The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-02-12
girl,mona Dlspattll.
rurRspAy. FEBRUARY ~ $780,
rne New Funding BIZ.

n the Wh;q will look into the facts care
su,lv. n will dod that, as we SAID on tues
a.v the Tennessee case won't nt tue s''ua.
s,.n ,n virgins, and that that case d,d
substantially turn upon The fact tha' tue
Constitution Of that State had no sucb pro-
vi.,on in II when the contract IN conuo'
ver.y was entered into as the Virginia Con.
.,,,utiou had n IL when the contract OF isti
with our bondholeers was entered i"'o. ~
Che Constitution Of Tennessee bad had 10 "
In 1875 an article identical with .ne e''
.rtic,e OF the Virginia State CONSTITUTION
she surrcme Court Of Tennessee cou'" "o'
aa.e refused the mandanus appied ior'
.,d tho rise would have been decided oteer'
wise nj hone, aud II Il had gone 10 WISH
sno,on would have gone under c'rcum'
stances very different from those unue.
which il did get into the supreme court Vi
the Z nited States.
The Constitution Of Virginia, as we ha'e
heretofore said, gives TO the Supreme Court
OF Appeals original jurisdiction IN cases Oh
hoteas corpus, maRdasaNs, and prof''o'f'0n'
and appelate jurisdiction in any case IN
which the conslitutionalty OF law Is III
solyed, las in many other cases.) Now, tue
LEGISLATURE has no power 90 take array from
Chat court a Jurisdiction conferred oy 'he
organic law OF the State. Yet this Is eX'
sactly what the new funding bill proposes
TO do. That high tribunal has so oiten
issued these writs that nobody VIII deny
that as the law now stands every taxpayer
has the right 10 apply to that tribunal Tor
,aandanus commanding the collecting OIL
GERS of the State TO receive coupons for taxes
The new funding bill attempts to take away
this constitutional right OF the taxpayer
and this constitutional power OF the SUI
preme Court Of Appeals. We say again,
the Legislature has no power to do 1t. That
court would subject itself TO the scorn OF
every other court in the United States, and
especially OF the Supreme Court of the
United States, il II should allow It's rights
TO be invaded in so ineXcusabe manner
by the legislative department OF the Govern
ment. As well might the Legislature Try
10 legislate it out of its right to issue the
writ OF hobedS corpus in the cases Just taken
up TO it from Henrico county. As well
might the Legislature give exclusive lurls-
diction IN all such cases to the county
courts. Let that body try it to-day, and see
what answer it Will receive from that august
tribunal.
The wing seems to think that constitu-
tional provision may be regulated by law.
We grant. OF course, that the Legislature
has power t. prescribe the manner in which
a constitutional provision may tie rigidly
enforced and its mandates strictly obeyed.
And il the new funding bill did only these
things, ii would not be open to the obiec-
ton which we have brought against it. But
the fact is that that bill provides that
"here shall be no other remedy" than
suit in the county Or'corpOration court OF
the county or city in which said revenue
was assessed and paid. Under the shallow
pretence OF regulating "the processes
named in the 18th section" OF the new
funding bill. the Legislature proposes TO
take away from the highest court in the
State jurisdiction conferred by the Con-
stitution, and to give to the lowest court III
that most important matter the collection
OF taxes are concerned, a power SUI
perior to that possessed by the high
Court Of Appeals! To state such
proposition is TO condemn it. The Ten
nessee law provided, on the contrary,
that similar cases in that State might
be tried Sin any court having Jurisdiction
OF the amount and parties" III the new
funding bill had copied this provision from
the law OF Tennessee, whence nearly every
thing else in that bill was taken, it would
not have been uncOnstitutional-at least in
that feature OF it. by the way, in changing
the language OF the Tennessee law the
Trainer of the new funding bill MADE most
absurd blunder Instead OF making The bill
read that SUIT might be brought in the court
of the county or corporation in which said
revenue was assessed and paid, be made it
read, Gin the county or corporation court
in uhich said rerenae todS assessed and
paid" 1t would puzzle even new county
Judge to tell in what "court" said reye-
nue. was assessed and pad.")
worm advocates object TO that feature Of
the new bill which requires portion OF the
revenue to be collected separately and
placed TO the credit of the sinking fund
We don't object TO it. We think it good
provision. Its object is exactly the same as
was the object OF that feature OF the old
funding bill which made the coupons re-
.ceivable for taxes. 1t was used as a SUBJ
-stitue dor the provision making coupons
receivable for taxes. And in principle it
differs in no wise from the law providing
for those =" cut-worms OF the treasury"
unless. indeed, as we have said before, the
States officers are expected to violate their
.oaths and the law, and use this money for
purposes other than that single purpose au.
Ifhorjzed by the new funding bill.
kn Oversight.
The new funding bill proposes to evade