The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-01-12

yspfT>Ay IL, AotS'
u ..-----.-- .--------- =--==------
Anew Comments Upon the Governors
tsEf Message. .s
Elilo,.s of he Richmond Nspatca
T,r, i,tt,c curious to know what 1t is that
,nasas = contract undcr the funding act more
1.;,a,,,n. an the state than contract with the
or;~inaI bondholder, and why the one mus
he fnJf,llcdo any more than the otherf An
nv humble opinion, all contracts 'ecialiy
St,,e co,,,racts-upon legal and valuable con.
sderation, should be complied with ana II
seems pIaiu to my mind II the Legislature cal,
n,1I}ify the whole or any part OF the cohtIact
with the original bondhoder they may )usl
as Well now or at any future time null,iv any
contract under the funding act.
- ss for. the idea that the funding ACT was :,
necessary means of finding out the indeptea,
ness of the State, It seems to me u "ouiu
have been more quickly and surely asccl-
faincd bv the passage of an act 10 P'! 30
murb interest at certain time, ana from UNIV {
"a Ftime thereafter for, rs may ne lhlasi.iI'u
from, the anxiety of bondholders 10 get tlicil
interest. thcy would not be so'o III h,'Alns
known the amount Of bonds thcy hoia. III
chat way the desired information "ouiu nave
beer, Ind, and the expense oil auhaihs, %S',
which could have tccn much more prohtaDly
,,scl in the Iay,nent of interest, wou'd nave
been saved. And even now they are DISCUS
sing the matter at a cost of about 81 WV pei
day, which 1t would be much better tnat tney
should apply to the payment OF the ln.cies,
now dine which, / candidly believe, would
meet with the hearty approval of every just
minded MN in the Commonwealth.
AhkLIA.
TO prevent the above from being misap-
pretended, we add the following, which Is
Is,rs of the private note that accompanied IL
,FI AMELIA COUNTY, January 8, 1877.
conference.-the views expressed IN Inc
enclosed communication are suggested upon
reading the Governors message, when 1
think most excellent, and in which agree
with him out and out, except that 40 hot
see the distinction which he seems to draw
between the original bondholder and one VINO
now holds under the funding bill. My OBJ
icr. therefore, is not to find fault with Ills
message. but simply, in plain way, II can,
to show to the Legislature how much they
have already wasted, and how they are con-
,inuinc TO do 30 In discussing the matter,
when at last they must come to the coneltl-
sion TO nav the State debt, the amount OF
which is continually being increased by their
unnecessary and protracted discussions OF tne
subject, beside the fact that they are inurlng
oar State credit very much.
We avail ourselves of the occasion Afforded
II; by "Amelia" to respond to an inquiry
which has been made by many persons be-
sides himself. And rs the Irish historian,
under the caption of "Snakcs in Ireland"
merely said "Therc are no snakes in Ireland"
50 we, in reply to the question of our CORE
spondent, say for ourselves and for Governor
WALKER, and for every advocate Of the policy
OF respecting the funding act, that the con-
tracts which have been made with the credl-
tors of the State under the operation OF that
act are not one whit more binding in morals
than those which previously subsistcd be-
tween the State and her creditors. There
fore, that part of the funding act which pro-
vides that no interest shall be paid upon the
CID bonds is of doubtful morality, and has
already been disrceardcd by the present
General Assembly. The Legislature had
no right to require the old bonds to be
surrendered until the State was prepared
to redeem them in lawful money, when it
could have required either refunding
or surrender of them. This first
section of the act, however, does not enter
into the executed contracts which under that
act have been made between Virginia and
the bondholders. The Court Of Appeals-if
4 test case could be brought before that tri-
bunal--would probably decide that the State
is bound to pay interest upon the old bonds
in spite of that section, and upon the new
bonds without reference to it. But the trou-
bic is that case involving the obligation to
pay interest upon the old bonds cannot be
made up for decision by that honored tri-
bunal; whilStS on the contrary, case in.
-volying the obligation Of the State to receive:
the coupons issued under the funding act in
luyncnt of taxes can be made up for its de-
olson. The State cannot be sued and made
to pay interest upon the old bonds; but
when a man has made q contract with the
State which specifies in writing TINT she will
receive the coupons of the new bonds in
payment of taxes, and sheriff or other sol,
Iector, OF, taxes refuses so to receive $henS
the holder can at once sue out a'ysfit of man
damus and compel the officer to rhSpect :
contract, Amelia" will thus pGgcqya
if we are right, that whilst the creditote
! under the funding act have remedy, those
who hold the old bonds have none; and con-
...,ssauently that although the old bonds are US
binding in morals as the new, yet the new
: ones are armed with remedy at law which
!, the old ones have not. In other words, if
1.-The .eourts should decide as we think they
,sssel,ld,, the interest upon the new bonds
ssa must be paid" whilst that upon the old
Zones may remain unpaid.
This explanation answers "Amelia's vi
questions, and should silence those persons
who profess to think that the friends of the
funding act claim that the last General AS
sembly had the right to repudiate contract
whilst this one has no such right. We claim
no power for that body which we do not ac-
cord to this. The former could not and the
latter cannot pass valid law declaring thata
contract Is not contract.
The Kuklux Trials in South Carolina.
The New York Tribune says of these
trials: 81
"Nobody can say that these trials have not
been fairly conducted. The prisoners were