himself, are so influenced Be this as it may, there will certainly be time enough to get up metaphysical theories about "that sacred instrument" and "the sacred regard of the people for it," (which was just as sacred when the money was borrowed as when the interest fell due) after the Union Bank bonds are taken up and cancelled and the money received for them (even by the State's faithless agents, and spent by them in a foolish manner, and deducting the "illegal interest," if you will) is paid back; as there will also be time enough to give the Tucker faction of "the Rule" credit for the sincerity they claim, after they shall have paid the instalments and interest due on the Planters' Bank bonds, which they solemnly professed to believe constitutional, even if it should cost them the price of a secession from the "radical repudiators" they profess to contemn, and a junction with those of different national politics, who stand ready to go any length with them toward paying the bonds of the State, in whole or in part. But, while we remember the denunciation of Gov. Brown in 1846, for insisting upon the payment of the Planters' Bank bonds only, we must be allowed to feel a little doubtful of the purity of that "patriotism" and "sacred regard for the constitution," and fear of "trampling that sacred instrument under foot" by paying the State's sealed obligations, which induced them to join the "radicals" in their repudiating resolutions.

We have quite as good a right to take this view of Mr. Tucker's conduct as he has to denounce us, as he does in the following extract from his chief message in 1843, in common with those other "citizens" who differ with him, legally and morally, on the subject of the Union Bank bonds.

"Some of the unnatural citizens of this State have proclaimed the sovereign State of Mississippi disgraced in the eyes the civilized world because the majority of the people thereof have dared, in good faith, to adhere to

and maintain inviolate this most sacred provision of their own constitution, and because they have refused to ratify its violation by the paymeut of a debt contracted in palpable fraud of its provisions, contracted not by the State, but by individuals who arrogated to themselves, contrary to the fact, that they were the agents of the State for that purpose." [House Jour. of 1843, p. 37.]

Moreover, we have as good a right to consider those men who voted for the repudiating resolutions "unnatural citizens," recreant and traitorous to the best interests of Mississippi, as they had, by those resolutions, to fasten upon us, and upon a State as much our State as their's, without our consent, the infernal stain of repudiation. And we have also the right (and we shall exercise it) of considering their noise about "that sacred instrument" a mere farago and humbug, got up for party purposes, until we are better informed by their imposing a tax to take up the instalment and interest due on those bonds they pretended in '42 to consider a constitutional and just debt-to-wit, the Planters' Bank bonds.

Many of the arguments used by Gov. Tucker in favor of paying the Planters' Bank bonds, would be quite as applicable to the Union Bank bonds, and most of those he uses against paying the latter, are no more plausible, though more guarded, than those of Mr. Gordon D. Boyd in his minority report [House Jour. of 1842, p. 938,] against paying the Planters' bonds. Disposing of the "constitutional" question arising on the latter, to the effect that they cannot be paid, and asserting that the whole matter is in the hands of the people, the learned and experienced commentator on Governmental finances last named, speaks of the obligations of a sovereign State thus: [p. 946.]

"Many of these laws known as national, are nothing more than a part and parcel of the same system of humbuggery which has been used in all ages to hoodwink mankind, and have their origin in pretty much the same manner in which oracles spoke; and which have about as much to do with the justice of the cause as the wearing of gowns and wigs in courts has to do with the administration of justice between contending litigants."

This is going for a sort of general repudiation "with a rush ;" but it is only carrying out such of Mr. Tucker's views, as are confined to the Union Bank bonds, and such of his predecessor's as are applied to both sets of bonds. In relation to considering the people so "sovereign" as to borrow money when they please and refuse to repay it when they please, without regard to the opinion of other nations or posterity, and in "appeals to the people" generally, Mr. Boyd but carries out the views of "the Rule," as expressed by its orators and presses, to the letter.

The passage of the "original Briscoe bill" by the House in 1843 was another outrageous proceeding of the Tucker administration-the very acme of the sin and shame of that system of legislating men out of debt which commenced in 1837, as shown in our 4th chapter and has continued up to the session of '46--a system of legalizing frauds on the rights of creditors.

Against this bill, sixteen of the most intelligent and respectable members of the House, of both parties in national politics, (but we believe not a single radical repudiator) protested, [House Jour. of 1843, p. 201] denouncing it as "rank and unmitigated injustice, unrelieved by any excuse or palliation." Fortunately, the measure was arrested in the Senate, which body added the amendment commonly called "the Guion amendment," which being concurred in by the House, saved the rights of creditors until the further "progress" of "the Democratic Rule," in 1846, swept them by the board.

The "orignal Briscoe bill" has caused so much discussion since 1843, that it is needless to spend much time upon it here. Suffice it to say it provided for closing up the banks by a forfeiture of their charters and extinguishing all their claims upon the "dear people." Had it become a law in the shape in which it first passed the House, Mr. Tucker's administration would have been

the era not only of the repudiation of the public debts, but of the private debts of individuals due to charted institutions. The latter however, as we have said, was left to illustrate the greater "progress" the Rule had made under the present Governor, Mr. A. G. Brown, in 1846; of which, more in its place. There are some indications that this "progress" in legislating people out of debt will not stop here, but that, under Mr. Brown's successor, unless the Rule reforms, or is "reformed out of office" by the people, repudiation of debt will be carried into contracts between man and man. The system of relief laws we have noticed have prepared the way, and it only remains to declare the "principle" boldly. It is equally justifiable with repudiating those between man and corporations. Immoral legislation is "progressive"-its course is onward. The only safety for the people is to make a strong effort eradicate it-cut it up root and branchrecur to the old fashioned kind of principle, and abide by it.

CHAPTER XIX.

The period of the Tucker administration was disgraceful to "the Democratic Rule" in particular, from the embezzlement of a large amount of the funds of the State by the State Treasurer, Richard S. Graves. A part of this amount was recovered, reducing the loss to the State to about fifty thousand dollars, with which the treasurer absconded, having first been in custody and given his keepers the slip. He subsequently published a pamphlet in which he accused nearly every executive officer of the Tucker administration of misdemeanors, and which, having been extensively circulated through the State, may be consulted by the curious.

It

This Graves affair is a very curious one. does not appear that the object of that individual was actually to pocket a large amount of money

and abscond with it, but that he certainly did intend to, and, in fact, did speculate, for private gain, with the State's funds in his hands, as treasurer. If he had intended to do the former, it is very plain, as he says himself in his pamphlet, that the time to have done so would have been when he was at the North with the large amount of funds he had drawn from the treasury of the United States in his possession; instead of doing which, he returned with it, or rather with the "constitutional currency" for which he exchanged it, to Mississippi: but that he intended to make the most he could of it, so as to show a flush account of the finances when called on, (nothwithstanding he endeavors, and very plausibly, to show that the committee of the House which reported the amount of the actual defalcation, was mistaken) is apparent from a single fact proved against him on his examination, just before his escape, and admitted by himself in his pamphlet, namely: that he passed off sovereigns, (worth $4 84-100) in making payments for the State, for five dollars, while his excuse for it, that he wished, in this way, to reimburse himself for his expenses in going on to Washington to receive the funds, is, on its face, a flimsy humbug. He had no right to go to any expense on account of the State for such a purpose, or any other, unauthorized by law; and, if he chose to do so at his own expense, had no right to reimburse himself by speculating with the State's money. Beside this acknowledged mode of speculation, there can be no doubt of the determination of Mr. Graves, to buy up the State warrants at a depreciation with the State's own gold, and credit himself as treasurer with the full amount called for on their face. The reflection of the thoughtful reader is here arrested by the subject of the state of morals induced by the tines, which, in but too many instances, led fiduciary officers to consider such things mere trifles.