Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1881-10-18
The Riddleberger Bill.
!. The Dispdtch discusses the Riddle-
berger bill under seven different head
ings as follows:

l. The Dispdtch discusses the Riddle.
berger bill under seven different head
ings as follows:
l. It attempts to repudiate thirteen
millions of the public debt of Virginia,
most of which repudiated debt Is evi.
denced by bonds issued by authority of
the Legislature and the Governor, and
sighed by the States own officers. This
amount thus attempted to be repudiated
is not separate and distinct debt, for
repudiating which there might be spe-
cial reasons. hut is the sum total of At
per cent. arbitrarily taken off the peeler
bonds, and 40 per cent. arbitrarily taken
off from another portion of the debt.
2. It attempts to compel the bond
terms. How? By providing that noth-
ing but 80 called loan certificates and
the usual currency shall be received for
taxes. This outrageous provision was
framed for the purpose of evading q de-
ciston Of the Supreme Court of Appeals
of Virginia that the coupons of the con.
sol bonds must be received for taxes. A
decision Of the Supreme Court of the
United States rendered since the Rid
dleberger bill was passed and vetoed,
requires the State Of Virginia to receive
the coupons for taxes at their face value.
The Readjusters have endorsed the bill
since the decision was rendered. Thus
the fourteenth section of the bill is an
attempt to render of none effect the de-
cisions of these high tribunals by pro-
viding that the Taxpayers of Virginia
shall not be allowed to use the very cou-
pons which these courts say they are en-
titled to use in paying their taxes.
8. But the same section is in fragrant
violation of the Constitution of Virgin
Ia and the laws of the United States. It
provides that outside of the county
Legislature, there shall be no remedy
Illegally although the Constitution of
Virginia expressly gives to the Court of
Appeals Jurisdiction in cases involving
the constitutionality of law, as well as
in cases of habeas corpus, mandamus,
and prohibition. Isn't 1t pretty con-
fession for the Republicans Of Virginia
to make, that their allies have attempt-
ed to provide for collecting revenue ''il-
legally" In thst they have authorized
TAX collectors to refuse coupons, and
hen provided that neither the circuit
courts nor the Court of Appeals should
have Jurisdiction in such cases? Does
not every one see that that provision is
substantially an attempt to set aside, in
contempt of the constitution and laws
of the United States. decree Of the Su.
preme Court of the United States.
4. But all these attempts are now seen
to be dead failures. As Ran Tucker
and John Goode declare, the constitu-
ton of Virginia says the coupon holders
can appeal to the Supreme Court of APP
peale, and that's the end of it. The
coupons will be received. The judgment
judgment of the highest court In the
United States, will be respected. The
rights of property are safe. There can
be no reputation in Virginia. The
people are poor. but they are not poor
enough to be repudiatiOnists.
5 Aud then lCok at the silly section
authorizing sloan-certificates. Never
was there SO clumsy device for repu-
dating debt. or evading law, or kill
ing a courts decree Riddleberger tries
TO compel the coupon holder to accept
the terms of his bill by providing that
prOperty-Owners may pay their taxes In
loan certificates bought at fifty cents on
the dollar. But the repudiatOr made
bad calculations, as we have often
shown. The coupons can be sold at two
cents on the dollar lower than the loan-
certificates, and will then yield the
bondholder almost double what Riddle.
berger offers him. So there is absolute
ly no inducement at all held cut to the
consol bondholder to fund under the
Riddleberger bill. Heis not such fool
az to exchange thousand dollar 6 per
cent. bond for bond for $3.50 bearing
only per cent. The former will yield
him q thousand dollars at maturity and
sixty dollars year in coupons in the
meantime. Those coupons at 48 cents
on the dollar would yield him SIS. 80 .
year as against the $l6. 80 which Riddle
berger offers him. There is Of course
not q bondholder who would even en-
tertain the Riddleberger proposition for
q moment, much less accept it,
6. The Riddleberger bill provides that
the certificates issued under the Henkel
bill shall not be received for taxes! The
professed friends of the public schools
did this! Wait till John Daniel catches
Riddleberger on the stump again.
Z. The RiddIeberger bill provides that
executors, administrators, and others
acting as fiduciaries may invest In Rid
dleberger bonds II the court says sO.-
Why should any more widows and or
phans be cheated? Thousands Of dol
lars-nay, hundreds ofthousandso of doll
lars-were aforetime invested In Vir.
ginia bonds by fiduciaries, upon the
faith of the Commonwealth. But Mr..
Riddleberger and his associates deny
that the bonds issued to widows and or
phans under the funding bill of 1871
and the McCulloch bill are binding up
on the State. Is Mr.. Riddleberger's or
General Mahone's word better than
Governor Walkers or Governor Holli-
days? Is the signature of q Readiuster
official better evidence of debt than
the signature of Democratic official?
Will any fiduciary be justifiable In
trusting to Virginia's honor again? If
her plighted faith of 1871 and 1879 is
worthless, her pIighted faith of 1882 will
be worthless ALSO If the Legislature Of
1871 and 1879 could not make binding
contracts, no more can the Legislature
of 1880.
| "How came those holes in your ell
bows ?" said q widowed mother to her
only son. "Oh, mother; 1 hid behind
the sofa when Colonel Gobler was say
ing to Maria that he'd take her even u