[Footnote 5:  The reader will find this question already answered in the pages of holy writ:  ’For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.’—­Matt, xvi, 27.—­ED. CON.]

JEFFERSON DAVIS—­REPUDIATION, RECOGNITION, AND SLAVERY.

LETTER NO.  II, FROM HON.  ROBERT J WALKER.

LONDON, 10 HALF MOON STREET, PICCADILY}
        July 30th, 1863. }

In my publication of the 1st inst., it was proved by the two letters of Mr. Jefferson Dans of the 25th May, 1849, and 29th August, 1849, that he had earnestly advocated the repudiation of the bonds of the State of Mississippi issued to the Union Bank.  It was then shown that the High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi, the tribunal designated by the Constitution of the State, had unanimously decided that these bonds were constitutional and valid, and that more than seven years thereafter, Mr. Jefferson Davis had nevertheless sustained the repudiation of those bonds.

In his letter before quoted, of the 23d March last, Mr. Slidell, the minister of Jefferson Davis at Paris, says, ’There is a wide difference between these (Union) bonds and those of the Planters’ Bank, for the repudiation of which neither excuse nor palliation can be offered.’  And yet I shall now proceed to prove, that Mr. Jefferson Davis did not only palliate and excuse, but justified the repudiation, in fact, of those bonds by the State of Mississippi.  First, then, has Mississippi repudiated those bonds?  The principal and interest now due on those bonds exceed $5,000,000 (L1,000,000), and yet, for a quarter of a century, the State has not paid one dollar of principal or interest. 2.  The State, by act of the Legislature (ch. 17), referred the question of taxation for the payment of those bonds to the vote of the people, and their decision was adverse.  As there was no fund available for the payment, except one to be derived from taxation, this popular vote (to which the question was submitted by the Legislature) was a decision of the State for repudiation, and against payment. 3.  The State, at one time (many years after the sale of the bonds), had made them receivable in purchase of certain State lands, but, as this was ’at three times its current value,’ as shown by the London Times, in its article heretofore quoted by me, this was only another form of repudiation. 4.  When a few of the bondholders commenced taking small portions of these lands in payment, because they could get nothing else, the State repealed the law (ch. 22), and provided no substitute. 5.  The State, by law, deprived the bondholders of the stock of the Planters’ Bank ($2,000,000), and of the sinking fund pledged to the purchasers for the redemption of these bonds when they were sold by the State.  Surely there is here ample evidence of repudiation and bad faith.