The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-04-05
Trr CASE Being ALTERED AnTERs. THE
c,sE."-The Wing oe Yesterday says 81 our

nt,,t,ry conoucror Is the sole charfcrot rg .S If
We 5od e eess terms
might dictate il binding ~ Whole or g 10 AZ
se word binding desSSTI ssa arc rSr not ct sppr
,faie trrms ID Is binding in whole or not at v ea.
Il gave ms Governor, Lcgsian.Jfc v"mr the whole
nfS,sS OF s ,e ian II e ne. s,s ad
nil Cf these unctionarescx ccn.,as ~. roh,crs
Iy;n thc Irbio have the kindness to tell lis
how, r. hanrens that that section of the Con.
st,tution which provides for twelve per cent.
interest Is not also "binding?" Also, that
section which requires the General Assembly
10 nproyide by law sinking fund" to be
anplicd solely to the payment and eXtlnguish-
nieut Of the public debt?-D,spatch
The Constitution makes provision for its
own amendment, but until altered OF amend
ed in the mode indicated, every clause Is
equally binding.
We do not know that we could drive big
idea into our neighbours Uranium, without en-
dangering its continuity. 1t is evident he has
not conprehended the paragraph he quotes.
The whole reconstruction scheme-including
the Constitution imposed on the State-was
originated and carried Oh, ayowedly, outside
of the, Federal Constitution. 1t was done in
the exercise Of the war-powcr-of that SUI
preme, unlimited aud rcsistleSs law Of brute
force. None of it could stand the test of law
as interpreted by the judges of the Supreme
Court of the United States, and for that re:t-
son, perhaps, it has been carefully kept away
from that tribunal But all its parts must be
equally valid, or equally invalid, in the eyes
of the Supreme Federal Court. Certainly q
State court, which owes it's own existence to
this unconstitutionallv imposed Constitution,
has no right to deny the validity Of any of its
provisions without at the same time nullify-
Ing itself.-Whig.
The Wing is as able rs it IS courteous. We
now understand perfectly its logic. 1t de-
clares that all parts of the State Constitution
"must be equally valid, or equally invalid,
in the eyes Of the Supreme Federal Court
Which is as much as TO say that Congress
can authorize State to violate the Federal
Constitution, although it cannot violate that
instrument itself, and that the Supreme
Court will for some unexplained reason re-
spect q provision thus foisted into State
constitution, although it would not hesitate
to pronounce an act Of the Congress- itself
unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
The judges Of the Virginia Court Of APP
peals took an oath to support the Constitu-
ton of the United States when they went
into office. They also took oil oath to sup
port tho Constitution of Virginia. Ii the
Iphiq is not mistaken, they have sworn
falsely for if the State Constitution Is In all
its parts in conflict with the Federal Consti-
tuition, it is impossible for them TO support
both. The judges of that court would
sooner "adjudicate themselves out of Office
If that were the aternatlve-than violate
their oath, which. as they understand it, and
as we understand it, and as everybody else
understands it who has none of the Wings
"big IDEAS" requires them TO declare null
and void any and every part of the State
Constitution which is inconsistent with
the Federal Constitution. But if the State
Constitution is not in all its parts in conflict
with the Federal Constitution, then the Wing
is Mt fault on the other hand, and only those
features Of the former which do conflict with
the latter need he pronounced null and void.
The retrospective feature of the homestead
article is one of these. And he is poor
logician who argues that because one article
of Constitution is null and void for any
reason therefore all Of its articles are null
void.
Again: the Wing argues that if the va
lilitv of the retrospective feature of the
homestead article Of the State Constitution
he denied by the court, that tribunal will
A. ;tca1T3 tho ri IoniInc hot
there is no retrospective reputation, then
there is no court. NAT LEES logic cannot
beat the Wings:
cause of the storm that fell at Rome,
by essenns the fall might make 1t worse
We should say, OH the contrary, that II the
court were to decide the retrospective fca-
tlre of the homestead article to be co,lst,tu-
tionaL because all the rest Of the State Con-
stitution is unconstitutional, that tribunal
would leave the retrospective feature in the
predicament in which old JoHS WEATHER.
WAX says he left his bad boy, who, when he
ran up into tree and old JOHN cut the tree
down. sawed off the limb that he was sitting
on and let the tree fall without taking him
down into the clutches of old JoHs. We
are decidedly Of the opinion that if the court
shall find the feature aforesaid to be consti-
tutional, it will be for some other and better
reason than that with which the Wing has
50 kindly offered to furnish it.
"The Constitution makes provision for its
Gown amendment; but until altered or
amended in the mode indicated, every
clause is equally binding" So says the
Wing. 1t has here high respect for the Con-
stitution. What the Constitution "makes
provision for" it is willing to have done.
Very we'll; the Constitution makes provision
for the Court; of Appeals itself, and thus in
effect "makes provision for" its pronounc-
ing the homestead feature null and void if it
shall find that feature to be in conflict with
the Federal Constitution.
In word, the Wing has been caught nap
ping. IT has preached reputation, or rather
what ICE regard as reputation, until it has
actually repudiated the Constitution under
which we are living and the courts which
protect it in its rights. 1t can no further 20
in this direction. Let lis hope that it win
retracc its steps.
a.,.s --- -------------
TO CORRESPONDENTS Eeritas is hereby
informed that we shall he perfectly satisfied
if he will send us letters when he has some
ting to write; and that he should write
mon c,,.'y one side Of the paper.