Bristol news. [volume] (Bristol, Va. & Tenn.) 1867-189?, 1877-10-02
I Communicated. ]
That Contrast"
Editor of the NcuS.

Editor of the NcUS.
The funders of the Marshal Hanger
stripe, and their followers and sup
porters in Washington county, aver
That the Funding Bill "is irrepeaIa-
BILE, because it is an enactment i'll the
nature of n contract" which cannot
be "impaiied" by any Law" of this
State.
All courts of equity hold that q
fro1ttl vitiates contract whether per-
petrated by one or both parties To it -
That act should he set aside for fraud
on one, if not on both sides. Ii is al
most beyond doubt that the Bond
holders, through their agents at Rich
mond, in March 1871, GriGcd members
of the Legislature to vote for that viii
famous act. There was 10 binding
contract if there was any fraud, CT any
money corruptly used 20 procure the
passage of the funding bill.
But how was it ~ contract? Was
West Virginia party To this alleged
contract ? If not party, how was it
in the power Of our Legislature to say
that West Virginia should pay fifteen
millions of dollars? Does the fund
ing bill, passed by the Legislature Of
Virginia, Giad West Virginia 10 do
any thing? Certainly not. Then, If
the Legislature of Virginia could not,
by its enactment, bind West Virginia
to pay one.third of the old debt, was
not the provision in the funding bill
to that effect u fraud on West Virgin
ia, or on the B0ndhOlders But if it
takes three parties 20 make contract
(and it certainly does if the three are
to he effected 10y the contracD does not
the absence of West Virgini as a
contracting party in This case, render
the So called contract void as to the
other ttOO parties? This is most GER
taInly so.
Then there is no contract at all-and
the coupons attached to the consols
are Unauthorized and Illegal, as the
funding act has been repealed.
Suppose A holds a note on Il and G,
both being equally bound 10 a. Sup
pose a says To ID you pay me one
third of this note and | will release
you entirely, and will compel G to pay
the twO.thirds. G being no party To
this arrangement, Is not { released
from his former joint obligation P
Or. If A says to b pay me twO-thirds,
and | will compel G TO pay me the re-
manning one.third, GW il & don't pay
me the one third (refuses aud cannot
be compelled to pay, you OBJ must
pay the same ) is b released
This last is oar case. West Virgin.
ia was no party to the contract, (if
there was any, which we deuyl, and
she refuses Ia pay anything, ana can
not he compelled To pay-then is Nir-
giuia bound for the aChOie Old de6t ?
The Supreme Court says So, but the
court could not de ide that West Va,
was also bound, as West Virginia
was not in court.
Again, If West Virginia was not
bound for "her third" how was Vir-
giuia bound for her twO.thirdsn
The truth il, the funding bill, and
every enactment to enforce it, are un-
constitutional and void-void, because
conceived in sin and brought forth
in iuiquity" - unconstitutional, be.
cause the Legislature had no power to
bind the people to do or not to do any
particular tling-or to shackle us for
ever.
Moreover, "is the servant greater
than the mastern-is the court our
master or our servant? II our mas
ter, then all that Is necessary 10 ruin
q people is to corrupt It's Legislature.
and then cal on the CoHrt 10 sustain
by its decision the Fraudulent eianf
ment. EkFLE.