The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-05-04


The public will doubtless bens much sur
nrlsed as we we're to learn that Judge STA
rLgs's dissenting opinion in the MAssE'
coupon case Is almost as sound dccumen
AZ The opinion Of the court. We read y
Il with equal pleasure and surprise the ioi
lowing courageous declaration:
"l,isa very grave question, and oueh
no, 10 be hastily decided. Without under
taking, therefore, to express any posit'v'
opipion on the subject, ] am inclined u
think that whatever may be The Limitations
unou tbe power Of The Legislature as tt
other subjects OF taxation. II has tDe power
10 EXEMPT state bonds from taxauon--s
mower essential IN It's nature 10 Stale cred''
and State sovereignty"
So the supreme Court OF Appeals declde'
unanimously that Mr.. MAssEr's favorI,c no.
ton was simply the notion OF man igno'
rsnt Of the law. Not one Of the Eve denies
the power.of the Legislature TO exempt Tue
McCuLIocH bonds from taxation, "difcc'
or indirect"
Judre srArLEs's alIusion to Mr. MASSEY
is not 50 caustic as that OF the court. but
il Is severe enough. lie says:
.ln n former case before this court was
m oninion ,ba, unless the Legislature had
EXPRESSLY agreed TO exempt, IL rs authorized
10 impose tax upon The State bonds ana
commons in the hands Of our own citizens;
and have seen as yet no reason 10 change
that opinion. But here the Legislature has
expressly declared the bonds issued uDder
the act OF March %, 1879, shall not be taxed.
Conceding that the Legislature mas Trans
kAin 1
how the Auditor Of Public Accounts can
correct the error, II such it be. The legis-
Iative department alone Is clothed with the
authority 10 designate the subjects OF TAXA
t,on. ri IL. fails in that duty neither the
Auditor nor any other officer OF the
State can interfere to collect the tax, how
ever peremp,ory may be the mandate OF the
Constitution in requiring the tax to be I'M
rosed IN the particular case. It's very true
that the act OF March 9th, 1876, imposes
tax on State bonds then in existence, but
that act was repealed By the act OF 18th oil
March, 1879, which expressly exempts from
taxation all bonds executed under It's pro-
vision. So that we have here not simply
failure to tax, but an express prohibition by
the Legislature against a tax, and however
patriotic and laudable may be the motives
OF the Auditor, he has no power to insist
upon the payment oil tax where II is mus
prohibited. Ny opinion, then, is that on
this branch OF the case the answer OF the
Auditor presents no sufficient ground Tor
refusal OF the mandamuS applied for by the
petitioner"
SO that Judge STAPLES concurred in the
decision that the peremp.ory fnanddmaS
ought to be issued.
Judge STAPLES goes on:
"Upon the second branch OF the question
agree with Judge Anderson that substan-
tally the same question was before this
court in Clarke Us. Tyler, sergeant. But
do not agree with him in saying l. has been
settled by repeated decisions OF this court"
Another rebuke to Mr.. MASSEY. Judge
STAPLES decides that the Auditor had raised
again question which the court had de-
cided in another case.
Wherein, then, does Judge STAPLEs's
opinion differ from that Of the Court
Upon only one important question. We
quote:
"Tbat question Is, Can The Legislature
tcke the school funds-the revenues set
apart by the Constitution Of Virginia for
educational purposes-and apply them to
the payment OF the public debt? Can one
Legislature divert Il fund from the purposes
OF a positive trust under the Constitution.
and rely upon subsequent Legislature to
raise another fund from some other source
with " hieh to execute the trust!"
Judge STAPLES answers these questions
in the negative. We are free to confess
that this is question beset with difficult
ties. We are sorely puzzled in attempting
to reach a conclusion satisfactory to our
own mind. 1t seems to US that the first
duty Of the Legislature and of all its off,
GERS is to support the State govern
ment. We suppose that Judge STAPLES
would concede this point. III so, which
fund o. ght to be held the more sacred, that
for the support OF the public schools or that
for the support OF the State government
II one or the other had TO be sacrificed be-
cause OF the failure Of the Legislature to
lay sufficient taxes to support both, which
would Judge STAPLES say ought to be held
would say that for the support of the gov
eminent; because it Is absolutely necessary
that the laws shall be executed, criminals
punished, the community protected, and
crime prevented. Every man will say The
same. Even DIR. RUFFYER would not de.
eide differently. 1t follows, then, that the
fund for the support OF the State governments
is more sacred than the fund for the support
Of the public schools. Here, then. We have
the BARBOUR bili-so much OF the States
revenue for the support Of the State gov
eminent, so much for the maintenance Of
the public schools, and the remainder fol-
the payment Of the interest upon the pub
lie debt. But just here we are confronted
with the fact that tile same Constitution
which provides that " the General Assem-
bly," Qt does not set 1t apart ITSELF shall
apply certain revenues to the education O
the children of the Commonwealth also pro
yides that the same General Assembly
shall provide by law sinking fund to be
applied solely to The payment and extin
gaishn,ent OF the principal Of the State
debt"
We repeat that II is a knotty point. Wha
reason can Judge STABLES give for obeylns
the constitutional provision in regard to The
school fund which would hot also reQur'
him to obey the constitutional provision ii
regard TO paying the public debit Wecar
think OF none. Aud over and above all i
the States contract with her creditor
backed by that provision OF the Fedora
Constitution which declares that no Stat,
shall pass any law impairing The obligation
OF ceniracts-a provision which the Su
preme Court OF the United States says APP