The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1878-04-11
The Coupon Decision.

we puDIlSn To-Day the substance u tilc teAU
Of the coupon case recently decided by the
Court Of Appeals sitting at Richmond, and
the dissenting opinion of Judge Staples. Did
our space permit, we would cheerfully give
in full the opinion of the Court as pro
| nounced by Judge Christian, in order that
our readers might the better appreciate the
mastery exposition of the Constitution by
Judge Staples, by far the ablest Judge on the
| bench, and one whose mind comprehends
the scope and purpose of organic law.
While we entertain the greatest reverence
for the Courts and the decisions which they
reach, as q general rule, the extraordinary
conclusion to which Judge Christian ar
rives, with the approval OF majority of his
colleagues, must be our excuse for offering a
| few reflections not strictly in harmony with
the Difference we feel for the tribunal lie
| represents. When, indeed, Judge can
reconcile it to his sense OF official duty to
decide that legislative enactment is Of SUI
perior dignity to the fundamental law of the
State, land the provisions and commands OF the
Constitution must give place to that legisla-
tive enactment, we feel warranted in calling
public attention to the monstrous doctrine,
and invoking the careful thought of every
citizen who respects the government under
which he lives, and of which he is part.
Judge Christian, without so much as re-
viewing the opinion expressed by the Court
IN the Antoni- Wright case, which declared
the Funding bill Constitutional and its pro-
visions binding, although eminent lawyers
question the soundness of thas opinion, as
sumes that it is i1fallible, and upon this as
sumption proceeds to declare the Constitu-
tional provision for the 'spermanent'' and
| perpetual support of the Public Free
Schools practical nullity, because it cannot
be carried out SO long as the Funding bill.
enacted by the Legislature subsequent to
the adoption OF the Constitution, is in force
In other words he declares that an act OF the
Legislature is of higher dignity and more bind
ing obligation than the Constitution Itself
that the organic law must give way to the
legislative resolve, and that the instrument
which created and gives vitality and direc-
ton to government is inferior to one of the
departments which it vitalzes-that the Leg
islature may destroy and has destroyed the
| Constitution, and that the Funding bill the
supreme law of Virginis-above Courts,
above the Constitution, above the sovereign
power of the people
This extraordinary doctrine by the Court,
however much the people may respect the
judiciary and reverence its authority, will
not be accepted as final determination of this
question. The plain letter of the Consttu-
ton antagonizes it, and the people owe
higher allegiance to that instr ument than
they 10 to the partizan decision of any tri-
bunal created by it, however exalted its
functions and sphere. n r sssi i'..i.
The Sd section of the Sth article of the
| Constitution provides that the ssGeneral As
sembly shall provide by law, at its first ses-
sion under this Constitution, uniform sys-
tenn OF public schools, and for its gradual,
equal and full introduction into all the coun-
ties of the State by the year 1862 The 9TH
section of the Sth article provides that the
General Assembly shall set apart, as a per-
naanent and literary fund.- certain
| revenues, and the 9th section of the same
article says that the Legislature 'sshaW APP
ply the annual interest on the literary fund,
the capitation tax provided by the Constitu-
| ton for public free school purposes, and an
annual tax upon the property of the State
| OF not less than one mill nor more than five
mills on the dollar for the support of the
schools There is no ambiguity in the Ian
guage. 1t is imperative. Notwithstanding
| this, the Court decides that these direct and
positive mandates are Of less binding force
than Legislative enactment, and that when
the two clash the Constitutional provision
must yield to legislative act--that the
Funding bill coupons may absorb the reve-
| nues dedicated by the Constitution to the
Free Schools, and the fundamental law ere
ating the schools stand practically nulitied,
and the schools destroyed. Quoting from
the decision OF the Court in the case Of An
toni VS.. Wright, Judge Christian adopts the
following argument: SIT is said that those
provisions OF the Constitution which set
apart certain funds and certain proportion
of the tax for the public schools would be
defeated by this legislation. 1t would seem
to be sufficient reply to say that if it was
impracticable to raise sufficient amount of
revenue for both purposes, the latter did not
impose an obligation on the Legislature par
amount to the obligation to provide for the
payment of the interest on the public debt.
That was an obligation antecedent and para.
mount to the Constitution itself, and could not
be repudiated blythe Constitution If had so
prouided.''
II this position be true, and is to be recog-
nlzed as the final adjudication of this cues.
ton, it interdicts the very object sought to
oefortified, declares the Funding bill UNI
constitutional, and forces upon Virginia the |
entire debt and interest as it existed before
and at the time the Funding bill was enact
ed. 1t is contended by the supporters of
the Funding bill that it even repudiates one
third OF the debt, by arbitrarily assigning it |
TO West Virginia-an autonomy that had |
no existence at the time the debt was con-
tracted, could not have been party to it.
and has never recognized it. If the debt is
paramount and antecedent to the Constitu-
tson, it certainly, to say the least, would
bear relation of equal dignity to legisla-
tue enactment; so this conclusion of the
Court both declares the unconstitrtionality
OF the Funding bill and fastens irrevocably
the entire debt of $45, OO0, 1000, as ascertained
in 1871, with the accumulated interest since
then, on the State of Virginia. The real
fact OF the case, however, Is that the
present recognized debt was formulated
and determined by the Funding bill after
the adoption of the Constitution. or at least
so much of it as is represented by the cou-
pom bonds, the peeler bonds representing
the antecedent debt. The new bonds con-
stitute new contract, subject and subordi-
nate to the Constitution, and not paramount
to it.
Not the least OF the objections to the views
of Judge Christian is the extraordinary as