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 and sale 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 the
_Times_, 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 to _pay 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 of
_bona fide_ holders, 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 the
_bona fide_ holders, and can never be sustained before the tribunal of
the world. But when, besides the Legislature and Executive of