Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1872-02-01
Thursday Morning, February, 1872

The New FuNriNa BILLs.-We ex-
pressed the hope in cur last issue that
the committee of thirty-two would be
able to devise some method by which the
credit Of Virginia might be maintained
creditors have exact justice meeted to
them, and the people be saved from oner-
Gus taxation. We publish in our col
umns the result of their labors- the maj or
ity and minority report of the committee.
each of which we presumed will have
earnest and honest advocates.
The majority report repeats the funding
bill, and undertakes to fund anew, prin-
cipal and interest. 1t declares that ac-
cording to the true construction of the
funding bill, Virginia is not responsible
for any part oftEe one-third of the or
iginal debt assigned by that act to West
Virginia. It prohibits all persons now
or hereafter authorized to collect or re-
ceive taxes or dues of the State of Vir-
ginia from receiving payment thereof any
coupons issued under the provision of the
act OF March, 1871, CThe Funding Bill.)
It provides for the payment of the in
terest at the rate of three per cent per
annum for twelve years, six per cent per
aunum for ten years, and nine per cent
per annum.. for twelve wears, and provides
that in the year 1880, and annually
thereafter, there shall be levied tax of
two cents on the hundred dollars-to 60
to the credit of the sinking fund. These
are briefly the leading features of the bill
as reported by the committee.
Under this act the bondholders are
promised three per cent on two-thirds
of their claims until 1888. six per cent
on the same amount until 1898, and nine
per cent until 1905. What assurance
have the bcndholders that these promises
will be fulfilled? In each succeeding
Legislature may there not be committee
offhiry-t,oo If ontract made in
1871 is yiolsblc, will a contract made in
1883 or 1898 be inviolable I?
What is to prevent postcrity from re
pudiating the nine per cent. ami asking
by what authority the Legislature of
1872 undertook to impose upon them
the payment Of nine per cent On a debt
on which they were unwilling to pay
more than three per cent =? The anti
funding bill men assert that one Legs
latu,e cannot bind another-that con
tract so lemnly ratified by the last Legls-
l,ture is not obligatory, and Upon this
principal they rcpudiate the contracts OF
the Legislature of 1901. but essay to
bind Legislature not in esse-saddle
nine per cen: on Legislature thirty odd
years off?
The minority report does not repudiate
one-third of the debt, but provides for
interest IN two-thirds of the debt. fund
ed or not funded, at rate of four per cen t
per annum for the present year and until
otherwise provided by law. For the amount
of interest unpaid 1.-TWO per cent? there shall
be issued semi annually as said interest be
comes due non interest, bearing certificates
of,hat date, payable to the bearer and un-
redeemable, al the pleasure of the Stale
Instead Of repeating the clause of the funding
bill making coupons receivable for taxes, it
suspends it indefinitely. We must confess
that we can see no difference between q re-
peal and q suspension until otherwise ordered
by the General Assembly. A specific repeal
is law only until subsequent legislation
modfes it, go a suspension is law until
''otherwise provided
This provision in the funding bill cannot
be repealed. 1t has been SO decided repeated
sy by the courts. There was similar case
frcm Tennessee decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States nolongar than
1868. Then why in the face of legal des
sisions does the Legislature persist in their
work of destroying the credit Of the State,
when nothing can be accomplished +?
- -
Tho oroumont in the trial at Annano-