The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1878-04-11
DISSENTING OPINION !:

/ those who were then preSent, or who have takei
| any interest in the subject. that it was my for
t tune to aier tS with tns Of the Court il
| by which it was sustained.
| Since that time the whole question has received
press. upon the hustiugs. and in the legislative
| department. That discussion and my own more
deliberate reflections have but strengthened my
| opinion then entertained. do not see, however
that any good can be attained by further dis
one here personal---very. intelligent mind in the
State-has perhaps reached some definite, fixed
conclusion upon the subject and nothing tnat
can be said here by myself or others would alter
| or modify that conclusion. will not, therefore,
now undertake to enter into any argument OF
misfortune to differ with my brethren. I may
hereafter do so II time and opportunity are favor
able. and now reserve to myself that privilege
now to be regarded as settled law, that every de-
mand. debt, and claim dne the Commonwealth,
amount Of one million and two hundred thou.
sand dollars. may be paid in these coupons If
the Legislature under no circumstances has the
rate of taxation, what ever may be the necessi-
Ties or GO ndtion OF the people II it has surren-
oere s an control oyer the public revenues to
may be the public exigency; il the Legislature
may thus pledge the revenues of the State be-
Gated Its functions and the state stripped itself
OF one OF its
/ ATTRIBUTES OF SOVEREIGNTY.
To this but one answer has ever been given
the duty Of the Legislature to lay sufficient tax
to pay the creditor and carry on the govern ment
70 this answer That however strong the OBJ
ngatlon the public debt may impose there are
periods in the history of every State when no
Fart OF it can or ought to be paid when the
consentto wait at least for season, and Of such
times as they arise the Legislature mnst be the
Judge. The amount OF taxation the people can
nff ofn1rr
political question to be determined not by the
courts, but by the representatives Of the people
e rSa tine tb the pH6 &
government under which we live, State and Fed
eral. In the language OF the Supreme Court OF
part its powers by anyproceedings so as not
to be able to continue the exercise OF them. 1t
making permanent and indissoiuble contracts IN Il,
reference to matters of public interest,"
With h, !. this brief discussion I am content to
have said more than was necessary. desire
THE PRECISE QUESTION
now before us was not before in the case OF
Antoni VS.. Wright. 1t is true that it was dis
cussed by both Judge Bouldin and Judge Ander-
son. and, while IT. perhaps fully covered by the
cided. 1 agree that the funding act is broad
enough to include fines imposed for the violation
and still think that it is vioiative of the seventh
section of the eighth article OF the Constitution
Of Virginia, That section declares the General
Assembly shall set apart, as permanent and per-
petual literary fund. the present literary funds
OF this State, the proceeds Of all public lands do
mated by Congress for public school purposes. Of
all escheated property, of all waste and unappro-
prated lands. OF all fines accruing to the State by
mitted against the State and such other levies as
the General Assembly may apply thereto. No
intelligent man will maintain that it is compe-
vert this fund from its specific object as pre-
scribed by the Constitution. Take for example,
the proceeds Of the public lands dedicated by
sold by the State may be paid for in coupons, are
the proceeds set apart for the objects designated
in the Constitution Take the fine in this case.
II the petitioner may pay it in coupons any other
person upon whom a fine is imposed may do like
wise. Are not such fines in effect for all practic-
public debt? I can see no difference between a
law which implies them directly to the payment
authorizes them to be paid in coupons. The an
swer again is that the Legislature must increase
the taxes and supply the deficiency from other
islature divert a fund from the purposes OF the
trust under the Constitution. and Justify its ac-
tion by relying upon another Legislature to raise
objects Of the trust
The main design OF the provision OF the Cons.i-
tuition was to create a fund beyond the reach of
the Legislature, and in no wise dependent upon its
neglect and failure OF duty 1t is very true that
ury in common with other public dues. and so
long as the whole was paid in money no incon-
Ven1ence or injustice could arise; but now the
question assumes an entirely different aSpectfo
If the Legislature shall pass act directing that
the fines shall be paid in money, and the money
thus paid shall be set apart for school purposes,
under the ruling of the Court, the act would be
because the funding bill declares
that all public dues may be paid in coupons. The
result is that one Legislature may by an agree
ment with the CREDITOR appropriate to his claim |
fund set apart by the Constitution irrevocabl
for another purpose, and If succeeding legisla-
lures fail to supply other means to meet the def
cheney there is remedy for palpable violation
Of that instrument.
can never give my assent to this doctrine. It |
is the duty of the legislature by taxation to pay
the public debt. II it fails to do so it cannot JUS
tfy its action by giving to the creditor fu nd not
not under its control. Upon this point thought |
the argument Of the Attorney-General unanswer- |
able.
However potential may be the obligations of |
good faith, they cannot Justify the Legislature in
one of the essential attributes of |
State sovereignty, or in putting upon its statute
books, under the form of the contract law which
violates the plain letter of the Constitution.
Believing that the funding bill is Justly obnox-
[ous to these objections. I can never give it my
sanction as Judge OF this Court. must, there |
|, re, dissent from the opinion Just delivered.
I regret that this opinion has been necessari- |
y SO hastily pre- pared but it not until last
night that determined to reduce my views to |
writing. |