erson Davis and his associate
repudiators?

Let us examine the Governor's objections. As to the 1st and 2d--the bank
did not make the purchase; the contract was made by an individual,
although the performance was guaranteed by the bank. As this is a mere
technical objection, surely the Bank guarantee, even if void, could not
affect the contract itself. 2d. The purchase, even if made by the bank,
was not of _stock_, but a _loan_ made upon _bonds_. 3d. The right of the
bank to make the purchase is immaterial, if the money was paid, as in
this case, the bonds received, payable to bearer, and passed for value,
into the hands of _bona fide_ holders. What an objection to the
refunding the money--that, although it was received, the purchaser of
the bonds had no right to buy them, and therefore the _bona fide_
holders should lose the money. It might have been in violation of its
charter for the bank to purchase the bonds, but it was '_fraudulent_,'
when the money was received by the State, to retain it, on the
allegation, that the bank could not legally make the purchase,
especially when the bonds, in the mean time, had passed into the hands
of _bona fide_ holders. As to the 3d objection--as the money was paid
before the objection was made, and the Union Bank authorized to draw _at
once_ for the amount, at a point beyond the limits of the State, which
it did do, and realized a large premium on the exchange, and profit on
the transaction, the objection is as unfounded in law as it is in morals
or good faith; especially as the bonds were payable to bearer, upon
their face, in exact conformity to the law, and had passed, for value,
into the hands of _bona fide_ holders. Besides, there was no such
restriction in the charter. The only restriction in the supplement was,
that they should not be sold _below par_. Suppose the bonds for five
millions of dollars had been sold for five millions and a half, payable
in sixty days, and the money paid at the time, it is equally absurd and
fraudulent to contend, that for such a reason, the whole money could be
retained, and bonds repudiated. As to the 4th objection, the original
5th section which passed two successive Legislatures, did not require
that the bonds should not be sold for 'less than their par value.' If,
then, as contended by Jefferson Davis, the supplemental act containing
this provision, was unconstitutional, null and void, then no such
restriction existed, and the sale was valid