Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1878-04-12
No words of more explicit or broader sig

two words s'dateS and demands" we Cen-
not discard them, but must give tlien
effect. De they embrace fines? all
bound hy every rule of construction TO s5sy
they do. A fine is something ''whlch Tue
law requires to be paid,' and that IS tiio
meaning Of the word dues
A FINE is THING ''DUE
or CLAIMED to be due'' to the State--a Ia
billy which the State has a right to en-
force and demand and that is the meaning
of the word ''demand.'' l am therefore OF
o.nnion tt at zines are clearly embraced
within the meaning and the very words VI
the statute. The legislature has useu
words which by their explicit, compreheh-
sivr, and '.nmistakable meaning, em0rdce
fines as w>il as taxes and debts. LII after
using the words '.dues and demands
they ad offended to exclude fines, how
easy it wo'iid have been to have aided the
words Tex +nt fines" after the words dues
and dema IDS" But having used these
broai aud comprehensive terms. Whlch by
their COM lor and eXricit meaning en-
brace fines ;.ld having used no words OF
exceptions, NJ fellows npuu every rule OF
cons rtcti'l tii:lt fnes are embraced In
the ttruS HRS AID demands
THIS col -luG ion, wiiici would seem 10
be f. e. fro All doubt, if it rests upon the
language u the act, |s objecl ed to upon
TWO GROUNDS.
First. II is insisted that fines are i'm
posed as % ,e of the potent means OF pun
ishlng offe ices against the Law, and that
the offend doe, not satisfy the Judgment
OF the coul t if he pays III amount less than
the fine as: essed against INN. which he
does if he may pay i'll coupons Instead OF
money 1.-THE coupons being at a dlscount.)
In answer TO this view il is sufficient to
remark that the State has right to say,
and has said in the act Of her Legislature
under consideration. how her demands
against her citizens shall be satisfied, how
the liabilities due" to her shall be dis
charged It might with the same proprie
ty and with equal force be argued that
debts and taGes due the Commonwealth are
not fully discharged by payment in cou-
pons, and yet this is done every day under
the statute law. sustained and enforced by
Judgment of this Court. But in point of
fact the judgment for a fine is discharged
to ats full ertent, so far as the State IS con-
cerned, because the coupon represents the
obligation Of the State for the face-value
of the coupon.
Second. 1t is objected that fines are ded-
Icated by the Constitution, and by statute
enacted in pursuance thereof, to the liter
dIy Iuuu lOl SCDOOl Pul 1uO IL VIS
act under consideration embraces fines, to
that extent it is unconstitutional.
Now, it is to be observed that neither
the Con titution, nor any act passed in
pursuance thereof requires the collectors
ofthe public revenues, nor the Auditor,
to keep separate and distinct each pdrticulGr
fine assessed against offenders and pay it
over, as collected. to the literary fund, but
the requirement. is, upon fair construction
to turn over to
THE LITERARY FUND
eehatcuer amount may come into the Trea.
surv from the source of fines, and dedicate
that amount to the purpose indicated.
This same argument was pressed most Wig
orously-in the case of Antoni VS.. Wright
isupra, and was answered, think, sue
ceSsfully and conclusively by the lamented
Judge Bouldin; and prefer to adopt his
views. SO clearly and ably put, rather than
mar and weaken them by words or views
of my own. He says: ''But it is argued
that the contract in this case is void be
cause it is repugnant to the Sth section o.
the 9Th article and Sd section of the 10tt
article of the State = onstitution, dedica
ting certain portions of the State revenue
to the support OF free schools. We thlnl
there is no such conflict in the case. x
lions of succeeding Legislatures shall b.
firmly met; that there should be what thu
creation of every new debt imperativel.
demands-tO wit, an increase OF taxation
if the existing rate be insufficient.
THE ARGUMENT
is based on the assumption that subse
quent Legislatures " i'll fail in their duty
and pursue such a course as may result il
,r TO
that they will decline to NE ct faithful,
the high obligation resting en- them, ane
then rely on the irregular consequences o.
their own defa ult as an argument against
the validity of the debt for which they
will have failed to provide. The malap
preparation which wonld follow would moi
he The legitimate result of the funding act
but in effect would be the act Of the LEXIS
lature failing to discharge lis duty. The
litigation to provide for the interest due
by the coupons is as high as the duty OF ap
plying he capitation tax and other fund.
to the schools. Both duties are alike Oh
lgatory, and both may be discharged, as
there is no conflict between them. 1t il
only by a failure to discharge the one that
the performance Of the other can be put il
jeopardy, and it rests with the Legislature
by faithfully and fearlessly meeting botf
obligations t. preserve the
PLIGHTED FAITH OF THE STATE
and protect her Constitution from viola
tiOn.'
After this opinion of the Court, deliver.
ed by Judge Bouldin, was announced, there
was a motion fCr rehearing Submittt d b,
the Acknowledgement, and the Court held
the case under advisement for several
weeks. anxious to correct its decision if it
should appear in any respect to be errone-
Gus, and to give to the Case that calm and
careful reconsideration viii oh the gravity
and the Importance Of the questions in.
volved required. After a candid and anx-
ious review of the case, the Court could
find no reason to change it's opinion, but
was confirmed in the justice and reason
of it conclusions. In delivering the judg-
ment upon the motion for a rehearing,
Judge Anderson, in an able and exhaustive
opinion discussed the whole question. re-
affirming and enforcing the views of Judge
Bouldin; and in these views the same
judges concurred as in the original deci-
sion. | mention this to show with what
DELIBERATION AND GRE
the questions involved in the case of An
toni Us. Wright were considered, and the
futility OF again considering these ques-
tionS, except to reatfirm and adopt the
principles of that case so far as they apply
to the case before us.
With respect to the argument made in
that case. as it was pressed in this case.
that fines and other revenues were dedica-
ted to the school fund, and therefore can
not be paid in coupons, Judge Anderson,
in his opinion [22 Grattan, page s74], says:
1T is said that those
provisions of the Constitution which set
apart certain funds and certain proper
ton of the tax for the public schools will
seem to be sufficient reply to say that if
it were impracticable to raise sufficient
amount of revenue for both purposes, the
latter did not impose an obligation on the
Legislature paramount to the obligation
to provide for the PAYMENT of the interest