The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-02-05

s., H. s,e county Of
~ hir HUNTER: a bifl to amend and re-
,uuct she act entitled I'D act for the protec.
lion OF game.
The PROPERTY 5TAx-BILL.
AFR. MusaBacK offered the following:
;Rssolced. That SO muci, OF the special
order or resolution here tofore passea Dytn ils
House MS fixes Thursday next at 2 O'Clock
p: nj, for taking the vote upon the passaee
81 this House Bill, No. 90 1.-THE BARBOUR tax
bin. be and the same is hereby Tescinaeu.
The object OF SIR. MusHBAcK and those
who voted with him was to give more Time I'm
for the discussion OF this question. l ~
resolution was agreed to-ayes, %; noes, 10.
Mr.. JOHNSTON Of Giles offered the follow
ing: !, -, tho
pending bill blouse bill 92) at 8 O'clock Z.
BIZ. on Saturday next, 9th day OF feorunIy:
On motion OF Mr.. GRAVES the words III
not taken sooner" were added.
Mr.. WALSH proposed, rs o substitute, tiat
all speeches made after to-day on the Dill
shall be limited to one hour, except Tue
speech closing the debate. e.;;
Mr.. McCABE moved to lay the resolution
on the table. Not agreed to.
The time therefor having arrived the
House proceeded to the consideration OF the
tax-bill (No. 92), which bill in brief pro-
poses latter declaring that the present reve-
nues are insufficient and increased taxation
to levy on property the
usual tax of fifty cents on the $500, ana TO
set apart the revenues as follows: Twenty
five cents to be collected IN currency foI
expenses; ten cents TO DC
collected in currency for school purposes
fifteen cents for interest on the public debt,
arrearages on school fund, DC.
MR.. W. w. HENRY.
Mr., HENRY, OF Richmond city, resumed
the floor and continued his review OF the
report OF the Finance Committee, which
purports to state the resources and IN.
debtedness Of the Commonwealth, ard IN
dong so disclaimed any purpose to reflect
upon Mr.. TAIIAFERRO or any OF the gentle,
men who had assisted in the preparation OF
that report. He maintained that there were
numerous errors in that statement, ana IN
addition to those referred to Saturday he
pointed out that there was an omission Of
$40, 900 to be expected from arrearages OIL
taxes, another OF 100000 which had been
paid in by the Chesapeake and Ohio railroad
as accumulated taxes and not heretofore
estimated, but lately received by Judgment
The sinking fund as at present conducted.
he contended, was Gripping the ability OIL
the State to pay interest upon her debt, and
was against the Constitution, which re-
CURED it to be used in the payment ano
eXtinguishment Of the principal OF the
debt.
AS to the arrearages OF the school fund
he claimed that. as the Constitution only
demanded that the system should be put i1
operation in 1876, the money Was not deb
due the children, but donation to then
from year to year-sQmeLhing which the
Legislature had the right to give or not a:
it pleased until 1876. For that reason ht
had not estimated the arrearages due before
1875 as debt, and there were none since.
With the corrections made us he had in
dictated, and expenses reduced to 1860 rates
Mr.. HENRY claimed that he had shown thai
the present revenues aCere sufficient tc
maintain the public schools, provide fol
governmental expenses, and pay Interest
upon the public debt. 1t would not ever
require expenses to be reduced to the figure:
before the war.
Coming to the discussion OF the lega
aspects of the case, Mr.. HENRY insisted thai
the honor of the State should be held higher
than the honor Of individuals; that there is
no good authority to sustain Speaker AL.
LENS position that the State owes no credl
tor interest for the war period, and no prin
cipal or interest atall to northern creditors
that Speaker ALLEN had not quoted Jeffer
son far enough, and failed to tell that Patrcl
Henry's argument had been overruled by
the Supreme Court; that the rule Of civil
lied nations is exactly to the contrary; thai
if it were proper it would be impossible tt
separate the northern creditors from others
especially where coupon bonds were held
that the statement OF the Auditor show:
that only about 100000 OF war interes
was accumulated, so to get rid OF S4,000,00(
it is proposed to cut down $1,000, 600, ant
that while our property is worth 1922, 600,
900, and the debt proper, with interest &C
crued, does not exceed $50, 100000.
Mr.. HENRY stated as an indisputable lega
proposition that the United States Constitu
ton is the supreme law of the land. 1t say;
no State shall pass q law impairing the OBJ
legation Of contracts. It means State con
stitutions as well as statutes; neither car
impair the obligation Of contracts. The
decision OF the Supreme Court of the
United States in the Yazoo-grant case
FLETCHER Us. Peck was quoted to show
funding bill was passed by bribery, The
rights Of innocent holders Of bonds cannot
be divested.
II it be true. he said, that it is impossible
to pay the interest and the school fund
then farewell to the school fund. The deb
contracted before 1869 had implanted upor
it the express obligation that interest shoult
be paid upon it annually out OF the accrll
Tba n
create a school fund by violating this obi
CATION and impairing the obligation OF th'
preGxisting debt. The principle. has beer
unanimously settled by our Supreme Cour
in the homestead case.
Reputation, Mr.. HENRY asserted, is re
fusal of State to provide for its obligations
Now, gentlemen propose only to repudiat'
in part. That didn't suit him. Ii Virgni;
must be dishonored then let us repudiatt
all; let's get the thirty pieces OF silver. Blu
he would have her repudiate nothing. lr
his opinion State sovereignty neuer gave TIT
right to repudiate, as some OF the gentlemen
seemed to think; much less does it do Sc
now. The United States Constitution say:
that no State, under any circumstances
shall pass law impairing the obligation o.
contracts; no excuses will avail. III VIZ
ginia must break the Constitution let us al
least 90 through the forms, and do it by
convention Of the sovereign people. Let u;
get rid of all of her debt and 60 forth as
naked OF debt as of honor.
The decision of the United States SUI
preme Court in the case of Woodruff Us
Trapnal settled the point that one Legisla.
ture could bind another, and that State
could not break her contracts, and that The
Legislature must, il necessary to execute
the contract, increase taxation. The Su.
pre,ne Court OF Virginia, in the case Of
Knox Us. Exchange Bank, gave its uNani'
NOUS approval to that doctrine.
T.. ,.ofarnnno To tho A ntnni case Mr.. HENRY