The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-05-28

= -
r,assfts s 3 fssse t,snssi COM
.ssss vent ssls
34o tic Editors of tie
/. There are persons Ii, the state who cone
stantly and parsiste demand ts,nt the
feuislaturc shall cali Ii consts tslti onas con-
ycntiou, The purpose had iii view fsssct
fnrn ont the Judges OF our Court Oh. aap-a
meals mud fiiit their places with Other Judges
VINO will declaTe the funding bill unconstItu.
tionar and thus rid Jus oi the obligation To-
receive ceuB0ns sorsd dues to the State. !.
Ii am NOS oneut stfbss VIE think it would
be wise sas q uaeasureof policy TO, bring tlle'
people together at this time IN convention,
but T should never have had the egotism to.
suppose that Twas a matter OF any conse.
.auence what my views OF the true policy OF
tho State Is, and IL 4 had snothing else 70,
write abont you and the public would NOT.
have been troubled with this com nunica-
ton. ST "a &c
n any Oh those wi call for q constitu-7
fionaI convention will show me that am
wrong ia thinking, for. the reasons that i
an, about TO state, that O constitutional con-.
yention would be utterly pow erless TO af-
feet the status OF the coupons, he VIII give.
me. view Of the sub feet that has not yet
beet, presented to my mind. To appreciate
what is about to be said, let it be borne In
mind that the funding bill Is not claimed to
be void MS being in conflict with the Con-
stitution OF the United States. The entire
claim is that it Is void, as being in conflict.
with the Constitution of the State, for the
two reasons first, that 1t makes an unau-
thorized diversion OF the school fund, and
second, that in passing 1t the Legislature
exceeded its; delegated power. Neither OF
these, however; is a claim that it is VOID as
being in conflict with the Constitution OF
the United States.) But the highest court
Of the State has twice decided I'm Antona
u.s.. Wright, % Graft, and ler parte C!drfce,
spring term, 1873 against both these CLAIMS,
and has in both cases held that the. law IS IN
conformity with the Constitution OF the
State. & .F.tg.,
Now, it is the settled law OF the Supreme
Court Of the United States That, on an .ap-
peal to It, in determining whether or not a
law is in conflict with the Constitution OF
the State It will follow upon that point, the
latest decision Of the highest court OF that
State and those who call for new judges
expect, in view OF this rule OF decision IN
the Supreme Court, that it would follow the
decision sof the new Court OF Appeals In
holding the funding bill unconstitutional.
They aresmistaken in this. An exception
to the rule, which is JUST as we'll settled
and known as the rule itself. is that in de-
termining upon the7validity Of law ,ot1ch
authorizes The snalcing Of a contract, The
Supreme Court will not follow the latest,
bit DiN .follo,o the first decision OF me
highest court of the State, when that deci-
sion has decIared'tbe law to be in conform
ity with the Constitution OF the State. This
Il s1,$ I,n$o in Ea f1I o.
cases Gelpcice Us. Dubuque,1 WALL, 176;
Lee County Us. RogerS,7 WALL, 1871; Hebe-
n,ever Us. Io,ca. County, 8 Wall, 294;
Mitchell rs. Darlington, 4 WALL, 270; or
colt US. SUPERVISORS, 16 Wall, CTS; city of
KenoSho Us. Ldmso7,. 8 WALL, AT.
In The case OF Lee County:US. Rogers e
Wall.), Mr.. Justice Nelson delivering the
opinion OF the Supreme Court, said lat
page 1881: "We regret the difference OF
opinion on the subject OF these bonds be-
tween this Court anu the courts ofstbe State
OF Iowa; but it involves 4 principle and
rule OF property, in our opinion, so Just
aud so essential to the protection of the
rights of the bona tide holders ofothis class
OF securities that, however much we may
respect the. Judgment Of those differing
from us, we cannot, give up our own. That
difference, as we understand it, consists In
this: This Court held, in Gelpche Us. Da.-
6uq,te q Wallace, 176), that bonds issued by
counties, cities; or towns in Iowa to rail-
road companies for stock in said compa-
mics, and which said bodies at the time the
bonds were issued We're held by, the settled
OF the highest courts OF
the State to possess full power 3un-
der its Constitution and laws to issue
the same, are ever after valid and
binding upon the body issuing them in the
hands Of a, bona tide holder. Since these
bonds. were issued and in the hands OF a
bona fde holder for value, the courts OF
Iowa have reversed their previous decisions,
and now hold that these bodies possess no
such power under the Constitution and laws
of the State, and hence that they are void,
even in the hands OF the bona Jlde holder.
The learned and elaborate argument Of the
counsel for the plaintiff in error in this case
is devoted to the support Of these more re-
cent decisions, and the earnestness and care
with which he has discussed the question,
Which series OF cases shall prevail leave
no doubt of the sincerity Of his conviction.
But for the reasons stated we must respect
fully decline following him. In the case
OF GelDcke Us. Dubuque, / Wall, 1I6, the
first case in which this doctrine was an
nounced, the Supreme Court, after an
nouncing the conclusion to which the Judges
had come, say (at page 206): eve are
not unmindful OF the importance OF uni
formity in the decisions Of this Court
and those of the highest local courts
giving constructions to the laws and
constitutions OF their own States. 1t
is the settled rule Of this, Court in such
cases to follow the decisions OF State courts.
But there have been heretofore in the judi
cial history Of this Court, as doubtless there
will be thereafter, many exceptional cases.
We shall never immediate truth, justice, and
the law becausea State tribunal has erected
the altar and decreed the sacrifice" And in
HaUemeyer Us. Io,oa County, 8 WALL, 294,
the Supreme Court said, at page 303, ssWel
can look only TO the condition of things
which subsisted when they were sold. That
brings them within the, rule laid down by
this Court in Gelpcke- Us. Dubuque. In that
case it was held that IL the contract when
made: was valid by the Constitution and
laws Of the State, as then expounded by the
highest authorities whose duty il was to ad.
minister them, no subsequent action By the
Legislature OF, Judiciary can impair its OBJ.
legation. This rule was established upon
the most careful consideration. We think
it rests upon solid foundation, and we feel
no disposition to depart from it.
! Let no man take my word as to the effect
of these cases, but let every one who wishes
to form an intelligent opinion upon the
subject examine them for himself. It
does not require a lawyer to understand
them. Now, with this rule Of the Supreme
Court IN force there, 1t would be as vain q
thing 20 attempt to get that court to aban-