Bristol news. [volume] (Bristol, Va. & Tenn.) 1867-189?, 1875-10-19

TIE FUNDING BILL.

( The opinion ofthe Court uf Appeals
on lac Handing Il II. furnishes another
melancholy evidence nf the Hnc-i-
rauJy ct the I4@, aud irovOkcS The
F y. cc-r.tE 80. q more thorough AuUHE
edge oI jnaL GTC.;t ~c;chcr.
The urt ~ Question vas passed by
+ the Legislature oa lhu %3in a.! March,
1871, aId is kuu"H as the Funding
/ B,I. i provides loT The funding and
payurn; of Tie public GrbLuud enters
/ into Il Legislative contract on the part
/ Of The STATE with lis creditors for ihu
payment OF their bonds at maturity,
aud The PAYMENT Of the interest on
! The saue spmi-annuaiiy, at the rate o.
SIX per crnt. = year. This act also
I provides that tie coupons which ii
directs 20 be attached to the new
bonds, authorized by the act 10 be is
sued TO Ih. creditors, shall be paid
seGi-aGnually, and be receivable at
and after maturity, for all taxes, debts,
dues and demands due the State /;
which shall be expressed on their
face y
On the nh of March, 1872, the next
Legislature passed a law repeating all
that part OF the act Of the 3Gth of
March, 1871, which authorized the
paying OF all debts due the State in
COUPONS, and directs that thereafter it
shall lot be lawful Tor the officers
charged with the collection Of taxes or
other demands of the State, due now
or that snail hereafter become due, to
receive in payment thereof anything
else than gold or silver coin, United
States treasury notes or notes of The
national banks Of the United States
In the collection Of the taxes due the
State, the c0nsTiJutionaiity of these
two acts Of the Legislature were drawn
i'm question, and the cases were taken
to the Court OF Appeals for adjudlca-
ton. After hearing the arguments OF
counsel on both sides, the Court Geci-
ded that the act of March. 1871, was
constitutional, and constituted all IRE
pcalable contract between the State
and its creditors, and that the act OF
the 9TH OF March, 1872, so far Us il pro-
hibitcd the receiving Of coupons for
taxes. and other debts due the State,
was unconstitutional and void.
This opinion of the Court Is given
upon the assumption that the Fund
ing Bill, SO far a. il constitutes a con
tract, is an irrepealable act, and ar
rivcs at that conclusion IN Difference
to that provision in the constitution
OF the United States and the State of
Nir-iuia, which forbids State To pass
any law 'impairing the obligation OF
Law is a legal and moral
science. and like our holy religion, is
made for the benefit, protection and
of society, and when II fails
to accomplish these desirable and
benign objects, reason, justice and !
mercy dictate that IL should lee repeal |
ed. Therefore, when a law passed 10y |
a Legislature becomes oppressive, ana |
threatens the permanent welfare oI |
the State. il loses lis legal and moral |
characteristics as well as binding force, |
and it is the legal and imperitive duty |
Of the Legislature to alter or abolish /
it. To deny this right would be TO /
lnwisplv ignore one of the mCSt eSSeH- |
t:al rights OF sovereignty, the natural /
aud sacred right OF sell-prcServatlnn, /
rs well as the benign preroCatlVe oi
mercy. And ! hold that 10 change or |
abolish our government or laws when
hey become unnecessarily oppressive
10 the people. or may ty their eNecu-
non work the destruction Of the gov
eminent for which they were made
and designed 10 maintain. foster ana
protect. is not only a sovereign r:ght
bus a legal and solemn duty. Hence
il naturally follows that the Legisia-
.ure o. 1871 had no constitutional right
10 pass tie coupon clause OF the Fund
.ug Bill, as in carrying IL out II IS ike
~ i'm the future 20 stop the machinery
II The government itself. and thus pro-
inc a state of chaos ard bring the
most terrible miseTies upon the people.
it was the bonnden ana
dIty Of the Legislature OF /
Is72, in order TO prevent such a disas-