Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1877-12-12

nulled and avoided. The opposers o.
the bill are CALLED and irritated by the
withes and manacles with which it fet-
tiers the traditional liberty of local self
government. Its effect is to wound the
sentiment of State pride and to engen-
der resentments and animosities which,
though often supposed to be directed
against the holders of the debt, are real
| ly aimed at the funding bill itself. Many
who were first to revolt against the
compulsion of the bill would be first in
honorable and voluntary efforts to pay
off the debtif 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 if they fail to pro-
vide all the means properly available
for that purpose ; fthey refuse to rene
dy the acknowledged defects of the pre-
sent revenue system, then their mac
ton will be taken for Reputation, and
all the worse because it will be mega
tive, in direct, and insidious.
1t Is time that the funding bill were
disembarrassed OF the fallacious objec-
tons with which its validity is assailed,
and it is time that all controversy over
the debt, so baneful to the peace and
the progress of the State, should now be
finally settled aud put behind us. Why
is the contract Of the funding bill ire
pealable?
In constituting the provision of the
| Constitution Of the United4States which
forbids State to pass any law impair
! ing the obligation of contracts, in null
titude 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 contracts Of a State as to the
contracts OF corporate or natural per-
sons ; that State may by contract eX-
empt property from taxation forever
that State may BY contractmake 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 are not only as in
| vlolable as those between citizens COM
| potent to contract, but they are incapa-
bic of being abrogated, either in whole
or in part, by TIE utmost power Of the
State. 1t is true, that while the jurists
who antagonize the funding bill admit
| that the decisions Of the courts are as |
have stated, yet they believe and insist
| that those decisions are wrong, and that
| the supreme law, which forbids State
to impair the obligation Of contracts,
was never intended 10 apply to the I'm
III .tsal- oFS fot 70 n,,tt
arc plainly and confessedly irreyersible.
| am dealing with stubborn facts as
they are, and shall pause for no specu-
latlye 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.
| 1t must be remembered that Virginia
IS not separate nation. but one Of ma
ny United States, irresistibly bound by
the obligations which propetuate the
common country and bind the States
together IN general union. The State
must act within the powers which it has
reserved and not delegated to the com
mon Government. 1t cannot 90 coun-
ter to those delegate powers, for they
are inyiolable and supreme. 1t is a
part otthe supreme law thus erected
over allthe States that no state shall in
| woke the supreme law of self-prese rya-
ton and exert the supreme right of ma
| tons in order to rid itself Of contract,
| ask how can Virginia, under such col
or of authority. do an act which the or
ganic law of the Union expressly binds
Virginia not to do? In order to invoke
such color Of authority, Virginia must
so outside Of the Union, andrcease to
be member of it. The proposed rem
edy IS eXtra-constitional and revolution
airy, and in order to justify in the su-
preme judicial tribunal Of the Union
would have to be called on to do what
IS plainly imDossible-that'is, to reverse
its consistent and traditional rulings
upon the question involved. Even
where an independent nation invokes
the ultimate law Of self preservation in
such case, the highest authorities inform
us that the necessity for resorting to it
must be clear ana overwhelming; it
must be such as to satisfy the sentiment
| of honor which peryadcs the moral and
| financial world 1t must be the first and
supreme necesslty-a necessity which is
net chosen but chooses, a necessity par
amount to elaboration. that admits no
discussion and demands no evidence, ("
which alone could excuse an alternative
so replete with anarchy and despera-
ton.
Happily, it IS demenstrable that no
such necessity can arise in Virginia. II
the debt proper of each State be aggrega-
ted with its municipal and local indebt-
edness, a comparison on that basis will
show that, relatively to population and
resources, the people of Virginia owe
less than those OF many of the State. 1t
will be found that the rate of taxation in
this State is less that IN almost all tn
ers. 1t will be found that the st ate
taxes are as compair with the direct and
indirect taxes which Virginia pays to
the National Government. Even ifshe
new method Of taxing liquors should
yield no increase ofrevenue. S till the de-
6ciency in the treasury would be cover
ed by sum equal to u tax Of ten ents
on the hundred dollars, Or ofthirty cents
on each iuhabltant of the Com mon
"CdtH' A0 dlicSdtiou tlaL inc STATE
cannot maintain its existence and car
ry its debt is not only wholly unsupport-
ed, but conclusiyely contradlc ted by the
facts.
The remaining directors to the fund
ing bill are those. before referred to.
who assert that Virginia owes no debt.
They argue that the State has bee IL con-
quered by arms, and that the consquer-
or, having dismembered It and deatroy-
ed more than half of its taxable velues,
has become solely liable for its ant-bel-
lum debt.
We are taught, By the standard au-
thorities on national law, that Were TWO
powers are at war. and one of them in
battling for the defence of its invaded.
territory destroys the property Of its
own citizens. the damages shus inflicted
''arc nisfortunes which chance deals
out to the proprletors on whom they
happen to fall and that 70 demand
lies against the State for losses which it
thus occasions to its own citizens IN the
exertion of its rights. It's evident, and