usefulness to which uninterrupted acts of duty would lead, he is responsible from day to day for the right use of all his powers. He is bound, to the full extent of his capacity, to do good, and in all his acts to obey God. At the last tribunal, he will be called to render an account for the use of his powers at each successive period of his life, not for the use of powers which he might have attained, but for those which he actually had. He will be held guilty for all the misconduct, as idleness, waste of time, intemperance, prodigality, impiety, which dwarfed his powers, or prevented their full development; yet his guilt in these acts will be estimated, not by the actual results, but by the violence with which, at the time of doing them, he resisted his obligations.

Here it is proper to remark, that the guilt of an act is enhanced by the apprehension of the agent that bad results may follow, although his suspicion may be wholly groundless. Every circumstance which presents to his mind a reason why the act ought not to be done, augments the guilt of performing it. Hence the misdeeds of to-day may be loaded with greater criminality than would be incurred by the agent if he could foresee all the results. It is plain, if a person is subject to fits of insanity, from the use of wine, that he would contract far less guilt by drinking to intoxication, if he could be positively assured he should do no harm to others, than he actually incurs when he knows the result to be uncertain.

IN 1838, when the capital of the then existing banking institutions in Mississippi amounted to forty five millions of dollars, the legislature of that state incorporated the Mississippi Union Bank, with an additional capital of fifteen and a half million dollars. The funds of this latter institution were not to be furnished by stockholders, but were to be supplied by the state. For this purpose bonds to the amount of five millions of dollars, executed, as we suppose, in the usual form, and bearing date, June, 1838, were delivered under the law incorporating this institution, by the governor of the state to the managers of the bank. The managers sold these bonds in August, to Mr. Biddle, the president of the United States Bank

The signification given to this word throughout the following article, has become so popular and almost technical, that no apology is supposed to be necessary for having adopted it here.

of Pennsylvania. The credit of this last institution was then unshaken, and these bonds were thrown immediately into the European market, and were there speedily disposed of to a large amount to purchasers; a small amount being at the same time sold in the United States. The bonds were executed in the proper form, pledging the faith of the state on their face, and there was nothing on their face which could induce the purchaser to inquire whether any conditions which had been originally prescribed by the constitution or laws of the state, as precedent to the validity of their sale and transfer, had been in fact complied with. The great body of these purchasers became so undoubtedly bona fide, buying the bonds at the fair market price, and they were thus as they supposed, both equitably and legally, the credi tors of the state. When the interest which was semi-annually payable

upon these bonds became due, the pecuniary resources of the state had become deeply embarrassed, and it was already apparent that her connection with the Mississippi Union Bank was to be disastrous rather than beneficial. Certain of her leading politicians, among whom as it would seem the then governor, McNutt, was foremost, soon began to broach and then openly to defend the notion, that this interest ought not to be paid, and that the entire sale of these bonds should be considered fraudulent and void. This was unhappily soon made a party question, and a decided majority of the people of the state were speedily persuaded to sanc. tion this notion. The legislature which was afterwards elected, refused to make any provision for the payment of the interest upon these bonds; and the governor subse quently declared in a correspond. ence with Hope & Co., of Amster dam, that the state would never pay either the principal or the interest. To this declaration, the state has thus far literally adhered.

Events such as these could not occur, without producing a deep sensation both in our own country and in foreign lands. For a state to violate its plighted faith was an almost absolutely unknown event, the Yazoo purchase, in which the legislature of Georgia were the actors, being the only other instance. And as nearly half a century had elapsed since this first precedent was set, and none of the sister republics had ventured to follow the example, it was universally deemed, as the law yers say, an anomalous case-to be neither defended, nor cited. When then the legislation of Georgia was thus revived in that of Mississippi, and this latter state thus openly proclaimed that the contracts which had been made by one legislature might be nullified by a subsequent legislature, the least reflecting look ed on in surprise and perplexity,

"doubting whereunto this might grow." The first and, as was to be expected, the loudest of the complainants were the purchasers of the bonds. These, as has been already said, resided principally in different countries in Europe, and they were composed of persons of every condition in life. Among them were literary men, officers on half pay, and other persons whose resources were limited, most of whom had bought these securities with as full confidence in the safety of the investment as if they had been depositors in a savings bank. They had bought as in all other cases, relying on the good faith of the state; they had made a fair market purchase, and as confidently expected the interest to be paid as do the creditors of the national debt of England. And when their debtor, the state of Mississippi, in the exercise of her sovereign pleasure, had thus pronounced her own public acts to be void, and had proclaimed her own bonds to be noth ing better than brown paper, it was not strange that they should denounce these proceedings as a system of fraud. What participation, they exclaimed, could be charged upon them in any unfaithfulness or bad management of the agents who had originally disposed of the stock; and what was this pretense of the state, but a mere cover for its own dishonesty?

Nor was the feeling of our own citizens any less equivocal, so far as it found expression. One mode of utterance has been that of the press, and its voice has been that of almost uniform condemnation. Party spirit seems happily to have slumbered upon this question, men have tried the issue by the simple standard of right and not by that of momentary expediency, and they have come accordingly to the same conclusion. Several of the legis latures of other states have also adopted solemn resolutions, virtually

condemning the legislature of Mississippi, and have thus repudiated Repudiation. And no formal, disinterested attempt has been made, so far as we are aware, to defend their conduct. If there have been apologies, they have been offered by the parties directly concerned in these proceedings; or if others have stepped forward, the very defense has shown that the champion was ashamed of his cause. So far as the national feeling can be inferred from such indications, the American pulse has generally beat full and true, the people of Mississippi have been "left alone" with their "glory." Even in the halls of Congress, not a voice has been raised in her behalf, except by her own representatives. We can scarcely hesitate to assert, that not a native citizen east of the Alleghany Mountains, who values his own personal character and the honor of his country, has as yet undertaken the perilous effort of defending these proceedings. Every man, except the mere demagogue, has mourned over the reproach which he was conscious would be thus cast upon the country, and has sought to free himself personally from the stigma, by condemning them. While thus affirming, we are also aware that sinister omens of a similar nature have been subsequently visible in other quarters of our political hemisphere, but the voice of the country has undoubtedly spoken in decisive tones here. So strong has been this feeling, so unenviable the notoriety which the state of Mississippi has thus acquir. ed, that her estimable citizens must have often blushed to be recognized as such in other portions of the country. And the public credit of the state is destroyed. Let her now attempt to obtain a loan on any security, any pledges whatever that she can offer, and she could not procure a dollar. A town pauper's promissory note would be regarded

with as much respect by our money. ed citizens, as the bonds of this independent state.

Still more decided has been the condemnatory voice from abroad. The great bankers and other large dealers in public stocks in Europe disposed of the Mississippi bonds, with the same confidence in the good faith of the state which they had so often previously given to that of the United States, or of the crowned heads of Europe, when concerned in similar transactions. The Barings of London, the Hottinguers, and the Hope & Co.'s of the continent, doubtless as little anticipated that the bonds which they transferred to purchasers would be ever declared void by the state of Mississippi, as they anticipated their own personal repudiation of debts which themselves had contracted. When then her legislature refused to pay the interest upon this debt, what other epithets could these "merchant princes" who give the law to commercial credit and character throughout Europe, attach to the state and her agents, but dishonest and fraudulent? And the different nations of Europe, so far as they have become acquainted with these transactions, have but echoed and sanctioned this decision. Whether the English, or the French, or the Dutch, have spoken, it has been the same. And were this reproach confined to the people of Mississippi alone, who could have felt surprise or regret? But instead of state dishonor, it has become national dishonor. Most of the inhabitants of the different countries in Europe, even those of England, are too little acquainted with the peculiar structure of our national and state governments, to be competent to distinguish between them; an Austrian and a Parisian, nay, many a London merchant and knight of the shire, are as unable to separate the two as to define the jurisdiction of the different popular tri

bunals of ancient Athens. And the enemies of free institutions, even where well informed upon this subject, have been ready to blend the state and the nation together. Here was one of the united republics of North America publicly falsifying its own acts, violating its own engagements, and this was warrant sufficient for an outcry against the whole. Here was one instance of the manner in which American faith was maintained, and this was sufficient occasion for the friends of despotism to exclaim-Punica fides! Perhaps no single transaction has ever equally soiled the brightness of our national escutcheon, as seen by men on the eastern side of the Atlantic. Defects, or incongruities, in our system of government would by many be overlooked; the republican directness, if not bluntness, of our manners would be pronounced characteristic; even the dark blot of Southern slavery might be partially veiled; but a direct refusal by one of our states to pay the debt which her own legislature had contracted, admitted of no apology, no explanation. This is not the language of exaggeration. The English presses during the last two years have been speaking more indignantly and bitterly than this. And our own countrymen, whether residing or traveling abroad, hear similar remonstrances and reproaches. Till within a few years, an American traveler needed not but to proclaim his country, to secure consideration wherever he went, even though personal good will might be withheld. But the story of Mississippi repudiation now precedes or follows him, and he is often constrained to blush when he avows his native land. He may tell the true history, and then insist, that as a citizen of Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or Ohio, he is not responsible for the misdeeds of a state at the opposite extremity of our vast country-that national character is Vol. I.

68

not to be thus forfeited. And he may be civilly heard, and the devoted friends of free governments may accept his explanation, but with most of his auditors this plea will not avail. It is easier for them at three thousand miles distance to confound than to discriminate, and they have chosen to pronounce it all a national act, by which every American has been dishonored. And the wound thus given to our honor has equally reached our credit. As the state of Mississippi has disabled herself from obtaining the smallest loan here at home, so neither other states whose credit is here unshaken, nor the United States, can now procure a loan abroad. Successive attempts of this nature have been already made, and they have proved ineffectual. Foreign capitalists will not undertake to dispose of stock, for which foreign purchasers can not be found.

We view personally these proceedings of the state of Mississippi as unjust, as a direct breach of her plighted faith, and as therefore only dishonorable to her character. We deem every defense of this doctrine of repudiation, if we may term it a doctrine, as nothing more nor less than a justification of public fraud. Every legislature, state and national, is thus invited to break its solemn contracts, whenever it may be inconvenient to fulfill them. Let such transactions be only regarded with indifference; let any language respecting them except that of condemnation become popular, and we shall soon behold their frequent repetition through the Union. True it is, as has been already remarked, that the legislature of Mississippi have as yet found but few responsible apologists; but true it also is, that in other states which are burdened with debt, repudiation has been broached as the only available policy. Indiana and Michigan have already entered on the same road; in Maryland the measure has been so warmly recom

mended as to excite disquietude, and the course of Pennsylvania also has been sufficiently equivocal. While professedly denouncing repudiation, her legislature have made no provision for the payment of the interest due upon her public debt for the last year. Fearful of the effect upon their own popularity, were a system of direct taxation to be adopted, or otherwise criminally insensible to the duty of preserving inviolable the faith of the commonwealth, they have adjourned, and left their most momentous trust unperformed. Are not these occasions for alarm to every thoughtful mind that loves its country? Are not such clouds om. inous of a tempest that may hereafter sweep away the very foundations of our national polity? And if but a tithe of such apprehensions is war ranted, a somewhat free examination of the subject may be seasonable in the pages of the New Englander. We shall accordingly consider the most plausible defenses that may be offered for these proceedings of the state of Mississippi, and after having exposed their evident unsoundness, shall allude to several minor topics which are intimately connected with the general subject.

One defense which, we fear, is se cretly deemed by many as valid, although few are as yet hardy enough to avow it, is this: that a state, a legislature, is not subject to the moral laws which bind individuals. This would be termed, substantially, a plea to the jurisdiction in foro conscientiæ; 'it denies that a political body is morally amenable. There are few indeed, even among the veriest demagogues and their partisans, who venture openly to assert this principle; but is not the number of those who have privately espoused it rapidly increasing? The tendency of our free institutions, under the working of that depravity which is natural to man, is, as every attentive observer has noticed, towards the side of licentiousness, and never towards that

of restraint. The danger ever is, that the standard recommended will be that of expediency, and not that of justice. And when men, whether they are legislators or private citi zens, are perpetually told that the state of which they are members is sovereign, that it is independent, not only of foreign governments, but also of the United States, except within the granted powers of the constitution, it requires no great increase of self-complacency to believe, that the state and those who represent its sovereignty are virtu ally independent of the moral law. What other explanation than this needs be given of the unquestioned fact, as melancholy as it is notorious, that the annual sessions of Congress, and of many of our state legisla. tures, are notorious for their corrupting influence upon the communities in which they are held? Men who, as private citizens, show some regard to personal character and to public opinion, often become regard. less of both when sent to Washing. ton, or to the capital of their own state, to aid in making the laws. The law has exempted them from all responsibility to man, for aught which, as legislators, they may say or do, and this they construe as a release from all accountability to God. Is not much of the legislation of Congress during the last twenty years explicable on this principle? Have not many acts of obvious injustice or impolicy been passed, and many a demand of equity refused or neglected, under its sway? The practical conviction of the legislator has been, that his personal responsibility was at an end, as a public functionary his private character was for the time lost, or himself, as a unit, was merged in the multitude by whom he was surrounded. This is an opinion which has been every where rapidly gaining ground, and, as the consequence, whatever may be the proceedings of a legislature, there are many who are more or less