ART. IV. MISSISSIPPI AFFAIRS.

1. The Constitution of the State of Mississippi.

2. Acts of the Legislature of Mississippi of 1837, chartering the Union Bank.

IN the Declaration of Independence by the immortal Jefferson, we are told, that liberty is an inalienable right. The same principle is inculcated by John Taylor, of Caroline, when he says, that a man cannot sell himself nor his child. Patrick Henry was fond of saying, that the principle business of a good government, was the preservation of the liberties of the people. If the doctrine of Daniel Webster, and of the writer of the article* on State Debts, in the January number of the Southern Quarterly Review for 1843, be correct, the sages of the Revolution were guilty of promulgating false principles. The course of many of the States for the last ten years, if sanctioned by the people, in submitting to be taxed to pay debts, made for any and every purpose other than the support of government, will virtually set aside the doctrines of Taylor, Jefferson, and Henry. In that case, it will be found, that the liberty of the people has been alienated, and that the principal business of the State governments, has been to legislate with the view of destroying the liberties of the people, instead of preserving them,thus making government a curse, instead of a blessing.

The great difference between a free man and a slave is,

* The article here alluded to, gave much dissatisfaction to the Anti-Bond party, who regarded their position and views as having been misunderstood, and misstated by the writer. Now it was far from our intention,and we have often so declared,-to do the slightest injustice to that party by the publication of the article in question,-a party which includes in its ranks many of the most distinguished and high-minded citizens of the State of Mississippi, and which, at the present time, as we are informed, constitutes a decided majority of the voters of the State. Such men cannot be supposed to have acted without reasons satisfactory to themselves, and it is nothing more than impartial justice, that they should have a fair hearing before the world. We freely, therefore, open our columns (in accordance with the policy we have always pursued in the case of disputed questions of interest,) to the insertion of the present article, coming, as it does, from a highly respectable source;-while at the same time, we wish it to be distinctly understood, that we do not assume the responsibility of maintaining the opinions of the author, which speak for themselves, and of whose soundness or fallacy the public must judge.

[EDITOR S. Q. Review.

that the former enjoys the benefit of his own labor, while the latter labors for the benefit of a master. We are prone to think that the right of suffrage is the badge of freedom. This is a fatal mistake. People may have this right in its most unlimited sense, and yet be slaves. They may not labor under the eye of a task master or overseer, but if the proceeds of their labor are taken from them by dishonest and unwise legislation, they are none the less slaves, because not watched while they are working.

In a state of nature, before the formation of governments, every man was free. He regulated his conduct, as he chose, respecting others, and the proceeds of his labor belonged to himself only, in the full sense of the term. When governments were instituted, this right was yielded so far as consenting to be taxed for the support of government,—each individual considering the protection it would give him as an equivalent for the concession thus made. It is not material to inquire, what other concessions were made. We are only concerned with the right of being taxed. This right, as before remarked, was only yielded to a certain extent, that is, for the support of government. But can the government, because it has the right of taxation, carry it so far as to reduce the people to absolute slavery? Certainly not, and the people are the only judges in this matter. Whenever they find that the government is taxing them into slavery, ostensibly for its support, they have the right of resisting the payment of such taxes, and, if necessary, to dissolve the government, and erect another that will subserve the end for which governments are, or ought to be, created, namely, the preservation of the liberties of the people. When the government attempts to tax them for any other purpose than its own support, be the amount ever so small, their right of resistance cannot be seriously doubted. No one, we presume, who values liberty, will contend, that any State in this Union has the right to tax the people to any amount for its support,--that is, for the support of its officers. Could it rightfully tax the people to such an extent, as to give individuals any salary they chose to require? Certainly not. The admission would be tantamount to declaring, that when the people voluntarily formed a government, they made an indenture of themselves to those in power, which is absurd. The people may, at any time, refuse to be taxed sufficiently even to keep up the forms of

government. They are, then, resolved, by their own act, into a state of nature.

Again, debts, made for the support of government, are not binding on the people, unless paid within a reasonable time after they are contracted. The State of South-Carolina, for instance, could not rightfully issue and sell bonds, payable twenty, thirty, or fifty years hence, in order to raise money to support her government till that time. This would be putting a double burthen on posterity, as they would have, by this process, to support their own government, and that of those who had preceded them for half a century. This, in the strong language of Jefferson, would be "swindling futurity on a large scale." The right of posterity to repudiate such bonds, or debts, is as clear and undoubted as the right of self-defence, when we are attacked by a robber or murderer. Those who would thus attempt to tax posterity, are robbers. They are endeavoring to get money without offering a consideration, and without the consent of those of whom payment is required. Life, without liberty, is a curse, and the right to preserve either, by every means in our power, is sacred and inviolate, and must ever remain so.

Thus we see, that the right of a government to tax the people, only extends to an economical support of the same, and that the right to tax posterity, even for governmental purposes, does not exist, nor can it be obtained, as a future generation cannot consent to any thing, not being in existence. Whenever these limits are disregarded by those in power, the right of repudiation, always existing in the people, is the only remedy. This is the great conservative feature in a government where the people are sovereign and supreme; without it, no republican government could exist. The constant tendency, in all governments, to use powers not given to them, would soon produce despotism, were it not for this salutary principle. Many people are in the habit of speaking lightly of an abuse of the taxing power. This evinces a total disregard of the lessons of history. It is this that has pulled down and destroyed more governments than any thing else.

What was it that led to the American Revolution, and the subsequent dismemberment of the British Empire, but the attempt to tax the American colonies for other than governmental purposes? It was this, and this only. The colonists were determined not to be taxed for any other purpose

than the support of their own provincial governments. They would not even recognize the principle of taxation. for any other purpose, by submitting to a tax of five or six cents a pound on tea. Hence resistance and freedom followed.

If we consult sacred history, we find more than one illus trious example in point. It was this that caused the children. of Israel to rebel against the Egyptians. Their tasks were too hard. Their labor was exacted and taken for the support of others. Rather than become slaves, they rebelled and sought liberty in the wilderness.

Again, the separation of the twelve tribes of Israel, after the death of Solomon, was caused by the declaration of Rehoboam,-"My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke. My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions," which simply meant, that he would tax them heavily, and oppress them for his own benefit aud aggrandizement. Ten of the tribes, after this declaration, being imbued with a love of liberty, and a determination to resist oppression and unjust taxation, even from the "Lord's anointed," rallied under the standard of Jeroboam, son of Nebat, and proclaimed and maintained their independence. This, finally, led to the total destruction of the descendants of Jacob, as an organized community. Thus we see that the tax question, now so lightly treated by many sages of the present day, was regarded as more important, than all others, by persons living three thousand years ago.

What was it that caused the deep, and never to be forgotten excitement in many of the Southern States, particularly in the noble State of South-Carolina, in 1831 and 1832? Simply the fact, that the general government was using the taxing power improperly, or for other purposes than the support of the government. The Carolinians were willing to be taxed so far as was requisite for the support of a plain and economical government, but the use of the taxing power, beyond this, they rightfully considered tyranny of the worst kind. Would the taxes have been lightened, but for the knowledge of those in power, that Carolina was right, and only urging the great conservative principle of all popular governments? Certainly not. Why is it that the South and West are so opposed to, and dissatisfied with the tariff of 1842? For no other reason, than because we are cer

tain, that by it, we are taxed for other purposes than the support of our government. It is felt, that it is an abuse of the taxing power. Hence, some of the States talk of resistance, if the oppressive law is not repealed or modified.

The right of repudiating debts of the most sacred kind, when their payment would impoverish, or greatly oppress the people, was recognized, in its fullest extent, by our revolutionary ancestors. Hence, more than two hundred millions of continental money, for the payment of which the faith of the government was pledged, again and again was repudiated. This was a debt contracted for the purpose of ushering a government into existence, consequently more binding, if possible, than one contracted for the support of government. Yet it was repudiated, because it was obvious, that the attempt to make the people pay it, would tax them into slavery, or produce a domestic revolution. Our worthy ancestors saw, that if the people were taxed to pay this enormous debt, their slavery to stockjobbers, brokers, and fundmongers, would be more complete than any arising from the exactions of the British government.

Subsequent to the Revolution, in the Congress of 1789, the republican party contended for the right of repudiating, in part, debts made for carrying on the war, after the continental money ceased to circulate. That is, they were willing that the debt should be funded at the then market price, which, we believe, was less than six shillings in the pound. They conceded, that when the certificate of debt was the property of the person to whom issued, the whole amount ought to be paid, but, that when he had parted with it, the holder should only get what he had given for it, with interest. They took the ground, that it was unjust that the many should be taxed for the benefit of the few, thus recognizing the great principle, that the people ought not to be taxed for any other, than strictly governmental purposes.

In this country, where the personal and religious rights of the people are well secured by the various State constitutions, an abuse of the taxing power is the only thing they have to fear. It is the only instrumentality by which they can be oppressed by government. Are the taxes just?is the question of questions with the many,-the pivot on which all our elections, State and National, turn. This it is, that divides the country into two parties, one contending for a high tariff, and a national bank,-the other opposing