The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1881-03-03
For the VALLEY vIRGINIAN.
For the VALLEY VIRaINIAN.
'sThe One Supreme Republican Issue
Next Fall

Next Fall"
A friend has kindly sent me your paper of
he 18th inst, containing a communication
With the above caption, signed "A Republican
Debt Payer" land before | proceed to make
,ome comments on that communication allow
me, Messrs. Editors, to express the gratlflca-
ion it affords me to find that the Republican
oarty of Virginia has for its organ, pa -er,
which if the number before me be a fair sam
ole is. to say the least, the equal of any politi-
cal paper in the State, not only for its size and
admirable mechanical get up, but for the dig
nity and ability and enlarged views OF public in
terest which characterize its editorial columns
The design of the communication referred
to. is to insist that the question of repeating
that provision of our State constitution which
REQUIRES pre- payment of the capitation tax, as
the condition of the right to vote, shall be
made the zone Supreme Republican issue" in
our Iall elections. If the purpose of the writer
had been to discuss the prop,aety of this re-
strction as an original measure | could have
found no fault with his wish to appeal to the
popuar Judgment Though | feel far more
than mere suspdcion that in such discussion,
"a Republican Debt Payer" would have been
found doing battle with those who believe in
and desire to maintain the time honored prin-
ciple of our Bill of Rights, "that all men haoing
sufficient Evidence Of permanent common interest
aoiM and attachment to the community, have the
right of suffrage" &C., and that none others
ought to have it.
But your correspondent does not ask a pop
ular verdict against the restriction in question,
because in itself it is either u1,aosse or unjust
but because it is IAN open and dishonorable
breach of public faith = in defiance ola fatnd0-
mental condition" under which "the State was
rehabilitated as member of the Union"
Now if by this your distinguished correspon-
dent means to say that the restrictive provis-
ion under consideration, is in violation of the
Federal Constitution, or ofany law of Congress,
passed in pursuance of that instrument, and if he
is right in either of these positions, then l
heartily concur with him that the restriction
ought to be gotten rid of as speedily as posi-
Bile, and l would vote for no man for any
office who was not of the same opinion.
But if such be the meaning of your CORE
spondent, if to require payment of the head
tax as prerequisite to the right to vote is
in any sense obnoxious to the Federal consti-
tuition, is the remedy which he proposes-an
appeal to the people-the proper one? Nay, is
it not condemned by every consideration OF
expediency and craftsmanship? Why convulse
the State, why excite race against race, why en-
counter the bitterness and strife so sure to
arise from such popular contest, in order to
abolish mere mullaty? For the restriction, if
in violation of the Federal constitution, is a
mere nullity, "brutatm fulneen" and nothing
more.
Then qohy not let the courts deal oib at?
Every lawyer knows that it would be an easy
matter to make up q case for the very purpose
of having the question judacSally decided 1t
surely cannot be due to any mistrust of the
relief to be sought" Of the courts, ''for this fla
grant defiance" of the laws of Congress, that
the Republican party prefer popular to 3u-
dacaM solution of this grave constitutional ques-
ton. For whether the proceedings to settle it
be initiated in State or Federal court, as it
may be in either, the tribunal of the last resort
is obliged to be the Supreme Court of the U. S.,
whose Judges, "a Republican Debt Payer"
will scarcely charge with being the declared
enemies of the measures of reconstruction"
For myself I am perfectly willing that the
and however adverse the result might be to my
convictions, l would esteem no man patriot
or good citizen who would not cheerfully bow
to its decision.
Not only are the Courts the proper and
usual tribunals for settling constitutional ques-
tions, but is it not plain that the people cannot
settle them? For if in the approaching elections
the popular verdict should be in favor of
the Republican party, would their oppo-
nents be est0pped from reoDening the question
and again seeking 20 establish the principle,
that no man should vote who does not give
some evidence, at least as much as payment Of
the "head tax" "of permanent common inter
est with, and attachment to the community"
This will not be pretended. On the other
hand, should the verdict be adverse to the Re-
publicans, would my distinguished and learned
friend, GA Republican Debt Payer" gracefully
acquiesce in it and advise his party to do like
wise? oh no 1t is plain that his next appeal
would be to Congress- For we are reminded
by him that if Virginia "contemns and dis
cards" the condition on which she was 'reha
blitated" as member Of the union, "the same
power that prescribed can enforce them By
withdrawing tile grant conferred IN g5rt,teg ttem"
(The italics mine) That is to say can deprive
us of representation, exclude us from the
rights and benefits pertaining to member of
the UEion, and remand us to the State we were
in, as military District No. l."
Now without just here controverting this
doctrine, and in view of the possibility of
state OF things so fraught with danger to the
liberties of our State, yea, of all the States, |
appeal to you, Messrs. Editors, and especially
to your able correspondent to say if it be not
the part of wisdom and true patriotism to
refer this great constitutional question to a
judicial tribunal which can settle it and settle
it forever, rather than engage our people in an
embittered contest which cannot decide it; and
which if "a Republican Debt Payer be right,
mag result in depriving them of self-govern-
ment, and subiecting them to military rule?
But perhaps, Msssrs. Editors, "a Republ-
can Debt Payer" may say that he does not
claim this to be a constitutional question, but
only IAN open and dishonorable breach of pub
lie faith" in that our restriction of the right to
to VOTE twas specially prohibited by Congress
as the price of readmission to the Union" And
admit that this, in terms, is the specific point
which your correspondent makes, and that he
no where says that the obnoxious restriction
violates any provision of the Federal C0nstatW-
ton. But the provision OF the law of Congress,
on which he SO boldly charges our people with
IAN open and dishonorable breach of public
faith," is itself, either in accordance with, or
contrary to the Federal Constitution. If the
former, and if, as your correspondent insists, it
took away from our people the right to re-
quire the prepayment OF the head tax as a con-
dition of voting, then the clause in our Consti-
tuition which does that, is as much violation
OF the Federal compact, as if the inhibition
were in that instrument itself. For not only
the Federal Constitution, but all laws of Con-
gress passed in pursuance ttere0f are expressly
and properly declared to be the Supreme law
of the land
Then it follows, either that the question
which your learned and able correspondent, is
so anxious to make "the one supreme issue"
before the people, as to all intents and pur-
poses a constitutional question, and may be de-
cided by the Courts, but cannot possibly be de-
caded by the people. Or, that the "open and
notorious breach of public faith" with which
the people of Virginia are charged, consists
simply in their disregard Of an unconstitutional
act Of Congress. There is no escape from this
And is this just or reasonable foundation
for such charge? Who are most dist0n0red,
the men of Congress, who in violation of their
solemn oaths, ENGRAVING this unconstitutional
provision In the act which tit is said) readmit-
ted Virginia into the Union, or the people of
Vagina, who have simply treated it as in
their opinion, mere natllSty, but who, my
word for it, will obey it, the very moment it is
decided, not by popular verdict, but by the
Judgment of your Republican Supreme Court,
that it is not nullity, but that Congress had
the right to pass it?
do not think that am loose in my notions
OF good faith" either as respects individuals
or communities. l have associated to much
with "a Republican Debt Payer" for that, if
no other influence had saved me from it, And
l admit that there may be breach, aye dis
honorable breach, of good faith even in the dis
regard of obligations which may have been
imposed unjustly. And yet 1 do not think
that any such charge can properly be made
against the people Of Virginia. For when did
they promise either expressly or by fair impli-
cation that thew WOuld forever abide the