{"character_count": 5876, "word_count": 1020, "ccnet_language_score": [0.972100019454956], "ccnet_perplexity": [1882.199951171875], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
bonds and know that your has never appeared on
anv paper discounted by Bank either drawer or endor-
ser also know though like myself you indebted
for property purchased high prices you viii give me
your opinion unbiased by prejudice and unnuenced BY
self interest. am yours, &C.


DEAR sIR-I have duly received your letter of 22d ult
and hasten reply thereto premise by stating that af
you know humble planter without any petensons TO
law knowledge, and therefore he opinions may advance
will be the dictates ofcommon sense and common honesty


clearly the opinion that the State both Legally
and morally bound for the payment Of the bonds and that she
can way escape from the Obligation without fagrant
breach of honor and good faith There nothing the
Governors letter. anything else that have seen on
the subject weaken my convictions that she bound by
every principle honor and by everything which State
she ought hold dear pay the bonds according to their
tenor.


10 contend that the endorsement of the President Of the
Union Bank by which he Stipulated for the payment oi er


ling money! instead Of legal currency the United States
specified the bonds releases the State from her obligation
pay because changed the currency which alone she
arreedto paw is both ridiculous and absurdls no


change the face of the contract require the State to
pay than she engaged pay than your individual note
could be changed by thing written the endorsement
ofthe person to whom it made payable To illustrate
this you execute your note to me- or zone thousand DOL
lars payable in the legal currency of the United States
and endorse it, and write over my endorsement Il guar
any the paymentof within IN diamonds Doesforce
you pay diamonds Certainly And does it release
you from the payment the currency in which you contrac
ted to payl Just as-ceranly The liabilities of the
State could any endorsement the bond
uucss made with the OF the State through her Exec
utve, sanctioned by of the Legislature The infer
therefore, that this endorsemet sufficient to nvadae
the contract and release the State from her obligation,
wholly groundess


Nor doesrhc assumption that because the sale made
the Bank of the United States party that is prohibited
by her charter from dealing State stocks the State there
by released from her obligation rest amy better grounds
In the first place there shadow of evidence prove
that the sale made the Bank Of the United States or
Mr. Biddle for the Bank Mr. Bdde was the purchaser
his individual capacity The whole correspondence was
his individual and character and the Commissioners
had RIG know and would have been deemed imperi
nnt had they inquired for whose benefit the purchase
made If the sale had been made idiot minor,
his guardian might have protested against The
othe and refused deliver the money; but even
such sale could not release the State from her moral obg
pay after she had received and used the money Nor
could she have escaped her moral obligation had the Com
missioner gone Texas with the proceeds OF the bonds or
any other way squanered the money for their and
pleasure.


matters not therefore, whom the bonds sold, if
received the money for them she is morally bound
provide for their payment know that OF our courts
has decided the of the commissioners OF the sinking
fund against the Hon r. Walker-that because the
mssoners had specific grant Of power to make loans,
therefore the defendant could be held legally liable for his
note, executed for money borrowed But have heard that
the jury would have unanimously decided that having
ceved used and enjoyed the money the defendant
ally bound pay the with interest, and this think
would have been the verdict of honest jury under
similar circumstances And here [ may remark that the
whole question of responsibility is of purely moral
character The State be sued her bonds and her
legal liability therefore be tested and the question
for the people decide is she morally bound make
ttion money had and used2 That she received the
money and the full five millions there be doubt
for she received script from the Union Bank for five millions
her stock and appointed directors the bank and
supentend the States interest in the She in fact ap
pointed all the directors for the first year and there
fore solely responsible for the mismanagement of the bank
and the improper OF her funds The sockhode elected
directors, believe, for the first years Certain it
is the State appointed all the directors who had any agency
in the appointment of the commissioners or the negoa
for the sale of the bonds and there be any thing wrong
in the matter is she responsible for 2 The errors
any, those of her agents, and surely cannot be
morally right take advantage of the mismanagement of
her agents. to evade the payment other obligations


You lam would hardly contend that because you
purchased your plantation 1885, when property far
above its real value and the purchase had proved om the
mismanagement of your from beyond
your control unfortunate one that therefore you were
released from the obligation pay for it. after having used
Tor years and that you would be justified running the
groes off Teyas And yet. do conscientously believe
there would be quite much justification for such act
there for the State TO refuse pay her bonds in the hands
OF innocent holders after having received their value and used
the money.


the State not bound for the payment of her bonds then
nee IS there be, that cannot be evaded
Even the marriage contracthe solemn of all engage
ments-may be violated pretexs quite frivolous To
eon'end or such doctrines sap the very foundations of
al virtue and moray and neither the State her citizens
ou expect to have just claim character or credit


h her sister States The people be Identified with the


pate IN al heT acts and you who have family to raise in