The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-10-12

The RiudiebSrEer bilt
vhe Nk;4 "A ycssssday eonsal',s h'eie
49,, ,,so aaz>n short articles touching fne
p,a,a xaxpera bln. Tint bin hiss been
wei EXPOSED ia all ~ bideous sssiorm'ty
Il ,hc peo1le 81 Virginia, and w'h never
..,,, ,ro,,l.lc fbc voters when once they
.lsl, have hsd an opportunity 70 eonslgn =
q ~ fo,nb o. the CArurErs. The follow
L enc Of the Why's paragraphs:
nqhc Fundcrs have cycn forged : nsI
n fahi whai they falsely call The Riddle
bfrgeS BIN, not daring 10 fairly and squafeiy
mcst the rea1 bin Of that namei"
OF course there has been no bin iorgeo
d, tho Funders; but, a. we SKID on 'he
alth q last month, when we Reproduced
the r,ppLrBrEoKR BIN, several OF our ex-
changes In Southwestern Virginia nave re-
nnllsshed the RrDpiEBEnGER bin as Il was
wben II came from Mr.. RIDDLEBERoEs,s
lnns,s. lnstcad Of the bin as Il was when II
Sas f,assed. II Is perfectly fair, OF course,
n nae the original BIN in discussion with
MIR. RIDpLEBEnoER himself, but not IN
discussion with any other elimination
Tho biz endorsed by the Rcadiuster Con-
yeusion appeared in the Daily Dispatch
81 se,aember oath, the Semi Weekly OF
September 25th, and the Weekly Of Sep
TENDER Goth. Also In the Wig OF October
10th. The fact, however, that the Wig
dcnounccs the original RIDDLEBERGBR bill
as forgery is good Joke on RIDDLE
BERGER.
Now, LET every voter procure copy OF
the bin aud read and study it for himself.
II constitutes the entire capital stock OF the
Readiusters. They "bank" upon that
alone. Take that away from them and they
are poor indeed. There were once good
msny true Democrats who intended to vote
ssius, this one timev with the Mahoneites
and Republicans, in the hope Of contri-
lnring thereby to the final settlement
Of The public debt Of Virginia, and to
the Kidding OF the Democratic party
Of bone Of contention. But those OF
them who have studied the subject have
reached the conclusion that there IL no set
Element in the RIDDLEBERGER bill, and that
in order to settle the debt question once
for AL they must elect Governor and
Legislature the creditors Of the State will
be willing to treat with. Every intelligent
voter eau see st Il glance that not one OF
the States creditors would entertain for
single moment, much less accept the RID
DLEBERGER proposition that he shall give
10 the State ~ per cent. Of his eonsol bonds
and foTty-four dollars and ten cents out OF
his sixty dollars Of annual interest. Such
lin is Of course known TO be fore
doomed failure, and II passed would opt-
rate only so as to defer the settlement Of the
debt.
We have often enough discussed the
point brought out in the following para
graphs from the Portsmouth Enterprise;
but that journal presents the argument so
clearly that we copy what it says Of the
case Of Tennessee rs. Saead. We quote:
The Constitution Of the State Of Tonnes
see which was in operation ut the time OF
the passage Of the act making the notes OF
the Bank OF Tennessee receivable for taxes
said:
1.-THE Jurisdiction OF the Supreme Court
shall be appellate only, under such restric-
tons and regulations as may from time to
time be prescribed by law"
The court had no original Jurisdiction.
It's Jurisdiction was appellate only, and then
under such restrictions md regulations ~
the Legislature Of the State chose to pre-
scribe from time to time, and il was under
this condition OF affairs that the Ian was
passed agreeing TO receive the notes OF the
Bank Of Tennessee for State taxes; and the
Supreme Court OF the United States held
that while the State was bound to carry out
lis contract, the Legislature had the right 4
10 provide any method It thought best to
enable the note-holder TO enforce his rights
provided il was effective.
Now, let us see what the Virginia Con-
stitution says about the jurisdiction OF our
Court OF Appeals, and no one will fail to
see the difference In the two cases. 1t
sa,s
"it shall have appellate jurisdiction only,
except In cases OF hdbcds corpus, D,dndd-
mus, and prohibition,
Therefore, in cases OF hG6eas corpus,
sndndGmuS, and prohibition 1t has ORIGINAL.
jurisdiction; and further 1t says:
at shall not have Jurisdiction In civil
eases where the matter in controversy, eX-
elusive OF costs, Is less In value OF amount
than $500, except in cases OF
ha6eas corpus, mondGmuS, and prohibit
ton, or the eonstitutIouality Of law.'
Therefore it will be readily seen that
while the Court Of Appcsls Of Tennessee
had no original jurisdiction, the Court Of
Appeals Of Virginia has original iurisdic-
ton In eases Of mdnddmus, and il has iuris-
diction where the constitutionality OF a law
is involved, no matter how small the amount
OF money involved. This Is provision
OF the State Constitution, which overrides
the act OF the Legislature, and no matter
how much Readiuster speakers and Read
iusteT papers may tell the people that the
Legislature can deprive the court Of ju-
risdiction vested in it by the Constitution,
!. Il Is not so. When the Constitution says
onething and the Legislature says another
the Constitution Is supreme, and the act OF
the Legislature falls hence the section Of
the Riddlebergcr bin which seeks TO de-
priye the Court of Appeals OF Jurisdiction
10 try the eonstltutlonality of the law l.
entirely void, and the courts viii compel
the tax.collector to receive coupons in pay
mont q taxes.
------------------
The Answer.
W. atked veefardav boxxy k.,It&o. r.c