stockjobbers and pensioned presses, as connected with the question of these Union Bank bonds, I said :—

"The crocodile tears which have been shed over ruined creditors are on a par with the baseless denunciations which have been heaped upon the State. 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 concernedpurchased 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. To sustain the credit of that rickety bank, the bonds were hypothecated abroad for interest on loans which could not be met as they became due."

The editor of the London Times, seemingly reckless of his own reputation, in his zeal to injure that of a United States Senator, thus presents the above :

"Let it circulate throughout Europe, that a member of the United States Senate in 1849, has openly proclaimed that, at a recent period, the Governor and legislative assemblies of his own State deliberately issued fraudulent bonds for $5,000,000, 'to sustain the credit of a rickety bank;" that "the bonds in question having been hypothecated abroad to innocent holders, such holders have not only no claim against the community, by whose executive and representatives this act was committed, but that they are to be taunted for appealing to the verdict of the civilized world, rather than to the judgment of the legal officers of the State, by whose functionaries they have been already robbed; and that the ruin of toil-worn men, of widows, and of children and the crocodile tears which that ruin has occasioned, is a subject of jest on the part of those by whom it has been accomplished."

So far as this is directed against my statement, no answer could be more complete than that which every informed person will draw from a comparison of the two extracts, the original and its misrepresentation. Not only was no such statement made by me, as the Times proposes to circulate throughout Europe, but no one in any degree acquainted with the history of the transaction could say anything the least like it.

The legislature of Mississippi had no connection with the

G

United States Bank of Pennsylvania, and could have had no such purpose as to sustain its credit. That bank purchased the bonds as it did other securities which were in the market. The reliance, as shown by the correspondence, was on the permanent value of the property by which the stock was to be secured. The claim of foreign holders is as good, but no better, than that of the first purchaser. And if it be true that these bonds were sent abroad by the U. S. Bank of Pennsylvania, as additional security for a loan which had been previously made, how were these creditors of that bank injured by receiving the Mississippi Union Bank bonds, and how have these bonds caused toiling age, destitute widowhood, and helpless infancy to weep? Have they been thrown into market, since public notice of their disputed legality was given, and is there no censure for such fraud, no sympathy with the aged, the widow, and the child, if their claims come in conflict with the interest of the money changers? Or are these manufactured cases gotten up to sustain the denunciations against the State, and to subserve the interests of capitalists ? Is this an attempt to avoid scrutiny into the justice of the case, by invoking well known feeling for age and helplessness? And is this, not the weeping of real sufferers, but the crocodile tears of hired* advocates of the innocent stock dealers of London 'Change.

Our judiciary is governed by the same general rules and prin ciples as that of England, and as little likely as the bench of any other country to permit the channels of justice to be obstructed by popular prejudice. Such, I am sure, is the prevailing opinion of our people, although one of the Mississippi papers has aided in the circulation of this calumnious imputation upon our judges.

66

In relation to the Planters Bank bonds, it is stated that we make a distinction without a difference; and of the law which made them receivable for the public lands of the State, that they are only so receivable upon land being taken at three times its current value." The price fixed on these lands is six dollars per acre: they are represented to have been selected with great care, and to be of the best character of our cotton growing lands. Our policy is to sell them so low as to induce immigration and hasten their occupation. The governor of our State, under whose administration they were principally selected, in his message to

the legislature, at its biennial session of 1848, protested solemnly against using the lands to pay the Planters Bank bonds, whilst he strongly enforced a recommendation "to raise the money by taxation, and discharge the debt as rapidly as possible." recommending the policy to dispose of the public lands at their "fair value," he said: "The legislature ought, in my opinion, to fix the minimum at eight dollars the first year, seven the second, and so on down to one dollar per acre." The present financial difficulties, and, above all, the short crops and low price which our staple has borne for several years, cause this to be a most unfavorable time to dispose of wild lands. Under ordinary circumstances, the price fixed by the legislature would not be considered the full value of lands such as these are represented to be. The distinction between the bonds of the Union Bank and those of the Planters Bank, is a constitutional distinction; the difference is, that the legislature, by the law above noticed, by establishing and guarding a sinking fund, and in other modes, have, from time to time, recognized the validity of the Planters Bank bonds, and evinced a determination to provide for their payment.

"Repudiation," in the true meaning of the word, cannot be applied to Mississippi. Where there has been no connection, there can be no repudiation. If the Union Bank bonds never were a debt of the State, then the State could not repudiate them. The agent of the State has failed to pay the interest on the Planters Bank bonds, and the principal of such as have fallen due, as was provided; but the State has not denied her liability-has not declared herself free from the obligation, and in this case has committed no act of repudiation. With far more propriety might repudiation be charged upon the English government, for the reduction of interest on her loans when she consolidated her debts; for the income tax which compels fundholders to return a part of the interest they receive on their evidences of public debt, for the support of the government, which is their debtor. But my purpose was to correct error, to repel slander, to defend the character of Mississippi, and I will not go beyond it.

Very respectfully your friend,

JEFFERSON DAVIS,

Note.-On reference to the decisions of the highest Judicial tribunal of Mississippi, as quoted in this pamphlet, one of which decisions was pronounced more than seven years before the date of Jefferson Davis's letter, it will be found that every position assumed by Mr. Davis has been overruled.

R. J. W.

JEFFERSON DAVIS.

REPUDIATION,

RECOGNITION AND SLAVERY.

LETTER

No. II.

OF

HON. ROBERT J. WALKER, M.A.

COUNSELLOR AT LAW IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, LATE LAW REP. MI., SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, COMMISSIONER TO CHINA, GOVERNOR OF KANSAS, ETC. ETC.

LONDON: WILLIAM RIDGWAY, 169, PICCADILLY. W.