The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-09-25
The Sinking Fund.

When man secretly conveys all his pro-
perty to his wife, and few months after
doing so announces that he is bankrupt
without assets, he is usually denominated
swindler. Fortunately the State OF Nir-
ginia cannot engage in any such nefarlous
transactions. Ii she could, the AgItators
would call upon the good old Common
wealth to do it. For they claim that the
MCCULLoCH bill violates q contract which
she has made with herself or with part OF
herself; or, in other words, deprives part
OF herself of right which part OF herself
has under the Constitution made by her
self
This is neither joke nor libel. 1t Is
an actual fact. We find the proposition
maintained in one of the most decorous and
well-writtcn articles which we have ever
seen from the pen of an Agitator. In that
article we are gravely informed that the
old funding bill has interfered fatally with
"the constitutional rights OF the sinking
fund, OF the literary fund, Of the school
system, and OF all the beneGciarics OF these"
II would be hard TO say what the constitu-
tional rights of the sinking fund are. 1t is
true the Constitution says that "the Gene
raj Assembly shall provide by law a
sinking fund.-" but it does not say how
large fund that shall he. 1t does, how
ever, declare that that fund shall be cap
piled solely to the payment and eXtnguish-
ment OF the principal Of the State debt"
Parson MASSEY, PAUL, FULKERSoN, and the
rest Of the Agitators, who have sworn to
support the State Constitution, and who are
now doing all that they can to prevent "the
payment" OF the public debt, may well ask
themselves whether they have not violated
their oath Of office. And it would be at
least modest for them to make no
! further illusions to what the Consti-
tuition requires in this respect. So far from
trying to provide sinking fund, those ASi-
tators have used their utmost eXertions to
render The State bonds absolutely worth
less-those held By the sinking fund as well
BoUR bill, which was intended to render
those bonds yalueless, and so to minister to
forcible reimbursement, proves that they
have no respect for the constitutional re-
qurements touching the State debt.
But, view the subject rs We may, there is
nothing in the claim that enc constitutional
requirement is more binding than another.
II the State is as poor as she is represented
to be by the Agitators, and therefore unable
to comply with all the requirements OF the
Constitution, where is "the higher law"
which demands that the requirement in re-
gard to the sinking fund shall override the
requirement in regard to the payment Of
the public debt? 1t is the fault of the
Agitators that all OF those requirements
are not respected. Shall they blame lis
for their owa shortcomings? We would
provide for the sinking fund and
also for paying the creditors Of the,
State. II we succeed in doing one OF these
things we shall do more than the Agi-
tators. Their complaint that the sinking
fund is not provided for is as impudent and
hypocritical as the plea OF the Partisan muir
derer OF bis father and mother who, when
asked what he had to say for himself,
claimed the protection OF the court for o
poor orphan. They have murdered the
credit OF Virginia, and now claim that the
debt-payers shall reyiyify 1t, or yield the
reins OF governmental their hands.