The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-12-06

that ut the close OF the war the two Viz
ginias were Jointly and |severalIy bound Tor
the whole OF the original debt, nevertheless,
by the express terms OF the fundlng-Dlll
contract, as acceded to by the creditors,
Virginia can never become liable for any
part OF "West Vlrginia's third " except by
Virtue of settlement hereafter to be con-
Guided between the two States. Clearly and
llnuuestionably such n settlement is impos-
sbie to he had without the cooperation and
assent of Virginia. Ii we ever become liz
BILE for apy part OF the debt thus RENTED to
West Virginia, then it will be no otherwise
than BY her own voluntary net that Virginia
will incur that liability. Until the coming
of the n1ilIennial era it can scarcely be sup
posed that one State will volunteer to as
sumo the bulthcns OF another State. Out
OF one full third OF this State, torn from its
body, was created West Virginia. OF the
debt previously contracted by the undi-
yided State one third at the date OF its dis
mcmberment fairly devolved on West Viz
einia. Equitaby and Justly one third OF
the debt was set apSrt and assigned to West
Virginia. and the creditors ratified the as
signment. No principle OF right or duty,
no obligation of honor, requires Virginia
to pay "Wcst Eirginia's third,' or any
part OF it; and therefore such payment
will never be undertaken by Virginia, nor
expected by any OF the parties concerned.
THE PROPOSED EFFORTS TO SrILlFY THE
FUNDING BILL.
In several messages have endeayored to
enforce the opinion that, however unwise
and unfortunate the passage OF the funding
bill, yet the contract embodied in it and ex-
pcuted in pursuance OF it is inviolahle and
irrepealabe; that it is the bounden duty OF
all to stand to the decision OF the highest
State court affirming its validity, and that
any further agitation for the purpose OF in
validating it is Il wrong to the good name OF
Virginia and an injury TO every Interest OF
the people. -. ...
Holding these views, it is appropriate and
lust, and it is due to the truth OF history,
that should vindicate the motives OF those
who act upon opposing opinions. There is
not, and there never has been, any organ
lied party OF Reputation in Virginia. EX
ceptirg an almost inapprcciably small class
OF thinkers presently to be mentioned the
great body Of those who resist the eyecu-
ton OF the funding bill hare'no idea OF re-
sisting the payment OF the debt. That bill
has been the fruitful source OF diScord, and
but for its existence no sentiment uniriendly
to the creditors and no popular agitation on
the subject OF the debt could have arisen
Those who seek to invalidate the bill be-
lievc that it is in the nature OF an act OF
State suicide; that 1t impairs the dignity
and the sovereignty OF the Commonwealth
by taking from it tile control OF its
revenues and stripping it OF its just powers
OF Self-preserya alton: that its device OF tax
receivable coupons, alternating in advance
4 ~, r;,fr tC tpr ~
thirtY-iour years 4 large proportion OF the
taxes. deprivcs the government OF essen
tial governmental functions and powers:
that its enactment was not merely 4 surprise
but an imposition upon the people; that
eYag2 Grated estimates OF our taxable values.
afterwards seconded by undue Influences,
procured and precipitated its passage; and
that for these and minor reasons the bill
ought to be iudiciaIly or otherwise annuilcd
and avoided. The OppoSerS OF the bill are
CALLED and irritatcd by the withes and mana
cleS with which it letters the traditional lib
erty OF local /,eli-govcrnmcnt. Its effect Is
to wound the sentiment OF State pride and
to cn9ender resentmentS and animoSiticS
which. though often supposed to be directed
against the holders Of the debt, are really
aimed at the funding bill itself. Many
who were first TO revolt against the
compu!Sion OF the bill would be first
in honorable and voluntary efforts 10 pay
off the debt il the compulsion were re-
moved. But let it be understood, on the
part OF those who seek to overthrow the
funding bill, that if they fall short in any
reasonable effort to meet the just demands
OF creditors; ii they fail TO provide all the
means properly available for that purpose:
ii they refuse to remedy the acknowledged
defects OF the present revenue system, then
their inaction will be taken for reputation.
and all the worse because it will be mega
tive, indirect, and insidiouS.
1t is time that the funding bill were dis
embarrassed OF the ialacious objections
with which its validity is assailed, and it is
time that all controversy over the debt, so
baneiul to the peace and the progress OF the
State, should now be finally settled and put
behind us. Why is the contract or the
funding bill irrepealable?
In constituting the provision OF the Con-
Stitution Of the United States which Tor
bids Il State to pass any law imnairlng the
obligation OF contracts, III 4 multitude OF
cases and by the highest courts. State and
Federal. it has been held and decided that
the prohibition applies as we'll to the coli
tracts OF State rs to the contracts OF cor
porate or natural persons; that state may
by contract exempt property from taxation
forever: that State may by contract make
the certificates or evidences OF its own debt
receivable III payment OF its taxes; tn't
such contracts made by one legislature
bind all succeeding legislatures; ana tliat
such contracts are not only us inv!otl-
bic as those between citizens compe-
tent to contract. but they are incapable OF
being abrogated, either in whole or in part,
bv the utmost power Of the State. 1t Is
true, that while the iuristS who antagoniZc
the funding bill admit that the decisions OF
the courts are as have stated, yet they be-
Iievc and insist that those decisions are
wrong. and that the supreme law, which
forbids State to impair the obligation OF
contracts, was never intended to apply 10
the undertakings OF Il State. But those de-
cisions are plainly and conlesSedly irrcvcr-
sible. I am dealing with stubborn facts as
they are, and I shall pause for no specula-
tive inquiry as to what might have been or
ought to be. 1t is enough to know that the
decisions cited inevitably and finally control
the question at hand.
Moreover, it is well settled that the courts
are bound to accept the legislative anthem
tication OF an act rs conclusive proof OF its
passage. and they cannot 80 behind it even
to consider any allegation OF fraud or cor
ruption in the procurement OF its passage.
1t is easy TO see that il the courts could in
quire into the means or motives which pro-
cured the passage OF Il law, and could annul
it as the result OF such inquiry, then the
judiciary would absorb the government,
and the constitutional independence OF the
departments would be broken down and
destroyed. 1t must also be borne i'll mind
in this connection that il from any change
OF circumstances or from any conceivable
nousn II were nossibIe. rs il is not, for the