The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1884-09-11

y .
is not an insolvent debtor i'll the CONNER
eial world who would not be eager to TAX
in any claim against himself, PAYABLE i
cash. if he could do SO by giving for it hi
bond ut fifty years bearing per cent. il
terest.
That the trainers of the Riddleberge
act We're chiefly soicitous to bring about
funding of the taX-receivable coupons on
plan so felicitous for the State is shown b
the fact that they contemporaneousl
passed two other acts, designed to coerc
the holders of these coupons into fundin
them. One of these acts was passed on tn
| l4th January 1882, and popularity know
as Conpon-Killer, No. ; the other wa
passed on the 10Th January, 1882. and i
known us Coupon-Killer, No. ,. The oh
ject of these two acts was to obStruct TIN
use of taX-recelvable coupons in the pay
ment Of taxes. as far us could be don,
within the limits of legal validity. The,
required the genuineness of all tax-receiv
able coupons, before being used for paying
taxes, to be established by summary pro
ceeding in court, and the verdict of jury
These two acts, i'll obstructing us far as
legally prudent, the Use of these coupons
to the embarrassment of the treasury. were
ancllafy to the Riddleberger act, which or
the other hand encouraged the funding OF
themsin new bonds on the exceptionally
favorable basis of dollar for dollar. These
two acts, or .Coupon-Killers, 2 have been
severely adiudged valid by the Supreme
Court Of the United States-the first OF
them in the case of Antoni Us. Greenhow
from this State the other of them in the
case OF Tennessee Us. Sneed, where the
court passed upon similar law of Tennes-
see. This court has never questioned the
| y.lli1itNy of ait bay Of +,x,,
and the Riddleberger act-all passed by the
same Legislature at the same time. in
dealing with the same embarrassment
are consistent with each other and show
that the principal object of the Legislature
OF 1881 50, in devising them, was to re-
lleve the State Treasury of the embarrass-
ment which it was suffering from the tax
| receivable coupons The amount of these.
matured and to mature up to July, 1882,
was stated to be 81, Oh. 446 But this was
a very small portion of these obligations in
the hands Of the public. The consol bonds
on which q portion of them were issued
had yet q years to run; and the amount
OF these bonds outstanding being $14 $685.
974, the annual amount of tax-receivable
coupons which would mature on them,
would be 1862, l99. and the total in
tWenty-one years, Supposing none of them
W ~
other taX-receiyable bonds which the
act provided for were those issued upon
the l0-40 or McCulloch bonds, IS, SIT 800 in
amount. The current interest on these.
Tor ten years, is 1855 529 per annum. In
the thirty-five years which the 1910 bonds
have yet to run the aggregate interest
which will accrue on them, including what
has already become due, supposing none of
them are funded, will be nearly $13 900. 900,
Thus the aggregate OF tax-receivable cou-
ponS that will accrue during the thirty five
years on the conSol and on the 1910 bonds.
if funding is defeated by recent legislation,
will be sum approXimating $50, 900, 0O0
Is it possible to suppose that the Legis-
lature of 1SS1-'S2, addressing itself as it
did with intelligence and fortitude to an
evil of stupendous dimensions, really in
tended to deal, and really succeeded in
dealing, only with the petty amount of
s., ,446 OF taX-receivable coupons and
avoided dealing. or forgot to deal, with
the great amount of $30,000.000. which if
funding were defeated, were to mature. as
inevitably as fate, in the future ? What
could have been more imbecile than the
omission, from an act dealing expressly
with this subject, of all provision for
thirty thirty-seconds of the coupons in
respect to which it was especially legis-
lating There was no omission by acct
dent.
| must reject the suggestion that there
was an omission by intention. The Riddle
berger act was II proposal of compromise
made by the State of Virginia to her cred
itors and it would be an imputation on
her good faith to pretend that in such
proposal, protesting to provide for her en-
tire Indebtedness, she contrived to omit
debt accrulng in her future of $50, 1000, 900,
and bided her time to play obstructionIst
against funding that deot
1t is very true that the authors of the
Rlddleberger act expected that the funding
which it authorized and the operations of
the Sinking Fund would absorb much of
the larger portion of the consol and 1910
bonds, and thus liquidate long in advance
OF maturity the tax receivable coupons
that belonged to them. And it is also true
that they had no apprehension that subse-
quentle Legislation would be employed to bring
the funding to adrag or standstill. Nothing
could have been more clear to their minds
than the Importance of encouraging and
facilitating the funding of bonds and eou-
pons by liberal interpretations of the pro-
visions of their act and they could not
have anticipated a hostile construction of
It's provisions, OF adverse legislation tend
ing to bring the funding to stop. They
could not, as rational men, but have fore
seen that many of the taX-receivable cou-
ponS would be upon the market fora great
er or less number of years after the passage
OF their act. They cannot be presumed.
IN devising great scheme of funding, to
have omitted a proper provision for thirty
millions of outstanding coupons prospec-
lively due at various periods within thir-
ty-iye years; more especially for those
Which should mature in less than twelve
months from the passage of their act, and
at the end OF every six months in the
years 1888, 1884, 1885, 1886, and so on,
have thus gone into the history of this
act, not that it was necessary to the de-
cision of this case to do so, but to show
how untenable is the pretension that the
possible $50 .0O0, 900 of taX-receivab,e cou-
pons part of which we are dealing with,
were forgotten by the authors of the Rid
dleberger act, and left wholly unprovided
for in that comprehensive measure.
In what have SAID / have treated the
debt as it was in July, 1882. Since it was
prepared semi-otticial statement Of the
funding under the Riddleberger act has
been published, dated on the LIST Septem-
Der, 1884.
1t shows that the result of the funding
for four years and six months under the
pollCy pursued Ill tne oGaUe CaplIOl mas
been discouraging. OF the classes of debt
least harassingto the Treasury, viz, classes
C.. D., E. F., &C.. aggregating $11 ,910.705,
there have been $4.345.75S funded. But,
on the other hand, Of those classes of debt
most embarrassing to the Treasury
namely, the consol and 1910 bonds, whose
aggregate is $50, SS7 $50, only $685., 400 have
been funded and only $506,O33 of their
taX-receivable coupons, making total in
bonds and coupons of only $l,18S, 1873. =
This shows that the Riddleberger act has
been practically nullifed in its leading
provisions
Technically spe aking, the foregoing re-
view OF the evil provided for by the Riddle
berger act was unnecessary to the purposes
OF the case at bar. The cardinal rule of
statutory construction is that there shall be
no construction where there is no need of
it; which means that the enacting clause
Of an act, if free from ambiguity, must
be executed according to their very terms.
1t is only when ambiguity arises that we
are at liberty to resort to the preamble and
other parts of the act for aid in discovering
the true meaning.
Clause (a) of section is free from am
biguity. It.directs that all coupons ''any
interest past due and unpaid upon the
consol bonds lat the date of exchange
shall be funded for new bonds. dollar for
dollar. The single principle of law just
stated settles the case at bar. But l have
nv, xxrI1l 70