The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-04-05
quirement is, upon iair construction, to turn,
THE LITERARY FUND

over to ].
THE LITERARY FUND
,Dhatever amount may come into the Trea
sury from the source Of fines, and dedicat
that amount to the purpose indicated. Thf
came argumentwas pressed mostyigorousi.
| in the case Of Antoni Us. Wright (suprd)
and was answered, / thiak, successfully ant
lconclusiveIy by the Iamented Judge Boul
din; and I prefer to adopt his syiewss 81
clearly and ably put, rather than mar ant
weaken them BY words or views OF my own
He says But it's argued that the con
tract in this case is void because it is rrpug
nant to the 9th section Of the 9Th article ant
Sd section of the 10th article of the Statt
Constitution, dedicating certain portions o
the State revenue to the support Of iret
schools. We think there is no such conf1ic
in the case. It only requires tha
the obligations OF succeeding Legislature.
shall be firmly met; that there should b,
what the creation OF every new debt i'm
peratively demands-to wit, an increase oi
taxation il the existing rate be insufficient
THE ARGUMENT.
is based on the assumption that subsequen
Legislatures will fail in their duty and pur
sue such q course as may result in malaD-
preparation of the funds referred to ]; tba
they will decline to meet faithfully tht
high obligation resting on them, and ther
rely on the irregular consequences OF theil
own default as an argument against tht
validity of the debt for Which they will have
failed to provide. The malappropriation
which would follow would not be the legiti
mate result OF the funding act, but in effec
would be the act OF the Legislature failing
kn 70 Irrfv rha Or fr
provide for the interest due by these c0u
pons is as high as the duty OF applying The
capitation tax and otherfu TO the schools
Both duties are alike obligatory, and botE
may be discharged, as there IS no conflic
between them. 1t is only by q failure tx
discharge the one that the performance o.
the other can be put in jeopardy, and il
rests with the Legislature, by faithfully ant
fearlessly meeting both obligations, to pre-
serve the
PL1GRTED FAITH OF THE STATE
and protect her Constitution from viola
tion.''
After this opinion Of the Court, delivered
by Judge Bouldin, was announced, there
was motion for rehearing submitted by
the Attorney General, and the Court held
the case under advisement for several
weeks, anxious to correct its decision il ii
should appear in any respect to be errone-
Gus, and to give to the case that calm and
careful reconsideration which the gravity
and the Importance OF the questions in
volved required. After candid and anX-
ious review OF the case, the Court could
find no reason to change its opinion, but
was confirmed in the justice and reasons OF
its conclusions. In delivering the judg-
ment upon the motion for rehearing,
Judge Anderson, in an able and exhaustive
opinion, discusses the whole question, re.
affirming and enforcing the views OF Judge
Bouldin; and in these views the same Judges
concurred as in the original decision. ]
mention this to show with what
DELIDERATIoN AND CARE
the questions involved in the case Of An
toni Us. Wright were considered, and the
futility of again considering these questions,
except to reafirm and adopt the principles
OF that case so far as they apply to the case
before us.
With respect to the argument made in
that case, as it was pressed in this case, that
fines and other revenues were dedicated to
the school fund, and therefore cannot be
paid in coupons, Judge Anderson, in his
opinion [22 Grattan, page S74], says:
&" 1t is said that those provisions Of the Con-
stitution which set apart certain funds and
a certain proportion Of the tax for the pub
lie schools would be defeated by this legis-
lation. It would seem to be sufficient re-
ply to say that il it were impracticable to
raise sufficient amount OF revenue for both
purposes, the latter did not impose an obli-
cation on the Legislature paramount to the
obligation to provide for the payment Of the
interest on the public debt. That was an
obligation antecedent and paramount to the
Constitution itself, and could not be
REGULATED By THE CONSTITUTION
il it had so provided. But it is not re-
pudiated nor ignored; but the obliga-
tion is clearly recognized by sections 7,
s, 10, and 20 of article 10-at least to
pay Virginia's proportion. And, further
more, this being al obligation OF debt, and
not eleenaosynary in its character, as are the
other provisions referred to, and however
desirable and important it may be that they
should be carried out, hesitate not to say
this is OF higher obligation. But there need
be no clashing of duties here. 1t is only
required that the Legislature should levy q
tax sufficient for both obiects-a duty i'm.
posed on it by the Constitution. 1t has
not been the practice TO set apart in the pub.
lie treasury the identical money received
for the public schools, nor is it required by
the Constitutions the acts of Assembly
And the Legislature has discharged its con
stitutiona obligation when it has set apar
the required amount for that purpose"
These views, expressed both upon the
first hearing andthe rehearing Of the case O
"AEToNI VS.. WRIGHT"
are applicable to the case before us, ant
must govern our decision in this case.
Much has been said in the case before u:
about the sacredness of the school fund anC
the paramount obligation of the State t.
educate the people. This is great ant
high obligation, and no doubt will be Faith
fully and firmly met by the Legislature
But, however great and high this obliga
tion, it cannot and ought not to be met a
the sacrifice OF other obligations equally
sacred, and other duties equally high anc
binding. A State, like an individual, mus
be Just before it is generous. No homes
man can or will abstract from his creditors
what is Justly due them in order to give j
to his children. No State, in order to edu
cate its citizens, ought to withhold from it!
Just creditors that which has been pledged
by its honor and plighted faith, to the pay
ment Of its just debts. Both obligation
must and will be met.
THE PEOPLE MUST BE EDUCATED,
but they must not be educated at the prize
of REPUTATION AND. DIsHoNOR. Better woult
be ignorance thar enlightenment purchased
at such fearful price.
In conclusion / will repeat here the ut
terance OF the unanimous voice OF thl
Court in the homestead cases (22 Grattan
3O1), when it declared that "no Stat
and no people can have any rea
and enduring prosperity except wher
public faith aud private faith are guard
ed by laws wisely administered anC