The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1879-01-02
Proving too Much .


Supreme Court of the United States in the
case of John T. Keath against Z. A. Clarke,
Collector, &C., in error, from the Supreme
Court OF Tennessee, to establish that the re
can be no legislation or action by Consti-
tutional Convention to impair the force Of
the Fandiug Bill contract, or relieve the
State of the operation OF the provisions of
that law.
Briefly stated, this decision OF the Supreme
Court holds that bills OF the State Bank of
Tennessee issued after secession, must be
received by the State for taxes, notwith-
standing the provisions Of the new consttu-
ton to the contrary prohibiting it. The de-
cison is TO the effect.that the twelfth section
of the charter of the bank enacted years be.
fore the war; which provides that the issues
OF the bank shall be SO received, constitutes
a contract on the part OF the State which
the new Constitution sought to impair, but
which must be sustained under the clause Of
the Federal Constitution guaranteeing pro-
lection in such cases.
The Court refused to recognize the theo-
ry advanced in the argument that there
were two States of Tennessee one 10y.
al and the other rebel-holding that such
doctrine is contrary to the principle OF SELF
government-contrary to the doctrine OF in
ternational law and the decisions of the SUI
preme Court. The obligation OF the State
created by the contract OF the charter cor
tinues, says the court, as there has been
nothing in the relations sustained between
it and the government to affect it.
The Dispatch's correspondent adds -
"Here is an act of the Legislature providing
that certain bills shall be receivable for taxes
and an attempt to eyade that provision by
the fact that the issue in controversy was
made by the State Bank when the State was
in rebellion. A Constitutional Convention
declared that these notes should not be re-
ceived; but the opinion above cited declares
otherwise. What then would itavail to sub.
NIT the questions now agitating Virginia to
Constitutional Convention? The Virginia
Legislature which passed the funding act
was loyal; that of Tennessee was rebel $50
called; yet the State was held to its con-
tract. The argument that the present hold
ers were not those with whom the contract
was made might be applied to the money
owned by the State Bank of Tennessee af-
ter it left first hands with equal FEASIBILITY.
The non-registcred bonds pass as money, 4.
G., by delivery"
This, we think, is proving most too much
even for the funders. 1t holds Virginia for
the entire original debt, and relieves West
Virginia from all responsibility for the part
assigned to her, unless she voluntarily assumes
it, which she has no thought of doing. AS
there is no positive agreement that Virginia
should be relieved OF the one third, in the
case of West Virginia not paying it, and
only be held for .two-thiris, the presump.
ton is that after the two thirds have been
satisfactorily adjusted or paid. the creditors
will put In their claim for the other one third
assigned to West Virginia. but which that
State has never recognized. This construc-
ton of this decision corresponds with the
decision OF the same tribunal in the Wyo-
ming Territory case, where county had
contracted debt, and subsequent to its ere.
alton another county had been carved out
of it. The old county claimed that the new
county ought to pay in proportion to the
taxable value of her property, but the Su-
preme Court decided that the old county,
thus shorn, was responsible for the whole
debt.
1t would be we'll enough for the Legis ia
ture, in considering this debt question, to
look into this phase of it, and in any adj
justment which may be consummated, specifi.
cally stipulate that West Virginia portion,
Or that part of the debt assigned to her, will
never be paid by Virginia. Let that point
be distinctly and clearly understood.
We do not know but that liberal appli-
cation of the Tennessee decision, would wipe
out the autonomy of West Virginia, and re-
mand the erring daughter to the embrace OF
her maternal bosom. The act OF consent in
the creation of West Virginia, was never tue
act of Virginia, clothed in her right mind.
1t was fraud and an outrage, without
parallel, and il the full recognition OF the
people of Tennessee, as citizens OF the
United States composing the State during
the years of secession, is made by this de-
cision, then applying the principle deter
mined to Virginia, West Virginia is an
abortion, for the people of Virginia, in the
sense that the Constitution recognizes it,
never gave their consent to the separation.
A few more decisions upon these deli
cate points, will complcate things wonder
fully.