Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1878-02-06

then as now. He cited cases OF Brit
ish creditor, who was out of our lines
during the Revolutionary war, who
sued for his debt with interest, and it
was determined the debtor was not en-
titled to either principal or interest. II
the Britain WAS not entitled 10 his
claim, then he claimed the northern
creditor was not entitled to one copper
of the debt.
Mr.. Allen said that whether religion
is transgressed or will be transgressed
by the readiustment Of this debt, we
will have TO be arraigned before higher
tribunal than has been erected in this
city. Thatit seemed to HIM, after look
ing at these authorities, we did not owe
these nolhern creditors any interest
from the beginning of the war until the
re-establishmcnt of the State Govern
ment.
He asked if it was right that Virginia
should pay the interest to northern
bOndholders. as provided for by the
funding bill, passed by a previous Legs
latqre ? This bill provided for funding
the interest and paying interest upon
interest. He saldlfa wrong had been
done by previous Legislature it was
the boundcn duty Of the Legislature toll
lowing to remedy it.
Establishment is right. The fund
ing bill is wrong; it is our duty to get
rid oft. | would scOrn myself If l
thought | was capable of voting for any
measure thought unconstitutional.
Can we get rid OF it by legal means |:
Here am met with the case OF AntonI
vs.. Wright. don't propose to go into
an elaborate legal argument" lie sad
he laid down lhe proposition here that
Antoni V. Wright does not touch this
question. The reasoning in the case
docs not bear out the result. The point
is not the same.
The case arose under the tax law OF
7l-2. The Legislature passed the
iunding'bill providing that the coupons
attached to the bonds should be receiv-
cd for the payment Of taxes. a sub
sequent Legislature met and said the
coupons should not be received for
debts.
lie laid down the proposition that the
case Of Antoni cS. Wright did not
touch this matter. He admitted that
the reasoning of the court did to some
extent, but denied that the points de-
cided did. The history OF that celebrat-
cd,case was reviewed. The act brought
by It under review by the court was 4
General taX-bill. Tie conclusive pre-
sumption OF the Court was that the tax
OF fifty cents on the one hundred dollars
levied was sufficient to meet all eXpen-
ses OF government, pay all that was due
to the schools. and provide for the III
terest upon the debt. They knew moth
ing to the contrary. Here we set ont
with the declaration that 30 cents on
the 300 is not sufficient to do
all these things, and we say 10 the court
and TO everybody that taxes cannot be
increased. The political department: OF
the Government say So. aud he court
cannot 20 behind that declaration; they
cannot trcsrass upon our domain any
more than we can trespass upon theirs.
There IS great difference between the
TWO questions presented. IN the first
vas the presumption Of the court that
tie tax was sufficient to meet all de-
manAs; there is tie positive declaration
that it is not.
Mr.. Allen larthcr argued that the
Constitution requires the Legislature To-
state specifically in the tax bill the OBJ
ject ofthe tax; that this is the first tax
bill where the commandment IS obeyed;
that that the school money being dedi-
Gated to that fund By the Constitution,
no coupons or funding bill could law
fully divert il that if this held true as to
tle school iund,it will hold good applied
to the government it is the paramount
duty for the Legislature to secure.
Bat gentlemen will say that the
reasoning of tic court in the AntOni
case estOps Us.
MIR. Allen held that they could hardly
A vail themselves Of that plea after the
expressions from the members from
Gloucester and Amherst. whc few
DAYS ago said they believed the Antoni
decision wrong, and must therefore
believe the reasoning wrong.
Mr.. Coghill said that his position was
that that case decided the whole matter.
the court having held that there was a
contract.
Mr.. Allen did not consider MI.
Cogmll's opinion as responsive to his
MONT. But any way he proceeded to
ar,1e that the reasoning Of the Court
was not correct /; that the Antoni case
had been impcrlcctly argued. and was
decided by a divided court that the
Judges. able and pure as they are. like
I'LL men. are lallible. and may have er-
red here that the Court had reversed
lis opinions in several instances, and
were right todp so; and that even if
gentlemen do believe that Anton rs.
Wright covers the ground. here, where
so many grave interests are involved.
there can be no good reason for refusing
10 give the Court opportunity TO review
its opinion.
Mr.. Allen did not agree that the opin-
ion Of the court was right. On the con-
trary. he thought it wrong, and the
position of Judge staples rlght. lie
thought the courts of this land had gone
far enough in trammcling the represen-
tatives of the people, and in giving ut
terance to that sentiment Mr.. Allen eX
prtssly stated his great respect for the
Supreme Court Of Appeals.
lie closed with thanks to the House
for its attention; and well he might, Tor
very close attention was given the
speaker from the beginning to the end
Of hs argument. He talked right
straight 10 the question and his speech
was wholly devoid Of cXtraneous mat
ter. lie spoke Gfty minutes on Thurs
day. and an hour and ten minutes on
Vriday).
APPALLING DislSTEE,