Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1884-08-22
The RiddIeberger Bill


the matter of the petition of John
p. Faure as. The Board of Com
missioners of the Sinking Fund for
mandamus, as follows:
"The petitioner, John p. Faure,a |
citizen of New York, on the 26th |
day of April, 1884, presented for
funding four consol bonds for 500
each, with the coupons attached,
which matured on the 1st of July,
1854, and after. He also presented
one hundred and fifty past-due
coupons, each for $50, detached
consol bonds which Ind matured
in January and July, 1888, and in
January, 1884. The commissioners
refused to fund these evidences of
debt as desired. Faure then pre-
sented his petition for a writ of
mandamus to the Circuit Court of
the city of Richmond praying that
a mandate may issue to the mem
bers of the Board of Sinking Fund
Commissioners commanding them
70 fund these evidences Of debt
dollar for dollar as the past-due
coupons, and at the rate of % per
100 as to the four bonds and the
interest on them from January l.,
1884, to April 26, 1884.
The Judge says there is no doubt
as to the jurisdiction Of his (Cir-
cuit) court. lie refuses to remand
the case, as moved by defendants,
and said:
The only question to be deter
mined is whether the cOnsOl cou-
pons which have fallen due since
July 1, 1882, are to be funded, dol
lar for dollar, as the coupons are
which fell due before that date.
They certainly should be funded
on the same terms, if theparagraph
of the Riddleberger act which has
been quoted so declares in un-
ambiguous language.
1That paragraph is as follows ::
"For her equitable share of Glass
| A at the rate of 90 per centum-
that is to say, S53 of the bonds
authorized by this act principal and
accrued interest, at par, from the
preceding period of maturity to the
date of exchange) are to be given
for every 800, face, principal and
accrued interest from the preced'
ing semi-annual period of maturity
to the date of exchange of such
evidences of debt, and for any in
terest which may be past due and
unpaid upon the same, funded
bonds issued under this act may be
past due and unpaid upon the
same, funded bonds issued under
this act may be given dollar for
dollar.'l
In itself the language is not
ambiguous. 1t assumes that fund
ing may be done at any time in the
future. In no section or clause
does the act set a limit to the time
within which the holder of bonds
and coupons of interest must fund
them. The Legislature could not
have supposed that the funding
would all be promptly done shortly
afterwards, for it is the general
custom for Governments to provide,
that bonds of any certain class or
description shall all bear the same
date. AS the act did not imply, so
it did not expressly provide, that
the funding should be done about
that time. The act placed no
limit in any section Of it to this
time. 1t plainly contemplated that
funding might be done at any
future time, and no one pretends
that it may not continue indefinite
ly until it is put an end to by some
future legislation. In speaking OF
the funding expected to he done IN
the future, its language giving
directions as to the manner in
which it should be done had neces-
sary reference in each case of fund
ing to the day of that particular
transaction. If the Legislature had
| lnlcDu6u ~ uloCI llnlllllC DSbNNNh
coupons past due before the 1st
of July, 1882, and those maturing
afterwards, nothing could be more
certain than that it would have
done so in express words. 1t
could and would have added to the
paragraph providing for the fund
ing of tax-receivable coupons the
words: "But such bonds shall not
be given for coupons maturing
after the 1st of July, 1882"
Interest which may be past due
and unpaid at the date of the ex-
change of such evidences of debt is
the phraseology of a section of an
act which became a law on the l4th
of February, 1882, and which pro.
vided for the funding of S34, 4,5OO,-
600 of bonds and interest. The
act could not have contemplated
flat this vast debt could be funded