The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-09-20
a. ....1l ea.,,.,el ran 90 ltsif.tIeg

To-
iinnfiar,5nf q. contract did not apply 20 tbc
nansroct of State. [ heard him assert the
saTna THING in 6 discussion ] had with him
fhrse weeks sljack at SuFFy Courthouse.
toid him then that The Supreme Court md
-,,,s,,y times decided TO the contrary, and
now. that he mav never impose upon
anV one with this claim again, 1
wiii mention some amongst the many
cases iu--wfIich the Supreme Court
has rejected. that, proposition. Mr.. Royal
then referred to the cases Of New Jersey Us.
wilson, Z GFancE; Piqua Bank Us. =hnoop,
1g How.,- $685., Ohio Life and Trust Com
many Us. Debolt, 10 How, 418; Dodge Us.
WooIsey, IS How, 3S4; Mechanics and
Traders Bank Us. Thomas, Is How, 1874 !;
lib. Us. DeboIt, IS How, $50; McGhee rs.
Mathis, Wati., 1913; Home OF the Friend
less Us. Rouse, s Wall, 430; Woodruff Us.
TrapnalL 10 How; Furman US. Nlcole, .
WALL; Wilmington Railroad Company os.
Reid t3-Wali. New Jersey US.--fard, 4
Otto: Murray Us. Charleston, Otto;
Keith u.s. Clarke, Z Otto. ~.
mir. Royal theultook up Parson Massey's
proposition thasiwe. :~ ";Ir|i% '"" :"
lHi- .-nnt DON'T? OWE ALI THE DEBT J,'i..
tbat.the McCuli6eh bill recognizes 1882, 000,-
O00), because when the settlement OF 1871
was made tie interest which accrued during
the war was inciuaPd,' which, the Parson
says, we were under no obligation, moral or
legal, to pay. Whether we owe the war in
terest or not, yet 34,000,000 OF the money
| we borro wed was spent within ouf State as
it exis, sto-day. w therefore certainly got
the benefit Of more money than we now
owe, and: it is hard to see upon what ground
we can complain of the amount that the
T.; n,,f 1ot ha
Parsons proposition be examined. 1t IS
undoubtedly a conceded proposition Of in
ternational law that the citizens Of one
belIieerent will not be compelled to pay
interest upon debts due to the citizens Of
the other beiligerent during the time that
war lasts between the two powers. The
reason upon which the rule is founded is
tuati q state OF war iorbids all intercourse
between citizens Of two powers at war with
each other and equity forblds that the citi-
zen who is prevented from paying h;S in
terest by agencies over which he has no
control should be made the sufferer by it.
But the principle extends no further than
to exempt the citizen OF one OF the belioe-
rents from liability to citizens OF the other
belligerent. 1t does not exempt the gov
ernment itself from liability on its con-
tracts. The citizen is compelled to obey
the command Of his government, and
engage in the war whether he VIII
or not rot so, however, OF the gov
eminent. tt has its choice whether
it will embark in the war or not. And II
it chooses TO 90 into it, it will not be heard
afterwards to plead its own act in mItlga-
ton Of its duties. During the Cr1mean
war. when England was engaged in death
struggle with Russia, yet 50 solicltous was
tI,+ 81, In
Petersburg to pay interest upon her bonds
held by Russian subjects; and the English
House OF Commons, upon motion being
made prior to the peace OF 1915, to learn
what mart OF the debt Of Great Britain was
held by French subjects, voted the motion
down, and paid her interest upon all alike.
But, further, the rule only.
ExEMPTs FROM THE OBLIGATION
to pav interest to citizens OF the other belli-
cerent. 1t affords no immunity from obll-
cations to neutrals. Now, suDposlng the
Parson could have his principle stretched
80 as TO take in governments, yet he would
have to show that all our bonds were held
during the war by citizens OF the United
States. our enemies. He could not plead
the principle as against persons who held
our bonds who were not citizens or the
States that were loyal to the United States
Government.
Parson Massey and the other repuda-
ton orators, said he, raise great cIallor
about the exemption OF the new BONDS
from taxation. Let this thing be looked
at sauarely. They claim that tue oonus
are not held and owned by |lrglnlailS' 0ut
by foreigners. Do they not know tllt
the exemption does not exempt them from /
,ovat;on at the hands OF the governments |
whose citizens own them? They are taxed |
tbere would the ParSon have them taxed |
there and here also: But to go deeper into |
the matter, The bonds OF the State now out
Standing bear per cent. interest. The State |
wishes TO reduce her interest TO per cent, |
which will be Il SAYING to her Of one million |
Of dollars per annum. Her right TO tax her |
debt, il she had any such right, would only |
Weld her S150O00 per annum, that being 30
cents on the 800 OF its face-value. Now. il |
by eXempting the new bonds from taxation
she reduces her interest one million al dol
lars Der annum, has she not made an excel
iert bargain? She gives up S150.0O0 per
annum and receives in return 81, 100000 per
annum. / think she can stand that.
MIR. Massey argues that the
... IL. PRESENT STATE OF VIRGINIA
is under no obligation to pay the debt which
the old State o! Virginia contracted, because
by some sort OF hOcus-pocus which Dir. Roy
all SAID he could not understand the present
State was not the old State. For the State
OF Virginia to hold on to and use daily the
works OF internal Improvement which her
creditors money constructed, and to plead
that she was under no obligation to repay |
the money which those creditors lad ad-
vauced to her for that purpose, for the real
son that she was not the same State, was
exactly the same thing as Tor Doy just
under twenty-onc to buy a suit OF clothes,
and refusing TO pay for them, and being |
sued for the price after arriving at the age |
OF twenty-one, to stand up in court with the
clothes on his back, and plead that he was |
an infant when they were purchased, and
that therefore he was not the man that
bought them. And Mr.. Royal said that he
had seen it stated in print that there was Il
Justice Of the peace in Louisa county that
was willing to swear, that Mr.. Massey was
that very boy. No one, said Mr.. Royal,
upon the other side denies that we bor-
rowed this money, spent it, and agreed TO
repay it. They say, however that the state
OF Virginia may determine for hersef that
she is unable TO do her entire duty, ana that
she may determine for herself how much OF
her duty she is obliged to perform.
Was there ever before known case IN |
which party in interest was held entitled
TO sit in Judgment in his own cause:
II the State claims to be unable TO per-
form her entire duty, let her call in impair
iial third parties to determine what part or
her duty She should perform. The judy !
mpnt al such an arbiter would be acquieSced