The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1873-01-23
JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE HITCH.

There could be no more forcible indication
Of the growing disregard for the fundamental
ideas of our government, than is presented
IN the conflict between the Legislature and
Supreme Court of Virginia, growing out of
the Funding Bill. Our reverence for the
Court has always been of such character as
disrespect for it, or question the justice ofits
decisions. But were we to attempt to eabo-
rate our views in regard to the various ques-
tons issuing from the legislation Of Virginia
affecting the public debt, we would assume
as a cardinal truth that the Funding Bill it.
scif was unconstitutional for the very same
reason that the Court has determined the &C.
ton of the Legislature as to the non-receiva-
bility of coupons for taxes, &c. to be uncon-
sttutionai--that is. violation of the obligation
OF contracts. The original contract Of Che
State with the holders of its bonds was bind
ing and it cannot logically be assumed that
because the parties themselves agreed to sur
render one-third of the debt and hold it co.,
tingent upon settlement with West Virgin
ia, it ,cas constitutional The principle Of
the sanctity Of the contract and the obligation
growing out of it, to pay was violated, and
the mere fact Of the acquiesceucf OF the cred
itors in the compromise proposed does not
change that principle. Whenever broad
constitutional principle can be made to yield
to business expediency, we may well consider
whether or not the very vitality Of our sys-
tenn Of government is not being shocked at
least, if no. sapped. If. ther sfore, the Leg
islaturs enacted law prohibiting the rccev-
ing Of coupons for taxes. issued in conformity
of the principle of the binding validity Of
contracts, then it became the court to 90 back
to the fountain source. and see whether the
principle they maintain in their recent de-
cision, was not violated in the original leg
| lsatlon. 1t does not answer the grave ques-
| ton to say that this was new contract made
by Competent parties as a substitute for the
old contract. l. will not do to make a fun
damcntal principle entering into the political
economy of the whole country, the pliab'c
and elastic creature Of circumstances or the
chameleon victim Of expediency. It stands
there rooted and grounded in the very frame
work Ct our political institutions, and unless
its stability is maintained, its vitality is gone
Its presentation for judicial scrutiny was an
entirely different thing from an arrangement
Of expediency between the creditor end the
State. This latter could have been effected
by the consent of parties, like any other bu
siness transaction. But when the subject is
referred to the Court for judicial ruling and
Interpretation, this question OF consent ami
expediency had nothing to do with it. 1.-THE
obligation of the State to pay her bonds was
clear, and the validity Of that obligation en-
forced by unmistakable constitutional drec-
ton, then it was beyond the power Of the
Court 10 assume that any agreement entered
into contravening the principle involved, was
binding. AS it new stands the whole matter
is presented in the light of expediency--the
creditors agreeing to receive, as a compro-
mise, what the State thought she could pay,
without reference to the principle of obliga-
ton reposed in the original contract. The
principle was not contended forby the credi-
9or.. but when the subject came up to judicial
knowledge we cannot see how its recognition
ana application could have been avoided.
This jarrng between tho Court and the
Legislature presents a rather anomalous case.
the Legislature enacts a Law refusing to carry
ont the provisions of an act passed by pre-
vioas assembly, which violated the obligation
Of contracts. The Court maintains that an
invio!ablc contract issued from this violation
Of contract, and by reason Of vested rights
matured by parties interested who waived the
constitutional principle, the legislation refu
sing to carry iuto effect the law born ola vio
! ,ted cootract, is unconstitutional We cor
TESS it is muddle to us, and we leave it with
those whose business it is to dispose OF it.
But from statement we see inserted in
several Of our exchanges the United States
government, as trustee, will shortly take steps
to entoroe claim against the State Of Vir
GINA, aud in that event the leg islation of this
State upon the debt question may undergo
! review. It seems that during the Guberna-
torial term Of john B. Floyd, and the admin
istration Of President Fillmore, there was an
Indian annuity fund invested in Alabama 5
per cent bonds. At that time Virginia was en-
gagged in sone Internal improvement schemes.
| and desired to borrow money. She applied
for the investment of this Indian fluid in Viz
GINA per cent. bonds which were then Sci
ling at 2 per cent above par Hon A. Il Il
Stuart was then Secretary of the Interior
and was consulted by the Commissioner of Tu-
clan Affairs, as to the policy Of such invest
inent and advised that it be made, provided
the bonds we're rated at par The invest
ment was made Cd these conditions. Should
the government determine to enforce this