the United Kingdom, and upon the continent of Europe, and several
confederate writers have since referred to them; but no attempt ever has
been made, either by Mr. Davis himself, or by any of his agents or
friends, to refute any one of the facts or deductions contained in those
pamphlets. Indeed, the facts were founded upon authentic documents,
official papers, and Mr. Davis's own two letters over signature, plainly
and unequivocally sustaining the repudiation of Mississippi. It is true,
in the case of the Union Bank bonds of Mississippi, that Mr. Davis
justified their repudiation on the ground that the bonds of the State
were unconstitutional. But the utter fallacy of this position was shown
by two unanimous decisions of the highest judicial tribunal of the State
of Mississippi, before whom this very question was brought directly for
adjudication, affirming the constitutionality and validity of these
bonds. When it is recollected, also, that this was the Court designated
by the Constitution and laws of Mississippi, as the tribunal to which
the ultimate decision of this question was referred, the wretched
character of this pretext must be at once perceived. Mr. Davis's two
repudiating letters were published by him in the spring and summer of
1849, yet one of these decisions by the highest judicial tribunal of
Mississippi, quoted by me, affirming the validity and constitutionality
of these very bonds, was made in 1842, and again unanimously reaffirmed
in 1853. But still, Mr. Davis adhered to the same position. As to the
Planters' Bank bonds, however, the repudiation of which was shown to
have been justified by Mr. Davis, there never was even a pretext that
they were illegal or unconstitutional. Nor is there any force in the
suggestion, that these questions were decided before Mr. Davis came into
public life. They were _continuous_ questions, constantly discussed in
the press and before legislative and judicial tribunals. And, we have
seen, even as late as 1853, four years succeeding Mr. Davis's
repudiating letters, the second decision was made by the highest
judicial tribunal of Mississippi, reaffirming the validity and
constitutionality of these bonds.

But I will now cite another instance of the advocacy of repudiation by
Mr. Jefferson Davis, still more flagitious than that of Mississippi. It
was that of the State bonds of Arkansas, the validity and
constitutionality of which never has been disputed. A brief history of