Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1878-04-12
1t the sacrifice of other obligations equally


tcrs what is justly due them, i'll order to
give it to his children. No State, III order
10 educate its citizens, ought to Withhold
from its Just creditors thai which has been
pledged. by its honor and plighted faith.
to The payment Of its just debts Both OBJ
legations must and will be met.
THE PEOPLE MUST BE EDUCATED,
but they must not be educated at the price
CT REPUTATION AND DISHONOR. Bet
ter would be ignorance, than enlighten-
| ment purchased at such fearful price
In conclusion / will repeat here the ut
terance OF the unanimous voice OF this
Court in the homestead cases (22 Grattan,
3Ol when it declared that ''n" State and
70 people can have any real and enduring
| prosperity except where public faith and
| private faith are guarded by laws wisely
administered and faithfully executed. The
inviolability of contracts. public and prI-
waite. is the foundation Of all social prog
re4s. acc the corner stone OF ali the forms
OF civilized society where AN enllghl ened
| system OF jurisprudence prevails. Under
our system of government it has been wise
| ly placed under he protection of the Con-
stitution of the United States, and there
| it rests secure against all INVASION"
( 1t only remains for me to say that the
petitioner has the right under the law to
discharge the fine imposed upon him by the
Hastings Court with coupon Of bond Ct
the State, which estate mas agreed to re-
| ceive in payment of "aL t0IeS, debts, dues,
and demands due the State" and that he
be discharged from further custody.
The Dissenting Opinion.
Judge Staples said:
| The opinion just delivered by Judge
Christian is al atfirmance Of the doctrine
laid down in Antoni VS.. Wright. 1t will
| be remembered by those who were then
present, or who have taken an interest in
tile subject, that it was my fortune to diff
fer with the majority of the Court i'll the
decision then rendered. and in the reason
ing by which it was sustained.
| Since that time the whole question has
received full and exhaustive discussion
by the public press, upon the hustings, and
in the legislative department. That dis
cussion and my own more deliberate re-
Elections have but strengthened my convic
lions of the soundness and justice OF my
opinion then entertained. l do not see,
however, That any good can be attained by
further discussion Of the question in this
Court. Every one here present-everY in
telligent mind in the State-has perhaps
reached some definite. fixed conclusion
upon the subject, and nothing that can be
said here by myself or others would alter
or modify that conclusion. 1 will not,
therefore, now undertake to enter into any
argument of these points, with respect to
which it VS. my isfortune to differ With
my brethren. may hereafter do so If
time and opportunity are favorable, and
now reserve to myself that privilege. This
much | may say in justice to myself, IT 1t
is now to be regarded as settled law. that
every demand, debt, and claim due the
Common wealth, of whatever character or
Il. fr, In tofS
aud two hundred thousand dollars, may
be paid in these coupons. II the Legisla-
ture under no circumstances has the pow
er for the next thirty years TO diminish the
rate of taxation. whatever may be the ne
cessities or condition OF the people il it
has sur endered all con rol over the public
revenues to such an extent and for such IL
period, whatever may be the public ext
gency; if the Legislature may thus pledge
the revenues OF the State beyond recall
then indeed has Government abdicated its
functions and the State stripped itself OF
J one of its
ATTRIBUTES OF SOVEREIGNTY.
To this, but one answer has ever been
given that deserves the name of answer,
and that is that it is the daty of the Legis-
lature to lay sufficient tax to pay the
creditor and carry on the government. To
|
obligation the public debt may impose
there are periods in the history Of every
State when no part of it can or ought to
!, be paid; when the State creditor and the
individual creditor must consent to wait
at least for season, and of such times, as
they arise, the Legislature must be the
judge. The amount of taxation the people
can bear. The mode Of imposing and collect
ing it, is political question to be deter
| god ~ iN,yt ,rtn Int !Nyr rl,n
representatives. Of the people from time to
time, as the public exigencies may require.
This is the essential principle IF the gov
ernment under which we live, State and
Federal. In the language of the Sup eme
Court Of the United States, Il legjsla-
tive body cannot part with its powers by
airy proceedings so as not to be able to con-
tinue the exercise of them. In cannot
abridge its own legislative power by making
permanent and iudissoluble contracts in
reference to matters of public interest"
With this brief discussion | am content
to leave this branch Of the subject, though
perhaps l have said more than was neces-
sary. | desire further to add that
THE PRECISE QUESTION
now before us was not before us in the
case of Antoni VS.. Wright. It is true that
it was discussed by both Judge Bouldin
and Judge Anderson, and, while it is per-
haps fully covered by the reasoning of the
Court, it was not necessarily decided.
agree that the funding act is broad enough
to include fines imposed for the violation
of the laws, and for tina very reason I
thought, and still think 1t is volativt
of the seventh section of II eighth art icle
of the Constitution of Virginia. That
section declares the General Assembly
shall set apart, as a permanent and per
petual literary fund, the present literary
funds of the State, the proceeds of all
public lands donated by Congress for pub
lic-school purposes, of all escheated proper
ty, of all waste and unappropriated lands,
OF all fines accruing to the State by forfeit
ure, of all fines collected for offences com
mitted against the State, and such other
levies as the General Assembly may apply
thereto. No intelligent man will main
tain that it IS competent for the Legisla-
ture, by any contract, to divert this fund
from it's specific object as prescribed by
the Constitution. Take, for example the
proceeds Of the public lands dedicated ~
Congress to school purposes. If the lands,
| when sold by the state, may be paid for ia
coupons, are the proceeds S apart fer the
oil jects designated in the Constitution?
Take the fine in this case. If the petition
er may pay it III coupons, any other per-
sou upon whom a fine is imposed may do
likewise. Are not such fines i'll effect for
all practical purposes appropriated to the
payment of the public debt? l can see no
/ difference between a law which applies
| them directly to the payment of the in
terest on the public debt and a law which
authorizes them to De paid in coupons. The
answer again is that
| THE LEGISLATURES MUST INCREASE THE
TAXES
and supply the deficiency from other
sources. But the question still arises,