with sudden, roseate light;The waves of ocean, mountains, forests dim,The waterfall, the flower, the clinging moss,Were woven in types of purity and peace,To etherealize and beautify thy love.Marriage of souls, eternal constancy,Gave wildering love new worth and dignity.My maiden pride was soothed, and if I feltRepelled by human passion, still I joyedIn sacrifice that made me wholly thine.We wedded—and I rested on thy heart,Counted its throbs, and when I sadly thoughtThey measured out the fleeting sands of life,I smiled at Time—Love lives eternally!I was not blind to my advantages,Yet I became a humble household dove,Smoothing to thy caress the eager wingsWhich might have borne me through the universe.All wealth seemed naught; had stars been in my gift,I would have thrown them reckless all to thee!Two happy years—how swift they fleeted by!—And then I felt a fluttering, restless lifeThrobbing beneath my heart; and with it knew(I ne'er could tell you how such knowledge came)That I must die! A moment's dread and pangO'ercame me—then the bitter thought grew sweet:My passing agony would win the boonOf life immortal forourinfant's soul;The innocent being, through whose veins would flowOur mingling hearts for ever—ever—one!We spoke of death, and of eternal life;Many and fond the vows then pledged to me:'If cruel death must sever us on earth,Rest calmly on my never-changing love;Now and forever it is solely thine!Thou art my soul's elect—my Bride in Heaven!'So deeply did I trust thy plighted faith,I nerved my ardent soul to bear it all,And calmly saw the fated hour approach,Nor quailed before the pangs of death to giveOur living love to a fond father's kiss:Smiling I placed him in thy arms—then died.The songs of angels wooed me high above,But my firm soul refused to leave its loves!I won the boon from heaven to hover near,To count the palpitations of thy heart,And speak, unseen, to thee in varied ways.I breathed to thee in music's plaintive tones,I floated round thee in the breath of flowers,I wooed thee in the poet's tender page,And through the blue eyes of our orphaned childI gazed upon thee with the buried loveSo fraught with faith and haunting memories.With spirit power I ranged the world of thoughtTo twine thee with the blue 'Forget me not!'* * *Oh, God! thine eye seeks now a fresher face,Thy voice has won another's earnest love,Her head rests on the heart once pledged to me,And I have poured my worship on the dust!He loves again, and yet I gave him all—Been proud—is this 'the worm that never dies?'Ah, what am I?—a ruined wreck adriftUpon a surging sea of endless pain!Are human hearts all fickle, faithless, base?Does levity brand all of mortal race?When we shall meet within the Spirit's land,How wilt thou bear my sorrow, my despair?Wilt strive to teach me there thy new-found lore—Forgetfulness? I could not learn the task!Wilt seek to link again our broken ties?Away! I would not stoop my haughty browTo thing so false as thou! I love—yet scorn!We give ourselves with purity but once;The love of soul yields not to change of state;Heaven's life news the broken ties of earth;There is no death! all that hastrulylived,Lives ever; feeling cannot die; it bloomsImmortal as the soul from which it springs!Why do I shrink to own the bitter truth?I never have been loved—'twas mockery all!'* * *Thus sang the tortured spirit, while the chantOf the new bridal filled the quivering air.The ring of gold upon the finger placed,The girlish blushes, the groom's joyous smile,Told all was over, and the crowd dispersed:But the high face of the wrung spirit pressedUpon my heart, haunting me with its woe.What was her doom? Was she midst penal fires,Whose flames must burn away the sins of life,The hay and stubble of idolatrous love?Ah, even in its root crime germs with doom!Must suffering consume our earthly dross?Is't pain alone can bind us to the Cross?She worshippedman; true to his nature, heRemained as ever fickle, sensuous, weak.'Love is eternal!' True, but God aloneCan fill the longings of an immortal soul:The finite thirst is for the Infinite!
I stood beside the altar with a friend,To hear him plight his faith to a young bride,A rosy child of simple heart and mind.Yet two short years before, on that same spot,I heard the funeral chant above the bierOf a first wife—a woman bright as fair,Or blessed or cursed with genius, full of fire—Who loved him with a passion high and rare;Whom he had won from paths of fame and artTo walk unknown life's quiet ways with him.My mind was with the past, when the loud swellOf music rose to greet the childlike bride,The organ quivering as with solemn joy:Alas! another voice breathed through it all,Reproachful, haughty, wild, but very sad;Near, though its tones fell from that farthest shore,Where the eternal surge beats time no more!Sadly I gazed upon my friend, to markIf his new joys were quelled by the weird strains:He heard it not—he only saw the face,Blushing and girlish, 'neath its bridal veil;Saw not the stronger spirit standing by,With immortelles upon its massive front,And drooping wings adown its snowy shroud,And sense of wrong dewing its starry eye;Nor heard the chant of agony, reproach,Chilling the naïve joy of the marriage song.
* * *
'Say, canst thou woo another for thy bride,Whilst I am living—ever near thee still!Renounce the faith so often pledged to me,Forget me, while I dream of thee in heaven!When the wordlovefirst fell upon my ear,I was a dreamer wrapped in pleasant thoughts,Dwelling in themes apart from common life,Nor needed aught for bliss save my still hours,My studies, and the poet's golden lyre.The stars revealed to me their trackless paths,The flowers whispered me their secrets sweet,And science oped her ways of calm and light.Yet love, like ancient scroll, was closely rolled;I had no wish to read its mystic page;Its wooing wakened in me wondering scorn,Its homage insult to my virgin pride;If lovers knelt, 'twas but to be denied.
And yet it pleased to know myself so fair,Because I loved the Beautiful. We met!Dark, fierce, and full of power thy features were,Yet finely cut, chiselled and sculptured well,Reminding me of antique demigod.The dream of the wild Greek, maddened with lightFrom Beauty's sun, before me living stood.Ah! not of marble were thy features pale!Like summer's lightning, lights and shadows dancedAs feelings surged within thy stormful soul.Full of high thoughts and poetry wert thou:I left the paths of thought to hear thee speakOf love and its devotion, endless truth.All nature glowed with sudden, roseate light;The waves of ocean, mountains, forests dim,The waterfall, the flower, the clinging moss,Were woven in types of purity and peace,To etherealize and beautify thy love.Marriage of souls, eternal constancy,Gave wildering love new worth and dignity.My maiden pride was soothed, and if I feltRepelled by human passion, still I joyedIn sacrifice that made me wholly thine.We wedded—and I rested on thy heart,Counted its throbs, and when I sadly thoughtThey measured out the fleeting sands of life,I smiled at Time—Love lives eternally!I was not blind to my advantages,Yet I became a humble household dove,Smoothing to thy caress the eager wingsWhich might have borne me through the universe.All wealth seemed naught; had stars been in my gift,I would have thrown them reckless all to thee!Two happy years—how swift they fleeted by!—And then I felt a fluttering, restless lifeThrobbing beneath my heart; and with it knew(I ne'er could tell you how such knowledge came)That I must die! A moment's dread and pangO'ercame me—then the bitter thought grew sweet:My passing agony would win the boonOf life immortal forourinfant's soul;The innocent being, through whose veins would flowOur mingling hearts for ever—ever—one!We spoke of death, and of eternal life;Many and fond the vows then pledged to me:'If cruel death must sever us on earth,Rest calmly on my never-changing love;Now and forever it is solely thine!Thou art my soul's elect—my Bride in Heaven!'
So deeply did I trust thy plighted faith,I nerved my ardent soul to bear it all,And calmly saw the fated hour approach,Nor quailed before the pangs of death to giveOur living love to a fond father's kiss:Smiling I placed him in thy arms—then died.The songs of angels wooed me high above,But my firm soul refused to leave its loves!I won the boon from heaven to hover near,To count the palpitations of thy heart,And speak, unseen, to thee in varied ways.I breathed to thee in music's plaintive tones,I floated round thee in the breath of flowers,I wooed thee in the poet's tender page,And through the blue eyes of our orphaned childI gazed upon thee with the buried loveSo fraught with faith and haunting memories.With spirit power I ranged the world of thoughtTo twine thee with the blue 'Forget me not!'
* * *
Oh, God! thine eye seeks now a fresher face,Thy voice has won another's earnest love,Her head rests on the heart once pledged to me,And I have poured my worship on the dust!He loves again, and yet I gave him all—Been proud—is this 'the worm that never dies?'Ah, what am I?—a ruined wreck adriftUpon a surging sea of endless pain!Are human hearts all fickle, faithless, base?Does levity brand all of mortal race?When we shall meet within the Spirit's land,How wilt thou bear my sorrow, my despair?Wilt strive to teach me there thy new-found lore—Forgetfulness? I could not learn the task!Wilt seek to link again our broken ties?Away! I would not stoop my haughty browTo thing so false as thou! I love—yet scorn!We give ourselves with purity but once;The love of soul yields not to change of state;Heaven's life news the broken ties of earth;There is no death! all that hastrulylived,Lives ever; feeling cannot die; it bloomsImmortal as the soul from which it springs!Why do I shrink to own the bitter truth?I never have been loved—'twas mockery all!'
* * *
Thus sang the tortured spirit, while the chantOf the new bridal filled the quivering air.The ring of gold upon the finger placed,The girlish blushes, the groom's joyous smile,Told all was over, and the crowd dispersed:But the high face of the wrung spirit pressedUpon my heart, haunting me with its woe.What was her doom? Was she midst penal fires,Whose flames must burn away the sins of life,The hay and stubble of idolatrous love?Ah, even in its root crime germs with doom!Must suffering consume our earthly dross?Is't pain alone can bind us to the Cross?She worshippedman; true to his nature, heRemained as ever fickle, sensuous, weak.'Love is eternal!' True, but God aloneCan fill the longings of an immortal soul:The finite thirst is for the Infinite!
London, 10, Half Moon Street, Piccadilly,June 30th, 1863.
London, 10, Half Moon Street, Piccadilly,June 30th, 1863.
Soon after my arrival in London from New York, my attention was called, by some English, as well as American friends, to an article which had appeared more than a month previously in the LondonTimesof the 23d of March last. In the money article of that date is the following letter from the Hon. John Slidell, the Minister of Jefferson Davis at Paris.
'My dear Sir:I have yours of yesterday. I am inclined to think the people of London confound Mr. Reuben Davis, whom I have always understood to have taken the lead on the question of repudiation, with President Jefferson Davis. I am not aware that the latter was in any way identified with that question. I am very confident that it was not agitated during his canvass for Governor, or during his administration. The Union Bank bonds were issued in direct violation of an express constitutional provision. There is a wide difference between these bonds, and those of the Planters' Bank, for the repudiation of which, neither excuse nor palliation can be offered. I feel confident that Jefferson Davis never approved or justified that repudiation. What may have been his private opinions of the refusal to consider the State of Mississippi bound to provide for the payment of the Union Bank bonds, I do not know.Yours truly,'John Slidell.'
'My dear Sir:
I have yours of yesterday. I am inclined to think the people of London confound Mr. Reuben Davis, whom I have always understood to have taken the lead on the question of repudiation, with President Jefferson Davis. I am not aware that the latter was in any way identified with that question. I am very confident that it was not agitated during his canvass for Governor, or during his administration. The Union Bank bonds were issued in direct violation of an express constitutional provision. There is a wide difference between these bonds, and those of the Planters' Bank, for the repudiation of which, neither excuse nor palliation can be offered. I feel confident that Jefferson Davis never approved or justified that repudiation. What may have been his private opinions of the refusal to consider the State of Mississippi bound to provide for the payment of the Union Bank bonds, I do not know.
Yours truly,'John Slidell.'
Yours truly,'John Slidell.'
It is due to the editor of theTimeshere to state, that, in his money article of the 23d March last, he refers to the controversy of that press with Jefferson Davis on that question in 1849, and, as regards the suggestion of Mr. Slidell, that it might have been Reuben Davis who was the repudiator in 1849, instead of Jefferson Davis, the editor remarked, 'it is to be feared that the proof in the other direction is too strong.' Indeed, the editor might well be astonished at the supposition that Jefferson Davis,who subscribed the repudiation letter in question of the 25th May, 1849, as well as a still stronger communication of the 29th August, 1849, should have been confounded, during a period of near fourteen years, by the press of Europe and America, with Reuben Davis, and that the supposed mistake should just now be discovered, especially as Reuben Davis never was a Senator of the United States from Mississippi, or from any other State.
I was asked if it really was Reuben or Jefferson Davis who was the author of the letter in question advocating the repudiation of the Union Bank bonds of Mississippi, their recollection being, that it was the latter. I said that the repudiation letter in question of the 25th May, 1849, was subscribed and published at its date in the WashingtonUnion, by Jefferson Davis, as a Senator of the United States from Mississippi, which position he then held, that he was personally well known to me for nearly a fourth of a century, as was also Reuben Davis, and that the latter never had been a Senator of the United States from Mississippi, or any other State, as was well known to me, and would be shown by reference to the Journals of the United States Senate. I stated, that I had represented the State of Mississippi in the Senate of the United States from January, 1836, until March, 1845, when, having resigned that office, I was called to the Cabinet of President Polk, as Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, and remained in that position until the close of that administration in March, 1849. I added, that I was in Washington City, the capital of the Union, and residing there as a counsellor at law in the Supreme Court of the United States, when the first repudiation letter of Jefferson Davis, communicated by him to the editor of theUnion(a newspaper of that city), was published, on the 25th May, 1849, in that print, and very generally throughout the United States. It was remarked by me, that it was well known to myself personally, and I believed to every prominent public man of that date, especially those then in Washington, that Mr. Jefferson Davis was the author of that letter then published over his signature, and that he defended its doctrines, with all that earnestness and ability for which he was so distinguished. I was also residing in Washington, when Mr. Jefferson Davis published, over his signature, as a Senator of the United States from Mississippi, his well-known second repudiation letter, dated at hisresidence, 'Brierfield, Miss.,' August 29, 1849. This letter was addressed to the editors of theMississippian, a newspaper published at Jackson, Mississippi, and was received by me in due course of mail. This letter extended over several columns, and was an elaborate defence of the repudiation of Mississippi. This letter also was generally republished throughout the United States. These views of Mr. Jefferson Davis attracted my most earnest attention, because, after a brief interval, he was one of my successors in the Senate of the United States, from Mississippi. I had always earnestly opposed the doctrine of repudiation in Mississippi, and the Legislature of 1840-'41, by which I was re-elected, passed resolutions by overwhelming majorities (hereafter quoted), denouncing the repudiation either of the Union Bank, or Planters' Bank bonds.
At the period of the conversations before referred to, late in April or early in May last, I was, on this recital of the facts, strongly urged to make them known in Europe, to which my consent was given.
After some investigation, however, the necessary documents fully to elucidate the whole subject could not be obtained here. It was necessary, therefore, to write home and procure them. This has been done, and I now proceed to a narrative of these transactions from the authentic historical public documents.
The first letter of Mr. Jefferson Davis before referred to, of the 25th of May, 1849, was published by him as a Senator of the United States from Mississippi, over his signature, in theUnion, a newspaper published at Washington City. That letter is in these words:
'Daily Union, Washington City,May 25th, 1849.'Statement furnished by Jefferson Davis,Esq., Senator of the United States.'The State of Mississippi has no other question with bondholders than that of debt or no debt. When the United States Bank of Pennsylvania purchased what are known as the Union Bank bonds, it was within the power of any stock dealer to learn that they had been issued in disregard of the Constitution of the State whose faith they assumed to pledge. By the Constitution and laws of Mississippi, any creditor of the State may bring suit against the State, and test his claim, as against an individual. To this the bondholders have been invited; but conscious that they have no valid claim, have not sought their remedy. Relying upon empty (because false) denunciation, they have made it a point of honor to show what can be shown by judicial investigation; i. e., that there being no debt, there has been no default. The crocodile tears which have been shed over ruined creditors, are on a par with the baseless denunciations which have been heaped upon the State. 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. To sustain the credit of that rickety bank, the bonds were hypothecated abroad for interest on loans which could not be met as they became due.'A smaller amount is due for what are termed Planters' Bank bonds of Mississippi. These evidences of debt, as well as the coupons issued to cover accruing interest, are receivable for State lands; and no one has a right to assume they will not be provided for otherwise, by or before the date at which the whole debt becomes due.'Jefferson Davis.'
'Daily Union, Washington City,May 25th, 1849.
'Statement furnished by Jefferson Davis,Esq., Senator of the United States.
'Statement furnished by Jefferson Davis,Esq., Senator of the United States.
'The State of Mississippi has no other question with bondholders than that of debt or no debt. When the United States Bank of Pennsylvania purchased what are known as the Union Bank bonds, it was within the power of any stock dealer to learn that they had been issued in disregard of the Constitution of the State whose faith they assumed to pledge. By the Constitution and laws of Mississippi, any creditor of the State may bring suit against the State, and test his claim, as against an individual. To this the bondholders have been invited; but conscious that they have no valid claim, have not sought their remedy. Relying upon empty (because false) denunciation, they have made it a point of honor to show what can be shown by judicial investigation; i. e., that there being no debt, there has been no default. The crocodile tears which have been shed over ruined creditors, are on a par with the baseless denunciations which have been heaped upon the State. 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. To sustain the credit of that rickety bank, the bonds were hypothecated abroad for interest on loans which could not be met as they became due.
'A smaller amount is due for what are termed Planters' Bank bonds of Mississippi. These evidences of debt, as well as the coupons issued to cover accruing interest, are receivable for State lands; and no one has a right to assume they will not be provided for otherwise, by or before the date at which the whole debt becomes due.
'Jefferson Davis.'
'Jefferson Davis.'
To this letter the LondonTimes, in its money article, of the 13th July, 1849, replied as follows:
'The case of Mississippi stands thus: In 1838 the State issued bonds for five millions of dollars, to establish the Union Bank. These bonds were dated June, 1838, bearing five per cent. interest from date, and it was stipulated with the bank that they should not be sold under their par value. On the 18th August following, the bank sold all these bonds to the United States Bank for five millions of dollars, payable in five equal instalments in November, January, March, May, and July, but without interest. The money was punctually paid to the Mississippi Bank, and the Legislature of Mississippi, on the terms of the sale being communicated to them, resolved,'That the sale of the bonds was highly advantageous to the State, and in accordance with the injunctions of the charter, reflecting the highest credit on the Commissioners, and bringing timely aid to an embarrassed community.'In little more than two years, however, the Mississippi Bank became totally insolvent, having lost the entire five millions invested in it by the State. Immediately on this having transpired, the Governor of the State sent a message to the Legislature recommending them torepudiate(this was the first time the word was used) their obligations, being founded on the plea, that as the bonds were issued with interest payable from the date, and they had been sold to the United States Bank for their nominal amount only, the stipulation that they should not be disposed of below their par value had been departed from. He further urged that although the bonds had been sold ostensibly to Mr. Biddle, the president of the United States Bank, the sale was actually to the bank itself, which, by its charter, could not legally purchase them. Hence, although Mississippi had received the money for the bonds, it was thus proposed to refuse to repay it, on the ground that the purchaser had no right to buy them. The Legislature, however, was not quite prepared for this, and accordingly, in responding to the Governor's message, they resolved: '1st. That the State of Mississippi is bound to the holders ofthe bonds of the State sold on account of the bank for the amount of principal and interest. 2d. That the State of Mississippi will pay her bonds, and preserve her faith inviolate. 3d. That the insinuation that the State of Mississippi would repudiate her bonds and violate her plighted faith, is a calumny upon the justice, honor, and dignity of the State.' But after this, the pecuniary condition of the State became rapidly worse, and the disposition to pay diminished in proportion. Accordingly a joint committee of the Legislature appointed in 1842, reported that the State was not bound to pay the bonds, advancing the reasons before mentioned, and also another, namely, that the bonds had not been sanctioned in the manner required by the Constitution, since, although the provision that no loan should be raised, unless sanctioned by a law passed through two successive Legislatures, had been complied with, and the bonds had been legally authorized, the act also prescribed certain conditions regarding the Bank of Mississippi, which conditions had been altered by a subsequent act, that had only passed through one Legislature.'In addition to the five millions thus repudiated, Mississippi owes two millions which she recognizes. It has always, however, been a difference without distinction, since she pays no dividends on either. From the period of repudiation up to the present moment, all representations of the bondholders have been treated with disregard. About a year and a half back, however, one of the citizens of Mississippi, a Mr. Robbins, admitted the moral liability of the State, and proposed that the people should discharge it by voluntary contributions.'The next step is the appearance of the letter from Mr. Jefferson Davis, with whom we are now called upon to deal. This statement, which was transmitted by him to the WashingtonUnion, in reply to our remarks of the 23d February last, runs as follows.'
'The case of Mississippi stands thus: In 1838 the State issued bonds for five millions of dollars, to establish the Union Bank. These bonds were dated June, 1838, bearing five per cent. interest from date, and it was stipulated with the bank that they should not be sold under their par value. On the 18th August following, the bank sold all these bonds to the United States Bank for five millions of dollars, payable in five equal instalments in November, January, March, May, and July, but without interest. The money was punctually paid to the Mississippi Bank, and the Legislature of Mississippi, on the terms of the sale being communicated to them, resolved,'That the sale of the bonds was highly advantageous to the State, and in accordance with the injunctions of the charter, reflecting the highest credit on the Commissioners, and bringing timely aid to an embarrassed community.'In little more than two years, however, the Mississippi Bank became totally insolvent, having lost the entire five millions invested in it by the State. Immediately on this having transpired, the Governor of the State sent a message to the Legislature recommending them torepudiate(this was the first time the word was used) their obligations, being founded on the plea, that as the bonds were issued with interest payable from the date, and they had been sold to the United States Bank for their nominal amount only, the stipulation that they should not be disposed of below their par value had been departed from. He further urged that although the bonds had been sold ostensibly to Mr. Biddle, the president of the United States Bank, the sale was actually to the bank itself, which, by its charter, could not legally purchase them. Hence, although Mississippi had received the money for the bonds, it was thus proposed to refuse to repay it, on the ground that the purchaser had no right to buy them. The Legislature, however, was not quite prepared for this, and accordingly, in responding to the Governor's message, they resolved: '1st. That the State of Mississippi is bound to the holders ofthe bonds of the State sold on account of the bank for the amount of principal and interest. 2d. That the State of Mississippi will pay her bonds, and preserve her faith inviolate. 3d. That the insinuation that the State of Mississippi would repudiate her bonds and violate her plighted faith, is a calumny upon the justice, honor, and dignity of the State.' But after this, the pecuniary condition of the State became rapidly worse, and the disposition to pay diminished in proportion. Accordingly a joint committee of the Legislature appointed in 1842, reported that the State was not bound to pay the bonds, advancing the reasons before mentioned, and also another, namely, that the bonds had not been sanctioned in the manner required by the Constitution, since, although the provision that no loan should be raised, unless sanctioned by a law passed through two successive Legislatures, had been complied with, and the bonds had been legally authorized, the act also prescribed certain conditions regarding the Bank of Mississippi, which conditions had been altered by a subsequent act, that had only passed through one Legislature.
'In addition to the five millions thus repudiated, Mississippi owes two millions which she recognizes. It has always, however, been a difference without distinction, since she pays no dividends on either. From the period of repudiation up to the present moment, all representations of the bondholders have been treated with disregard. About a year and a half back, however, one of the citizens of Mississippi, a Mr. Robbins, admitted the moral liability of the State, and proposed that the people should discharge it by voluntary contributions.
'The next step is the appearance of the letter from Mr. Jefferson Davis, with whom we are now called upon to deal. This statement, which was transmitted by him to the WashingtonUnion, in reply to our remarks of the 23d February last, runs as follows.'
Here theTimesinserts Mr. Jefferson Davis's repudiation letter before quoted.
'The assurance in this statement that the Planters' Bank, or non-repudiated bonds, are receivable for State lands, requires this addition, which Mr. Jefferson Davis has omitted, that they are only so receivable upon lands being taken at three times its current value. The affirmation afterward, that no one has a right to assume that these bonds will not be fully provided for before the date at which the principal falls due, is simply to be met by the fact that portions of them fell due in 1841 and 1846, and that on these, as well as on all the rest, both principal and interest remain wholly unpaid.'Regarding the first part of the statement no comment could be made which would not weaken its effect. Taking its principle and its tone together, it is a doctrine which has never been paralleled. Let it circulate throughout Europe, that a member of the United States Senate in 1849, has openly proclaimed that at a recent period the Governor and Legislative Assemblies of his own State deliberately issued fraudulent bonds for five millions of dollars to 'sustain the credit of a rickety bank;' that the bonds in question, having been hypothecated abroad to innocent holders, such holders had not only no claim against the community by whose executive and representatives this act was omitted, but that they are to be taunted for appealing to the verdict of the civilized world, rather than to the judgment of the legal officers of the State by whose functionaries they have been already robbed; and that the ruin of toilworn men, of women, of widows, and of children, and the 'crocodile tears' which that ruin has occasioned, is a subject of jest on the part of those by whom it has been accomplished; and then let it be asked if any foreigner ever penned a libel on the American character equal to that against the people of Mississippi by their own Senator.'
'The assurance in this statement that the Planters' Bank, or non-repudiated bonds, are receivable for State lands, requires this addition, which Mr. Jefferson Davis has omitted, that they are only so receivable upon lands being taken at three times its current value. The affirmation afterward, that no one has a right to assume that these bonds will not be fully provided for before the date at which the principal falls due, is simply to be met by the fact that portions of them fell due in 1841 and 1846, and that on these, as well as on all the rest, both principal and interest remain wholly unpaid.
'Regarding the first part of the statement no comment could be made which would not weaken its effect. Taking its principle and its tone together, it is a doctrine which has never been paralleled. Let it circulate throughout Europe, that a member of the United States Senate in 1849, has openly proclaimed that at a recent period the Governor and Legislative Assemblies of his own State deliberately issued fraudulent bonds for five millions of dollars to 'sustain the credit of a rickety bank;' that the bonds in question, having been hypothecated abroad to innocent holders, such holders had not only no claim against the community by whose executive and representatives this act was omitted, but that they are to be taunted for appealing to the verdict of the civilized world, rather than to the judgment of the legal officers of the State by whose functionaries they have been already robbed; and that the ruin of toilworn men, of women, of widows, and of children, and the 'crocodile tears' which that ruin has occasioned, is a subject of jest on the part of those by whom it has been accomplished; and then let it be asked if any foreigner ever penned a libel on the American character equal to that against the people of Mississippi by their own Senator.'
To this reply of the LondonTimes, which (except in portions of Mississippi) was generally approved throughout the Union, Mr. Jefferson Davis responded in a very long letter, dated from his residence, Brierfield, Mississippi, August 29, 1849, addressed to the editors of theMississippian. He begins as follows:
'The LondonTimesof July 13, 1849, contains an article which most unjustly and unfairly attacks the State of Mississippi and myself, because of a statement I made in refutation of a formercalumny against her, which was published in the same paper.'
'The LondonTimesof July 13, 1849, contains an article which most unjustly and unfairly attacks the State of Mississippi and myself, because of a statement I made in refutation of a formercalumny against her, which was published in the same paper.'
This article of the LondonTimesMr. Davis denounces as 'aforeigner's slanderagainst the government, the judiciary, and people of Mississippi;' 'very well for the high Tory paper as an attack upon our republican government;' as 'untrue;' 'the hypocritical cant of stockjobbers andpensioned presses' 'reckless of reputation;' 'hired advocates of theinnocentstock dealers of London 'Change;' 'a calumnious imputation.' These are pleasant epithets which Mr. Jefferson Davis applied to the LondonTimesand the London 'Change. But Mr. Jefferson Davis was very indignant, not only with London, but with all England; for he says,
'With far more propriety mightrepudiationbe charged on theEnglish Government, for the reduction of interest on her loans when she consolidated her debts; for the income tax, which compels fundholders to return part of the interest they receive on their evidences of public debt, for the support of the Government which is their debtor.'
'With far more propriety mightrepudiationbe charged on theEnglish Government, for the reduction of interest on her loans when she consolidated her debts; for the income tax, which compels fundholders to return part of the interest they receive on their evidences of public debt, for the support of the Government which is their debtor.'
According, then, to Mr. Jefferson Davis, the LondonTimesand the London 'Change are great reprobates, and it is not Mississippi, but 'the English Government' which has repudiated their own public debt.
From such angry epithets and fierce denunciation, the reader will be prepared to find very little argument in Mr. Jefferson Davis' second letter. He denies that Mississippi received the money. But a bank, of which she was the sole stockholder, and whose directory was all appointed by her, received it. They received it also for her exclusive benefit, for she,as a State, was to derive large profits on the stock of the bank, which was hers exclusively, and was paid for entirely by the proceeds of these bonds. Mississippi then, as a State, through her agents appointed by her, received this money. All governments must act through human agency, and the agency in this case, which received the money, was appointed entirely by the State. But this is not all. The Bank, which was exclusively a State bank, and based entirely on the proceeds of these State bonds, with no other stockholders, was directed by the charter to loan this money, the proceeds of these bonds, only to 'the citizens of the State,' sec. 46, and so the loans were made. The State, then, through an agency appointed exclusively by itself, received this money, the proceeds of the State bonds, and the State, through this same agency, loaned this money to 'the citizens of the State,' who never repaid the loans. The State then received the money and loaned it out to its own citizens, who still hold it; and yet this money, obtained on the solemn pledge of the faith of the State, her citizens still hold, and the State repudiates her bonds on which the money was received, and Mr. Jefferson Davis sustains, indorses, and eulogizes this proceeding. Never was there a stronger case.
Mr. Jefferson Davis reiterates in this letter his arguments contained in his previous communication of the 25th May, 1849, so fully answered by the editors of the LondonTimesin their money article before quoted of the 13th July, 1849. He elaborates, particularly, the legal position, that the bonds were invalid, because he says not sanctioned by two successive Legislatures as required by the Constitution of Mississippi. This statement is erroneous, because the loan, in the precise form in which the bonds were issued, was sanctioned by two successive Legislatures in perfect conformity with the Constitution. This is shown, as will be proved hereafter, by reference to the laws passed by the State, and such was the decision on this very point by the highest judicial tribunal of Mississippi, in 1842 and 1853. But let us suppose that there was some technical legal informality as to the law, would that justify the repudiation of these bonds? The Legislature had passed laws in 1837 and 1838 authorizing the issue andsale of these bonds, those acts had been all signed and approved by the Governor of the State, the bonds had been signed by the Governor and Treasurer of the State, the broad seal of the State had been affixed to them by the Governor, they were placed in the hands of the authorities of the State for sale, they were sold by them, and the full amount paid over to the agency appointed by the State, and by that agency the money was loaned to the 'citizens of the State' and still retained by them. When the sale of these State bonds in August, 1838, together with all the facts and documents, were placed by the Governor before the Legislature in 1839, they ratified and highly approved the sale, as before quoted by theTimes, and again still more decidedly in 1841. And yet the State, on the technical grounds stated by Mr. Davis, repudiated their bonds. It was unconstitutional to return the money which they had borrowed and used! Could anything be more absurd or dishonorable than this? The law says, if a man borrows money without certain legal authentications, he shall not be forced to repay; but if he receives and uses the money, and then interposes such technical pleas, he is justly deemed infamous. He has violated his honor. And is the honor of an individual more sacred than that of a state or nation? State and national debts rest upon faith, they repose upon honor, the obligation is sacred, and must be fulfilled. It can never he illegal or unconstitutional topay a debt, where the money has been received by a state or a nation. And, where a State, acting through its supreme Executive and Legislature, has issued its bonds and affixed its seal, and they have passed into the hands ofbona fideholders, the obligation must be fulfilled. For a state or nation, having issued its bonds under its highest legislative and executive sanction, to say, that their own functionaries mistook some of the formalities of the law, and refuse payments, is a fraud upon thebona fideholders, and can never be sustained before the tribunal of the world. But when, besides the Legislature and Executive of 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, reënacted 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 thecourt (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 asconditions precedentto 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 Mississippi, attributed by many to what was called thespecie circular, and soon followed a suspension of the banks. Under these circumstances there was an almost universal demand in Mississippi for relief measures. As a consequence, the attention of the Legislature was absorbed almost exclusively in the consideration of remedies for the existing embarrassments. The result was the enactment, on the 21st January, 1837, of the law, creating the Union Bank of Mississippi. This bank was based upon loans to be obtained upon bonds of the State, the proceeds of which, when sold, were to constitute the capital of the bank, which money, by the terms of the charter, was to be loaned to the 'citizens of the State,' to relieve the existing embarrassments.
The fifth section of the act was the only one in which any authority was given for a loan by the State, and any power to pledge its faith. That section, entire, was as follows:
'That, in order to facilitate the said Union Bank for the said loan of fifteen millions five hundred thousand dollars, the faith of this State be, and is hereby pledged, both for the security of the capital and interest, and that 7,500 bonds of $1,000 each, to wit: 1,875 payable in twelve years; 1,875 in fifteen years; 1,875 in eighteen years; and 1,875 in twenty years, and bearing interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum, shall be signed by the Governor of the State to the order of the Mississippi Bank, countersigned by the State Treasurer, and under the seal of the State; said bonds to be in the following words, viz.:'$2,000. Know all men by these presents, that the State of Mississippiacknowledges to be indebtedto the Mississippi Union Bank in the sum of two thousand dollars, which sum the said State of Mississippipromises to payin current money of the United States to the order of the President, Directors, and Company in the —— year ——with interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum, payable half yearly, at the place named in the indorsement hereto, viz.: —— on the —— of every year until the payment of the said principal sum: in testimony whereof the Governor of the State of Mississippi has signed, and the Treasurer of the State has countersigned these presents, and caused the seal of the State to be affixed thereto, at Jackson, this —— in the —— year of our Lord.'Governor.'Treasurer.'
'That, in order to facilitate the said Union Bank for the said loan of fifteen millions five hundred thousand dollars, the faith of this State be, and is hereby pledged, both for the security of the capital and interest, and that 7,500 bonds of $1,000 each, to wit: 1,875 payable in twelve years; 1,875 in fifteen years; 1,875 in eighteen years; and 1,875 in twenty years, and bearing interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum, shall be signed by the Governor of the State to the order of the Mississippi Bank, countersigned by the State Treasurer, and under the seal of the State; said bonds to be in the following words, viz.:
'$2,000. Know all men by these presents, that the State of Mississippiacknowledges to be indebtedto the Mississippi Union Bank in the sum of two thousand dollars, which sum the said State of Mississippipromises to payin current money of the United States to the order of the President, Directors, and Company in the —— year ——with interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum, payable half yearly, at the place named in the indorsement hereto, viz.: —— on the —— of every year until the payment of the said principal sum: in testimony whereof the Governor of the State of Mississippi has signed, and the Treasurer of the State has countersigned these presents, and caused the seal of the State to be affixed thereto, at Jackson, this —— in the —— year of our Lord.
'Governor.
'Treasurer.'
The whole act, of which this section was a part, was passed by the Legislature and approved by the Governor in 1837, and the entire section as to the loan as required by the provision of the Constitution of the State, was referred to the action of the next succeeding Legislature. That succeeding Legislature was chosen in November, 1837, and assembled, at its regular session, in January, 1838. After full discussion in both houses, this act of 1837 was passed by large majorities in both branches of the Legislature, and approved by the new Governor, A. G. McNutt, on the 5th of February, 1838. The act of 1837, including the 5th section, before quoted, was thus reënacted by the succeeding Legislature, without any change whatever. There was then a full, complete, and undisputed compliance with the requirements of the Constitution, and, under this act, thus sanctioned by two successive Legislatures, it is conceded that the faith of the State was pledged, and that thebonds might be issued and sold. But it is contended by Mr. Jefferson Davis in his first, as well as his second letter, before quoted, that the bonds are invalid, because of the supplemental act of the 15th of February, 1838. Now, it will be observed, that no change whatever was made by this supplemental act, in this 5th section of the original act, before quoted, by which alone the faith of the State was pledged for the payment of these bonds, and which section alone, as required by the Constitution, had been referred to the action of the succeeding Legislature. No change whatever was made by the supplemental act in that section of the original act, the bonds were issued and sold in precise conformity with its provisions, and, indeed, these bonds, thus actually issued and sold, are a precise and literal copy of the form of the bonds as given in the original act, as before quoted. The supplemental act changed only some of the 'details' of the charter of the Bank, but made no alteration whatever in the 5th section. This supplemental act, which is now denounced by Jefferson Davis as unconstitutional, was passed, after the fullest investigation of this question, as to the power of the Legislature, with favorable reports as to the constitutional power by the joint Committee of both Houses. The Committee reported to the Senate, that, by a 'supplemental bill' 'it is competent for this Legislature to alter and amend the details of the bill, incorporating the subscribers to the Mississippi Union Bank, passed at the last session of the Legislature of this State.' (Senate Journal, 103.)
The report of the Committee to the House was as follows: 'The said Committee are of the opinion, that it is within the province of the Legislature to amend or change the details of the said Mississippi Union Bank Charter,' &c. (House Journal, p. 117.) Such was the opinion of the joint Committee of both Houses of the Legislature, which reported this supplemental act, which act was passed by the vote of 22 to 3 in the Senate (Journal, 320), and 55 to 22 in the House. (Journal, 329-30.) It would appear, then, that in the opinion of an overwhelming majority of both branches of the Legislature of Mississippi, the supplemental act was constitutional; and the act was approved by A. G. McNutt, the Governor of the State, and thus became a law on the 15th of February, 1838. Indeed, the idea that a subsequent Legislature could change none of the details of a bank charter, because there was embodied in the act a separate and distinct section authorizing a loan of money by the State, seemed to me never to rise to the dignity of a question. Such, we have seen, was the view of the Legislatures of 1838, 1839, and 1841, and such was the unanimous decision, hereafter quoted, of the Chancellor and Circuit Judge of Mississippi, and of the supreme judicial tribunal, the High Court of Errors and Appeals of the State, in two decisions, on this very point, and in favor of the constitutionality of this law. One of these decisions was made in January, 1842, and the other in April, 1853. These decisions were conclusive against the State, and binding upon the Legislature, the Governor, and the people, for the following reasons. The Constitution of the State of Mississippi contains the following clause:
'Article II.Distribution of Powers.'Sec. 1. The powers of the Government of the State of Mississippi shall be divided into three distinct departments, and each of them confided to a separate body of magistracy; to wit, those which are legislative to one, those which are judicial to another, and those which are executive to another.'Sec. 2. No person or collection of persons, being of one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except in the instances hereinafter expressly directed or permitted.'
'Article II.Distribution of Powers.
'Sec. 1. The powers of the Government of the State of Mississippi shall be divided into three distinct departments, and each of them confided to a separate body of magistracy; to wit, those which are legislative to one, those which are judicial to another, and those which are executive to another.
'Sec. 2. No person or collection of persons, being of one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except in the instances hereinafter expressly directed or permitted.'
It is not pretended that any exceptionwas made for this case. The contrary has always been held by the courts of Mississippi. Indeed, as late as October term, 1858, this very question was decided by the High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi, when it was ruled by the court that 'the Legislature may not, therefore, exercise powers which in their nature are judicial.' (Isom.v.Missis. R. R. Co., 7 George 314.)
In the 9th section of the 7th article of the Constitution of Mississippi is found the provision on which Mr. Jefferson Davis relies requiring the assent of two successive Legislatures to pledge the faith of the State. Immediately succeeding this provision is the following: 'The Legislatureshall directby law in what courts suits may be brought against the State.'
These two consecutive sections of thesame articleof the Constitution, being inpari materia, are to be construed together. Indeed, it is a well known historical fact, that this 9th section, as regards the pledge of the faith of the State, which is now perverted to a wholly different purpose, was intended to give greater solemnity and a higher credit to the bonds of the State, as was likewise the provision in the same Constitution of 1832, sanctioning by name the Planters' Bank bonds of the State (now unpaid), in consequence of which, they were sold at a premium of thirteen and a half per cent. In pursuance of the provision of the Constitution before quoted, the Legislature of Mississippi, in 1833, passed an act, designating the Court of Chancery as the one in which suits might be brought against the State, with the right of appeal by either party to the High Court of Errors and Appeals. That act was passed in 1833, in pursuance of thismandatoryprovision of the Constitution before quoted. That act provided, that, if the decree of the court should be against the State, the Governorshall issuehis mandate to the Auditor to draw on the Treasurer to pay the decree, but 'no execution whatever shall ever issue on any decree in chancery against the State of Mississippi, whereby the State may be dispossessed of lands, tenements, goods and chattels.' (Howard's Dig. 523, 524.)
Here, then, are the two consecutive provisions of the Constitution inpari materia, the one designating the mode by which the bonds of the State might be issued, and the other the judicial tribunals in which all disputes as to such bonds might bedefinitivelysettled, and payment made, if the decree were against the State. That Constitution vested thewhole judicial power of the Statein the courts, it vested nothing but 'legislative power' in the Legislature, and it prohibited the Legislature and Executive from exercising judicial power; it adopted the great fundamental principle of constitutional government, separating the executive, legislative, and judicial power. Indeed, it is the great doctrine of American law, that the concentration of any of these two powers, in any one body or functionary, is dangerous to liberty, and that theconsolidationof all of these powers creates a despotism. The interpretation of a law, and particularly of a constitution, which is made the 'supreme law,' thelex legum, has uniformly been regarded as exclusively a judicial, and not an executive or legislative function. In this case, however, it has been made clear by an express provision of the Constitution separating these functions, and designating, under its mandate, thecourtsin whichsuitsshall be brought against the State, and the form of the decree to be rendered, and requiring payment to be at once made. A suit is a judicial act, and so is the decree of a court. Well, then, the highest judicial tribunals of Mississippi have twice decided this question; they have declared this supplemental act constitutional, these bonds valid, and the sale of them to be in conformity with the law; and, in a suit on one of these very bonds, after the fullest argument, the court entered a decree ofpayment, overruling every point made by Jefferson Davis; and yet the State still repudiates, as well after the first decision in 1842, as the second in 1853. It is difficult to imagine a more palpable infraction of the Constitution, or a clearer violation of every principle of justice than this.
The State prescribes certain forms under which her bonds may issue; she adds to this, in the verynext section, a provisioncommandingthe Legislature to designate the judicial tribunals in which suit may be brought on such bonds against the State; those tribunals are designated by the Legislature, namely, the Court of Chancery, with appeal to the High Court of Errors and Appeals of the State; both those tribunals (including the Chancellor) have unanimously decided against the State, and a decree is entered for payment of the bonds. And yet the State persists in repudiation, and Jefferson Davis defends her course. When the High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi first decided this question, it was composed of Chief Justice Sharkey, and Justices Turner and Trotter (one of the framers of the Constitution). When, again, in 1851, suit was brought against the State on one of these repudiated Union Bank bonds, and a decree for its payment rendered by the Chancellor, that decree, on full argument on appeal, was unanimously confirmed by the highest judicial tribunal of the State, composed entirely of different judges, namely, Chief Justice Smith, and Justices Yerger and Fisher. Here, then, are eight judges, all chosen by the people of Mississippi, concurring in 1842, as well as in 1853, as to the validity of these bonds; and yet Jefferson Davis justifies their repudiation. The judges of Mississippi all take an oath to support the Constitution, and it is made their duty to interpret it, and especially this very clause: the Legislature is confined to law making, and forbidden to exercise any judicial power; the expounding this supplemental law, and the provisions under which it was enacted, is exclusively a judicial power, and yet the Legislatureusurpsthis power, repudiates the bonds of the State, and the acts of three preceding Legislatures, and the decision of the highest tribunals of the State: Jefferson Davis sustains this repudiation, and the British public are asked to take new Confederate bonds, issued by the same Jefferson Davis, and thus to sanction, and encourage, and offer a premium for repudiation. These so-called Confederate bonds are issued in open violation of the Constitution of the United States; they are absolute nullities, they are tainted with treason, they never can or will be paid, and yet they are to be thrust on the British public under the sanction of the same great repudiator, Jefferson Davis, who applauds the non-payment of the Mississippi bonds, and thus condemns hundreds of innocent holders, including widows and orphans, to want and misery. Talk aboutfaith, abouthonor, aboutjustice, and thesanctity of contracts. Why, if such flagrant outrages, such atrocious crimes, can be sustained by the great public of any nation, small indeed must be the value of their bonds, which rests exclusively on good faith.
Suppose some astute lawyer could find some informality 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 LondonTimeshas 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 recommendingtheir 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 partunanimously, 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: