The Daily state journal. [volume] (Alexandria, Va.) 1868-1874, 1873-02-03
The Coupon Question.
W
Inn Georne 4. DeueaIe md othfTR:

on the subject-matters growing out OF the
acts of Both March, 1871, and 9TH March,
1S72-the recent decision of the court of
appeals on the questions arising therefrom,
and the binding effect Of that decision on
the legislature, as also the duties, powers
and responsibilities which necessarily de-
yolve on tho legislature under existing cir
cumstances; and while ! am unwilling,
even seemingly, to obtrude my views on
the legislature or the public, | am not UNI
willing to furnish you the following views
on these subjects, to be used when and as
may be most agreeable to yourselves.
While my convictions. as expressed, are
very decided, it is with becoming difidence
that l place them at your disposal. | shall
consider the following propositions:
/. The court of appeals having decided
that the Of act of 30th March, 1871, was con-
stitutional that it was a contract with the
b~ondholders, to run through thlrty-four
wears, and as such, was binding on the
people and taxpayers, what are the re-
sulting powers, duties ana responsibilities
which, under tile peculiar circumstances of
the case. now deyolve on the present leg.
stature?
3. The court of appeals having decided that
the tax payer and debtor to the state, has
a vested rig~ht--derived from this legisla-
tive contract with the bond-holder-to pay
his dues in the coupons each year for the
ensuing thirty odd years, is there any
legislative remedy in the premises, by the
application and enforcement of which the
present legislature can constitutionallY,
and without o violation of public faith,
modify. rescind, or qualify this contract so
as to regain the legislative rights and REIN
state the legislative powers, independent OF
the legal consequences legitlmately flowing
from this ruling of the court?
8. Are the rights thus vested so sacred,
and do they belong to that class Of vested
rights which cannot be altered, modified
or even Invested, without a violation of
the federal or state constitutions
4. Can one legislature in the ordinary
course of legislation, enact laws under the
alleged denomination of contracts, which
under any circumstances or for any pur-
poses shall paralyze all future legislatures,
stalemate all future expression of popular
will and prevent all future state action,
though that action be the result of q new
constitution by convention. called for the
express purpose of altering, abolishing, or
modifying the very act Contract com
planned of?
s. Can a personal right, individually
vested in each bondholder or taxpayer,
divest, in this case, the inherent right of
the people to assert, maintain and enforce
their inalienable and indefeasible rights to
control their taxing power, and the appli-
cation and distribution of the taxes as
they may will it should be done ?
6. Cannot a personal right derived from
and vested by judicial rendition, perfect
ed BY execution, and executed, be Invested
by the legislative power when the indi-
vidual right thus fully vested is in conflict
with or in derogation of the plenary pow
ers Of the legislative body, and destructive
of the safety of the people?
The foregoing propositions, l believe,
cover all the ground, and their considera-
ton involves all the principles to which
| have, in our interviews, respectfully
called your attention. Graver questions
and more vital and important principles
could not we'll be stated even in a sup
posed case and yet they present and
press themselves with increasing magni-
tude each day of your deliberations.
They are as practical in their legislative
application, as they are delicate in their
judicial bearings, and vital in their constr
t~utional importance. They rise far above
all mere party considerations, and involve in
their results net only the honor Of Virginia,
but the vital powers of all constitut ional
republican government. | regret my ina
bility to consider them with the clearness
and ability which they demand and |
must rely rather on the learning and ex-
p~erience of the legislature to correct my
errors and improve on my imperfect sug-
gestions.
As to the first proposition. 1t should
seem clear to every member of the legisla-
ture that it is the duty OF that enlightened
body not only to respect, but, as far as is
consistent with their representative voca-
tiens, to stand by and enforce the judg-
ments of the court of appeals ; and when,
as in the case under consideration, any
conflict arises between the legislative and
judicial departments, the utmost respect
should characterize the management of the
mode and manner by which the difficulties
may be removed. The judiciary construes
the laWs as they are made. If, in their con-
struction, they seem not to have COM
pretended the purposes, designs and ex-
pressions Of the legislature, it is always
at the option, and often the duty of the
legislature, to declare what their exact
meaning was, as expressed in the act thus
construed. When this authoritative de.
claration is properly put forth, it is always
regarded by the judiciary as binding where
no rights have vested under the origlna,
act. In this very case Judge Staples. il
his lucid and able opinion, arrives at legal
conclusions in constituting the terms, pur
poses and language of the act precisely
opposite to and in conflict with the con
illusions at which the majority of the cour
arrived. He is Of the opinion that Virgini'
is not released, and the b~ond-holders dit
not intend to release her and look solely tt
West Virginia for the payment Of the one
third of the debt. The majority of tn
court expressed the opinion that Virgins
is released. This precise point is the mos
important feature in the whole case for
forms the consideration which it woul
seem influenced the alleged contract
Why should this vital point have bee
left - where it still is - IN doubt
when it was in the power of the lcgisla
ture to have declared their meaning, t
which declaration the bondholders nigh
or might not assent? Why convoke them o
the 18th of February for consultation
when there were grave Judicial doubts .
to what the Legislature meant, or as [
what the bondhol lers intended to clair
hereafter, should West Virginia refuse
recognize their demand? This shoul
have been distinctly settled, at least, pi'