The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1877-07-26

l
! EDS. VIRGINIAN:-Pleaseb be kind enough
to publish the enclosed communication
which, intended as it was, to be circulated
| along with Gen. Mahone's letter, was writ.
ten for" the last issue of the Spectator, bu
was not published in that journal, though
distinctly promised by its Editors. Genera
| IS letter was circulated, it is true, but i
had to be printed at another office, and it
circulation paid for, as was done also in the
case OF Mr.. Massey's reply to Mr.. Stuart'i
letter en- the State Debt question.
How is it that there is such a determine
| ton on the part of the Spectator not to have
both sides OF this debt question discussed in
its columns? Certainly the people, and es
pecially its patrons, desire it. Is this not in
the line of policy. followed by the majority
OF the BONDHOIDERS VS.. THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA, to give only the bondholder's
side of the question? 1t seems so. But il
will not do the people of the State are
aroused, and they will remember those who
pirate SO much and so loudly OF the honor oil
Virginia, when it is REALLY the interests
and demands Of the bondholders which they
defend and urge.
For the SPECTAT0R.l
May occupy a brief space in your journal
to call the attention of the people OF this
county to Genl Mahone's letter on the ques-
tieE Of the State debt, which we ask to have
circulated with your paper, because, though
most respectfully requested, as simple act
of justice to Gen. M. and the people it has
not hitherto appeared in either of the Con-
servative papers OF the town.
We want everybody to have. at least a
chance to read the views OF this friend ofthe
people, the only candidate who has had the
manliness to express himself freely upon this
great question of the day, so deeply affec-
ting the public interest, and looming up be-
fore us all, as the all-absorbing and over
shadowing issue of the approaching canvass.
The question is, whether the iniquitous
Funding Bill shall be repealed and the debt
re-adjusted, or whether the already over
burdened people shall submit to have their
tGres doubled, to meet the requirements OF
this bill of denominations? Lawyers (some
of them, it is true" tell us that the Funding
Bill is a ''fixity, tinality. is irrcpealable,
and its provisions, lamentable as they are,
unavoidable. But all that lawgers:say is not
alaoays true. And it behooves US to consid-
err several questions arising under this issue,
before we can abandon all hope of Kidding
ourselves of this incubus. Amongst thes
we suggest, 1st. How far the faint OF fraud
affects legislation? Is the opinion Of d.
vided court (but three of its judges sitting.
and one of these dissenting) irrevocably bind
ing? Sd Did the Court Of Appeals decide
farther, in Antoni vs. Wright, than that the
coupons past due were receivable for taxes
THE question of fraud did not come before
the court.) 18th. May not the two Judges
who did not sit, agree with the dissenting
one upon new hearing; and has not this
court sometimes reversed itself? 9TH. Does
the clause in the Federal Constitution apply
TO contracts in which State is a party? or,
loes it only debar State from passing laws |
lnvalidating contracts between individuals !
,r corporations? And6th and. lastly, does not |
he autocracy of State override all law and I
judicial decisions, and leave such difficu tiles
Is now surround us to be settled by the
SOVEREIGN will of the State itself? There
IRE aoays out of this difficalty. Let as apply
ourselves earnestly to the work, and the
LIQUIDS will vanish and the difficulties disap-
bear. A FARMER.