under the original act. But
the truth is, the bonds were not sold _below par_, but _above par_, as
shown by the High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi, in the
decision hereafter quoted by me. Indeed, all these four objections of
the Governor, as well as those of Jefferson Davis, are shown in that
decision to be as unfounded in fact, as they were in law or morals.

But suppose the bonds were sold below par, that is, that the State had
lost $170,000, or less than four per cent., on bonds for five millions
of dollars. Was that a just or valid ground for repudiating the whole,
principal and interest? The plea of _usury_ is always disgraceful, even
if true, especially where the security was negotiable to bearer and had
passed, for full value, into the hands of _bona fide_ holders. But if
such a plea is disgraceful to individuals, what shall be said when it is
made on behalf of a State? And what shall be thought of those who make
such an objection? What of a Governor, or of a United States Senator,
who urges such objections on behalf of a State? Do we not feel as if the
State were some miserable culprit on trial, and some pettifogging lawyer
was endeavoring to screen him from punishment, by picking a flaw in the
indictment. Yet such are the pleas on behalf of a State, urged by
Governor McNutt and Senator Jefferson Davis. On reference to the letter
before referred to, of Jefferson Davis, it will be found that he does
not confine himself to the constitutional objections. In his first
letter, before quoted, of 25th May, 1849, Mr. Jefferson Davis says,
'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.'
These positions are deliberately repeated by Jefferson Davis, in his
second letter, before referred to, of the 29th August, 1849. That is,
the State should pay _none_ of the money received, because the
purchaser, as alleged, had no right to buy the bonds--and because the
sale was, as erroneously stated, an infraction of the law, that is
_usurious_, or a sale below par. He insists the money was not received
by the State, because, he says, 'Mississippi had no bank, and could not