The Russellville Democrat., 1880-06-10
Proposed Constitutional Amend
 ment.

Proposed Constitutional Amend.
 ment.
 From Little Rock Gazette.
 There are two objectioEs to the proposed amendment, which are en- tertained by those who are opposed to the payment of all fraudulent and unjust claims. The first of these is that the amendment covers class of bonds which have not yet been de- clarcd by the supreme court or any other judicial tribunal of the State :, to be illegal or invalid--they are so- called Holford bonds. It has always been the theory and boast of those who have heretofore been character. ized as repudiators, that while op. posed, to the bitter end, to the pay. mont of single dollar of unjust, il. legal or fraudulent claims, they would, at tlIe same time, serupulous- ly contend for the payment, to the last fsrthing, of every just and law. ful claim.
 But the question arises, who is to pecide as to whether ,- certain claim is le. gal or illegal, just or unjust2 The better opinion and common sense of the people is, that tue supreme court is the proper and only competent tribunal to decide that question first, because it is in the line of their constitutional and legitimate duties and functions; and, secondly, because their decision would carry with it the sanction of law and impartial justice, and give satisfaction abroad as we'll as at home. This was eer- tainly the views of the state conven- tion of '7S, which, while recommend \ ing a proposed amendment to the constitution, limited it to the repudi- ation of the railroad aid and levee bonds, which had been declared un. constitutional by the supreme court, and the fraudulent part of the Hol. ford bonds. It was, of course under. stood that the supreme court would have to decide what part and amount of those bonds were illegal, before the amendment could operate against them. But the proposed amendment goes further than this. and repudl. ates the whole of the Holford bonds.. ;. unconditionally, leaving no option or discretion with the legislature, if the supreme court should happen here after to decide that there is a part of these bonds that are legal and binding. Many so-called repudi- ators are opposed t1 the amendment because of it's including class of bonds about whose legality there at least doubts, and upon whose validi- ty the supreme court may not yet pronounce judgement.
 The next objection to the amend ment is, that it will bring reproach and bad oder upon the character anks reputation of the State, without &C., complaining any adequate or com psnsatory good. The railroad aid and levee bonds having been declar- ed illegal and void by the supreme court, are already put beyond the pale of legislative recognition by ! that provision of the constitution which prohibits the legislature from the payment of illegal debts. The amendment could no more effectual- ly kill these two classes of bonds than they have already been killed by the decisions of the supreme court. In planting outselves oxr these decisions, we are justified and sustained by public oplnlon and en- frightened sentiment of the nstior, while we would fail to find such moral support Tn resting upon a mere constitutional amendment without the sanction of judicial decision. Now the question that presses itself upon the minds of all thoughtful and considerate people is, whether, for the sake of getting rid of the comparatively small sum as that involved in the alleged illegal part of the Holford bonds, we should be willing to incur the odium anA reproach of being held up to the world as a repu6iating State? We believe that the better judgement Of the people is opposed to incurring this responsibility for the sake of gaining so small and temporary a benefit; and especially so in view of the further fact and consideration, that the adoption of the amendment would still leave open all the equit- ies involved in each of the prescribed ,,Iaooas of kApIo