Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1878-02-11

passage OF which Was ANNOUNCED IN Saturday
Gazette, the two members Of the House CT
Delegates from this city delivered I'd. following
speeches:-
MR. MUsHBAcHs SPEECH.
Mr. Musbbsch stated tia, be approached The
discussion of The debt aaeEiioo chilled aod en-
barrassed by the rehactoo that every o1c with
10 the sound of bis voice had ii=tened 10 speech
es on that subject until they ware weary OF 1t,
tn! he felt it bis duty TO de6ne his position and
give bis views Cd tie question, and 10 so dolog
be would endeavor to refrain from recapl.r'at'
ing arguments previously made By other geo.
tIemeu, and call the attention Of the House 10
few considerations that seemed to have escaped
the attention OF the speakers Who preceded
him. and had not been referred to. Prehml,
ua,i!y be would say that be was no friend OF
the Fuudipg bill Of 1871. He and other geo.
tlemen On the floor bad been derlsive!y called
"Funders," under the idea that the principles
and policy OF that bill met With their full ap'
probation. Such was not the case With him.
He believed it to be an unfortunate measure
and one Of the Causes of the troubles that 90"
environed the State and has brought to the
door Of this House so many men committed to
what be believed to be unconstitutional meas
ures. It is not. however, the sole cause OF the
present condition of AFFAIR.". That Is a=crbable
az much to the non. action Of succeeding legs'
Iatures, their failure to meet the case 10 time,
and their persistent devotion to the effort to
6od out how not to pay the debt, as 1t Is TO the
enactment Of the bill ITSELF Denuociations aud
fuminstions had been hurled thick and fast
from this floor against that unfortunate bill, and
to the righteousness Of most Of the structures
be agsentcd, but he would be bind TO that
which had passed into history, and deaf to the
Logic of events, did be fail to recognize the fact
that, however Objectionable the Funding bill
may be, however unfortunate 10 that 1t tied up
and lost 70 the State the cootro OF large part
Of her owD''revenues, howeV1r lnqultous even,
it has been decided by the Supreme Court OF
| this State that it contained contract which
cannot be violated, aud any attempt direct or
Indirect, aophistcal or plausible, TO impair or
nully it, is unconstitutional. void and Of 20 eff
| feet. Gentlemen seem to tbiok that the Court
| of Appeals, seeing the State of the public mind
and the present condition Of affairs, will reverse
itself if a Dew case is made up Tor it. Mr..
Mushbach did not believeit That court is COM
posed Of men incapable of self qualification.
| Behind The Funding act, unfolding aod sus-
taloing the coupon feature OF it, is the constr.
tutioo Of the United States backed by the pew
er Ct the Federal Government, and if cur court
should fer any reason reverse its decision, or II
it refuses 60 to do and is itself 'readiusted,' it
| then becomes necessary to get the Supreme
| Court Of the United States to turn its back up.
on long line Of It's own precsdeuts. 1t too
late to say that it was wrong to pass the act, be-
cause it capitalized the arrears OF interest, COM
mitted Virginia to the payment Of war interest
and that which accrued during the rcconstruc
ton period. and withdraw from her the con.
| troll OF her revenues for number Of years.
Suffice it to say that whether right or wrong,
fraudulently or fairly, as became q lal0 and the
decision 10 Antoni vs. Wright made it an &C.
complished fact by assent that the attempt to
repeal the coupon feature OF it violated con-
| tract and when that decision was rendered the
matter passed out of the range and domain Of
| controversy.
The courts cannot and will not 20 into the
enquiry wethcr law passed by LeRisla
ture was procured and passed through fraud or
bribery. This has often been decided and is
settled law. MIR. Mushbach continuing, ex-
planned the bill low under consideration, and
said that it was proposed by it TO circumvent
the Funding bill of 1871, the Court Of Appeals.
and the constitution of the United States by
meas Of preamble. That preamble sets
out the Statements shat further increase Of
taxation is impr4 cticable-that the rcvnues Of
the State at the present rate OF taxation will
not enable the State 10 maintain its governmcn.
tai organization by paying the necessary cxpcn-
scs incident thereto, and at the same time sustniD
the system Of free schools and pay the present
rate Of interest on the amount claimed as the
principal OF the public debt, and that the pre-.
ecrvation OF the State government is absolutely
necessary. The bill then provides that CT the
present rate OF taxation, VIZ, fifty cents % the
bu do1l,r, cpo ba1f thnrnof oh ha poid
IN cash to support the government, ten cents
shall be paid IN cash to support the free
schools, aud fifteen cents may be paid in
any way, say 10 coupons, for interest on
the public debt. 10 other words tho friends
Of the present bill acknowledging that the
Funding bill was contract by ard under
which coupons were made receivable for taxes,
aud though the Court Of Appeals has sustained
the bill, and though the constitution Of the
United States provides that no State shall pass
law impairing the obligation Of contracts. yet
they claim that the bill now under coDsidera-
ton will stand the test of the courts, because it
is essential to the preservation aud safety OF
the State, that it should be passed and that the
State 10 the exercise OF its sovereignty may dis.
regard the provisions of the 10th section Of the
l st article of the u. S. Constitution providing
for the inViolabiliy of coDtracts-also that said
10th section only applies to contracts between
individuals, and not to sovereign States, &c.
These positions Mr.. Mushbach said. though
plausible. arc not tcnabc. lilo would not base
his argument on Antoni vs.. Wright, which had
been read and rcread, twisted and construed
and lodged around, so often on this floor, that
the mention of the case had a oauseating effect
on the listeners, but he would 20 back to the
beginning.
The State parted with such Of its sovereign
rights as are in conflict with the prohibitory
clauses of the Constitution Of the United States
when it entered into the confederation of States
and assented to that constitution. Prior to
entering into the Union it had right to coin
money, issue bills of credit, make treaties and
alliances, impair contracts, &c.. but it parted
with the right of a sovereign State SO far as
the power to emit bills of credit is concerned
so far as the right to coin money is coz earned
80 far as the right to make treaties and ALI
ances is coucerned-aDd 80 far az the power to
mass anu lau imnairinp tho nhlipalinna Of con.