Page:A History of Banking in the United States.djvu/405

 which constituted a great step in the history of repudiation. They recited that the Legislature had no authority to raise money, to execute a law deemed by the authors of these resolutions repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and of Mississippi; that the supplementary act to incorporate the Union Bank was "a fundamental change of said original charter, passed contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution of the State, and adopted without the assent of her citizens as required thereby;" that the $5 millions bonds [the first lot delivered to the bank] were issued without reference to the people or compliance by the bank with the original conditions of the charter, and "are not binding on her [Mississippi's] citizens, and cannot be paid by this State while the form of its Constitution remains;" and that the Governor by his proclamation shall forbid the sale or hypothecation of the second $5 millions now in the bank.

The subject of repudiation had now attracted the attention of the whole country and of Congress. There were groups of persons, more or less numerous, in all the indebted States, who were in favor of repudiation. Jacob Thompson of Mississippi made a speech in the House, January 10, 1842, in which he not only defended repudiation, but gloried in it, as a noble and righteous defense of liberty and American principles. The following extract from the report of a committee of the Mississippi Legislature illustrates the tone and the principles on which repudiation was defended. The committee feel that the people of Mississippi have taken a patriotic stand. "They are not controlled by selfish or mercenary motives. The low and grovelling consideration of dollars and cents has nothing to do with the merits of this question. Their honest obligations they will fulfill, should they have to divest themselves of the comforts and necessaries of life to do so. Higher and holier motives than mere pecuniary considerations actuate them. They have determined that they never will submit to an invasion of their Constitution by either foreign or domestic foes. The rights secured to them under that sacred instrument they will maintain at all hazards; and relying on the correctness of their principles and the justness of their cause, they will, with confidence and cheerfulness, submit to the verdict of posterity."

No doubt the attention of the reader has already been drawn to the marvellously lax way in which everybody treated the bond issues. Other cases of the same thing will follow below. The Governors signed bonds and delivered them to banks or improvement companies or Fund Commissioners, almost without accountability. In this case, McNutt did not take the lowest precautions before issuing the bonds to see that the interests of the State were guarded, that the law was complied with, or that the bank had fulfilled the conditions. Much less did he look to the future for any guarantees that the bank would perform its stipulations. He was once subjected to interrogatories, we are not told by whom: "For what purpose, and under what authority, did you sign and deliver said bonds?" He made irrelevant replies, and cited the example of "Jefferson and the illustrious