The Daily state journal. [volume] (Alexandria, Va.) 1868-1874, 1872-02-10


and that, having made it, the law is now ir-
repealable, on the ground that no State can
make any law impairing the obligation of
contracts. This is its position, as we I'M
derstand it.
Now, what is contract" within the
meaning of the constitutional limitation
upon the States? A contract between two
or more individuals, may be easily defined.
1t is an agreement, in which considera-
ton moves, either to do, or to abstain from
doing, some particular thing or act. 1t is
also an agreement to which state may be-
come party, in which case it is more for
NAL obligation, partaking of the nature as
well as tho form of compact. In fact, all
agreements or covenants in any form, made
by state, are eompdcts-solemn stipula-
tons entered into between the state and
some individual or individuals, or, more
frequently, some corporate body or nation,
pledging itself either to do, or to refrain
from doing, some particular thing or act,
fully specified in the law constituting the
|
contract; as, for instance, where it grants
charter to some charitable or other
institution in which it agrees TO ex-
empt it from taxation during its
corporate existence. When organized
under the charter, and agreeably to its
provisions, the institution becomes party
to the contract-accepts its terms and con-
ditions-and the rights accruing hereunder
are treated as vested" rights, such as can
not, in good faith, be impaired thereafter.
They become the franchises" of the in
stltution-the particular privileges con-
terred, or immunities or exemptions
granted. These are invariably the char
acteristics of all contracts to which State
is party, and the principal cases cited by
the Enquirer are those in which the States
referred to and the institutions chartered
by them, were the parties litigant before
the courts.
But is the funding bill, passed by the
last General Assembly, a contract in any
such sense of the word as we have named /?
Is it, in fact, anything more than a law
providing for the payment of an outstand-
i ~ debt? or for the payment of debt
deemed to be outstanding, or due from the
State to the parties holding the proper evil
dence of it? 1t simply authorizes the TAX
ng up of one evidence of debt and the SUBJ
stltution of another for it, coupled with
condition as to interest, which may OF may
no. be unconstitutional, as the courts Shall
decide. The bill lacked one important
feature to make it contract. There were
no two or more persons, or corporate
bodies even, from whom sufficient con-
slderaton except it might be in the way OF
| individual bribe) moved to make it obliga-
| tory on the State to issue the particular
evidences of debt named, and no others.
Sow us anything in the act named, which
binds single holder of the old bonds to
accept the new or that makes it obliea-
try on his part to do single thing more
than exchange one obligation for another.
IL is simply optional with him to do what
he does, as it is with the State to do what
it does. There is no contract binding eth
er. The law simply rrovfaea for the sur
render of the old and the acceptance of the
new bond, the holder taking two-thirds of
| the old bond and interest in the new evil
| dence of Indebtedness he receives from the
State, and certificate for the other third,
to be paid whenever certain settlement
shall be effected with West Virgins. SO
| called. The contract, by which this in
debtedness accrued, if any, was made long
before-made, in part, when thu stock of
the old James river company, and the
bonds of the James river and Kanawba
company, were guaranteed by the State.
of the constitutionality of that guarantee
we DO not care to speak. Suffice ID to ys,,
that If there was ever any contract =; ~
ference to it, as between the State a ~
holders of the bonds. !. 'U ~
perfected Their, ana MOI since Nv.
tending che tipae e p,vment a,
suos .itating new f. ,rm Of naner obli-
sa'ioh' fof ihdeot'faness arising on an old
contract Goes not change it from an
olo y a new one, or make it any more
:, binding than it was in the first instance.
The Fundip 6 law of 1871 stands, therefore,
on the sarne footing with all other laws
enacted by the State, 50 far as the right O.
alteration, amendment, or repeal are con-
cerned. No new rights have accrued under
it, nor have any old rights been surren.
dered. A mere change of paper obligations
is all that has been effected, except that the
State has ioolishly added interest to prin.
cipal, and thereby swelled the volume O
what it has to pay.
| The most scheeky" suggestion YET
thrown out by the State Funding bill
"ring," is that contained in the New York
Stockholdcr, that certain spectators here
and in New York, are making it their bust.
Tess to break the credit of Virginia, and
ither Southern States, in order to buy
lp their bonds at deprecated prices, and
| A, tsb;f, tbnr,,t e ,.,;,sx 4,