The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-07-07
The Coupon-KiIler.

CIV. MEREDITH, ESQ, Of this city, has
an article In the July No. Of the Virginia
Lao Journal, showing up in amusing style
the incongruitics Of the RrDDLEBERGER bill
known ~ the coupon-killer. He quotes the
law In full, and then analyses IL. When
we read his statement that the act in ques-
ton declares that The bonds issued under
the Funding and McCULLocH acts "are In
existence without authority OF law" we at
first thought that he had read the coupon
killing law hastily and misunderstood 1t.
That our readers may see how he iustifies
his construction Of 1t, we copy few para
graphs from his article:
"The act, rs seen above, begins with
number OF reasons for its birth. The first
one given is that the bonds issued under
the Funding and 'McCulloch act 'are
in existence ,oithom authority Of h,c.'
"To most minds il would occur that this
is an amusing reason to give for desiring
10 protect the holders OF those bonds. The
ijlegality or lnvalidity Of the bonds Is al-
leocd as a reason why they should be pro-
tccted by additional legislation. This is "a
Their startling non seQuitur.' The inva-
lidity OF contract Is never deemed rea-
son for its being aided to more perfect
enforcement. To use trite phrase, this is
indeed heaping Goals OF fire upon the heads
OF the exacting holders Of invalid bonds.
This is carrying to an extreme The doctrine
OF turning the remaining cheek when smit-
ten on the other. No, the title to the act is
an exquisite piece OF irony.
at must be admitted that the allegation
contained in that reason is premeditated
and direct attack upon those bonds. 1t
NAV be noticed that this reason cannot be
said TO be minor one, for it occupies the
honor OF being the first one alleged. Thus
at the very start court in constituting this
act sees that the validity OF the bonds issued
under the said two funding acts is denied.
Even ahurried reading Of the act must sa-
tisfy one that there is no doubt about the
correctness of this view. The language OF
the reason itself shows that 1t is intended
TO be IN emphatic denial of the validity o,
all bonds issued under the said funding
acts.
.'But should there be doubt in any ones
mind whether this is a correct reading OF
the first reason, it will be quickly dissl-
mated by reading the second reason that Is
given.
"Thc second reason states that other
such bonds are in existence which are spu-
rious, stolen, or forged etc. This shows
that the first reason was not intended TO
apply to spurious, stolen, or forged
bonds. II is made the office Of this second
reason to denounce them. The first reason,
then, must have been intended rs . denial
of the validity OF the genuine bonds. This
4. . o,,I,. roasouobln construction
"But the fifth reason furnishes demon
Stration of the correctness OF this view.
There it is said, 'and whereas such frauds
on the rights of the holders OF the df0re-
said bonds impairs the contract made 10y
the Commonwealth with them What are
referred to by the words aforesaid
bonds: The language must have refer
ence to those mentioned in the first reason.
None other had been alluded TO as being
genuine. 1t is true that they are denounced
rs invalid, but is not denied that they are
genuine.
"These views prove that the first reason
was intended as an attack on the genuine
bonds-those ISSUED by the State under the
two funding acts. This is the light shed
by the first reason upon the purpose OF the
Legislature in passing the act. 1t will be
seen that the second, third, and fourth rea-
sons allege the existence of frauds, and the
fifth asserts that such frauds on the rights
OF the holders OF the bonds, which are in
existence without authority OF law, impair,
the contract made by the State with them.
"Aiter this clearly complicated state
ment OF the pressing nSed for the act it
proceeds to state, therefore, for the pur-
pose OF protecting the rights OF said bond
holder, (whose bonds are in existence
without authority Of law, and OF enforcing
the said contract (Which is invalid), etc.,
BE ii enacted ETC., etc. Such being the
contradictory inducement to the act, what
must be the opinion that 4 court, called on
to construe the act, will have OF its good
iaithl Its suspicious Of covert and I'M
proper purpose must necessarily be immc-
diately aroused