we shall commence a new career of peaceful progress and
advanced civilization. And why sow the seeds of international hatred
between England and America? Is war really desired between the two
countries, or is it supposed that we will yield to foreign intervention
without a struggle? No, the North will rise up as one man, and thousands
even from the South will join them. The country will become a camp, and
the ocean will swarm with our privateers. Rather than submit to
dismemberment or secession, which is anarchy and ruin, we will, we must
fight, until the last man has fallen. The Almighty can never prosper
such a war upon us. If the views of a foreign power have been truly
represented in Parliament, and such an aggression upon us is
contemplated, let him beware, for in such a contest, the political
pyramid resting upon its apex, the power of one man, is much more likely
to fall, than that which reposes on the broad basis of the will of the
people.

Returning from this episode, I resume the narrative.

We have seen the repudiating Executive message and repudiating
legislative resolutions of January, 1842, and their failure to influence
the decision of the court. And now, we approach another act in the
drama. The court having affirmed the constitutionality of the Union Bank
bonds, and as the act of 1833 directed their payment, the Legislature of
1844 enacted a new law, in these words: 'That hereafter, no judgment or
decree of any court of law or equity having jurisdiction of suits
against the State, shall be paid by warrants on the Treasurer, or
otherwise, without an appropriation by law, any former law or usage to
the contrary notwithstanding.' The 'law and usage' were plain, to pay
such decrees, as required by the law and Constitution; but both were
disregarded, and the act of 1833, for all practical purposes, repealed.
It remained in part, on the statute book, only to invite to the
gambler's game of 'odd I win, even you lose'--that is, if, under the act
of 1833, there should be a decision in any case in favor of the State,
it should be conclusive, but if against the State, the money should not
be paid, where (as in the case of these bonds) the Legislature differed
from the court, and had already repudiated its decision. Such was the
action of the Legislature in 1842 and 1844. In 1842, it repudiated, in
advance, the decision of the court on these bonds, and, after that
decision, repealed so much of the law as required