Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1877-12-04

tive, indirect, and inSidicus.
Ii is time that the funding bill were dis
embarrassed OF the fallacious objections
with which its validity is assaled, and 1t Is
time thnt all controversy over the debt, so
bancful to the peace and the progress OF the
State, should now be finally settled and put
behind us. Why is the contract OF TIC
funding bin irrepcalablc?
In constituting the provision OF the Con-
stitution Of the United States which Tor
bids a State to pass any law impairing the
Obligation Of contracts. in multitude or
cases and by tho highest courts, State and
Federal, it has been held and decided that
the prohibition applies as well to the con-
tracts Of State as to the contracts OF cor
p0ratc 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 in payment OF its taxes: that
such contracts made by one legislature
bind all succeeding legislatures; and that
such contracts arc not only as lnVlola-
bic as those between citizens compe-
tent TO contract but they are incapable OF
being abrOgatcd, either in whole or in part,
by the utmost power of the State. 1t Is
true, that while the iuri>ts who antagoniZe
the funding bill admit that the decisions OF
the courts arc as have stated, yet they be-
lieyc and insist that those decisions arc
wrong, and that the supreme law, which
forbds Il State to impair the obligation OF
contracts, was never intended to apply to
Tic undertakings OF state. But those de-
cisions are plainly and conTessedly rrcver-
Sible. an dealing with stubborn facts as
they are, and / shall pause for no Spccula-
tive inquiry rs 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 tic legislative authen-
tication of an act as conclusive proof OF its
passage, and they cannot go 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
quirc into the means or motives which pro-
cured the passage OF law, and could unnul
it rs 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 in mind
in this connection that il from any change
of circumstances or from any conceivable
cause it were possible, as it is not, for the
Court Of Appeals OF Virginia to reverse its
decision affirming the validity OF the fund
ing bill; even ii the other departments OF
the government should join in carrying such
reversal into effect, and even il the ultimate
power OF the people il sovereign convcn-
ton should unite in annullin@ or repeating
the bill. still all these would be obviously
unavaling acts done by or on behalf OF the
"A fpr ihp r,,uin nlost ion yvnnl1 thcr
be cogniZablc. and would have to be de-
cdcd by the Supreme Court OF the United
States, which, through long line OF deci-
sions, has maintained the identical grounds
held by our Court OF Appeals in the prem
Uses. In order to nullify the funding bill
il is not enough to set aside the authority
OF the Court Of Appeals Of Virginia, it is
also necessary to get rid OF the Supreme
Court OF tho United States. ] forbcar to
comment upon the morality Of resistance TO
judicial authority; but so far as its policy
is concerned, no lesson from the past is
needed to inform us that the power Of Viz
ginia is not equal to the power Of the United
states.
Nor can it be imagined that any device or
~ubtcrfugc, however ingenious. designed
to obstruct Il particular provision OF the
funding bill, could be regarded with less
disiayor by the judicial mind than IN open
and direct violation OF the contract it con-
rainS. ANY measure, OF whatever kind,
intended to impair the rcceiyabilty OF the
coupons would be regarded as imparing
the obligation Of the contract. and would
l,n mat with tho cor dcmnntion ~ tho no,,t-
Ill the more declSlVely on account OF its
indreCtiOn.
But it is alleged by able iurists that any
act OF the government which destroys Or
impcris its own existence is nuGatory;
that the funding bill alienatcs revenues
which are or may become indispensable TO
the support OF the government, and that
therefore, from the very necessity OF the
case, the bill is unconstitutional and void.
Is this propostio on true?
Assuming that the State cannot strip itself
of such powers and resources rs are iDdis-
pcnsablc to its existence, it must be remeln-
bcrcd, as havn" been well settled, that the
political department can Automatically con-
tract some portion of its means; and it is
the province OF that department to decide
what portion Of its revenues is necessary to
the support Of the government and what
portion can be alenatcd without impcriling
its existence. It must also be borne in mind
that department OF the government, like
the State, can never die, and, however the
members composing it may change, yet in
legal contemplation the department itself is
the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. In
1871 the political department, being clothed
with full authority to contract in the prem
iscs, decided that the State would have
means enough left for It's support after
alternating Il certain proportion OF its reve-
nucs to its creditors, and accordingly it did
by an executed contract ALLEVIATE those revc-
nues, or most OF them, for a period OF
thirty-iour years. Could that identical de-
partment the next day or year, or six years
thereafter, change its mind and annul the
contract, which it was competent to make,
on the ground that it had committed an error
and had conveyed away more OF the reye-
nucs than it could afford to spare? The
statement OF the question answers it. The
parties to every contract stand in coCqual
relation, and they are clothed with corrcla-
tive rights. The only department OF the
government which can bind the State by
contract with its creditors has neither more
nor less power to annu or change the con-
tract afterwards than the creditors them
selves have. TO say that either party TO a
concluded contract may withdraw from it
or annul it because it has made bad bar
cain, is the announcement OF theory
which would overthrow every principle OF
legal right and human obligation. To say
that State may thus rctract its plightcd
faith and revoke its contract, is to destroy
the sanctity OF all contracts, to put IN end
TO all confidence between man and man, 10
oycrturn the foundations of publica and pri.
vate credit, and to render the Government
Dowerlcss 10 raise loans and maintain It's
existence in any time Of emergency. The
establishment Ola doctrine SO monstrous
would be the virtual dissolution Of civilized
society.
But It is alleged that the fundins-bill con-
tract Is in fact impeding and virtually stop
ping the wheels OF the government; that