Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1885-04-24
FRIDAY MORNING. APRIL. "a, 1885.

ID. U. I1NSLEY,
A. s. MORTON.
FRIDAY MORNING. APRIL. "a, 1885.
THE RLDDLEBERGER BILL OR
NOTHING.
Staunton was characterized during the
campaigns which involved the readjust.
ment of the State debt. as a "Bourbon-
Funder hole" by the political orators who
were urging the cause of Gen. Malone.
1t deserved the name as far as an unfail
ing and stubborn insistance by its voters
on the full payment Of the State debt
could entitle to it. Year after year
it polled its steady and unchanging major
ity on that side of the question. Could
q bondholder be In Staunton to-day and
listen to the popular discussion of the de-
cision Of the United States Supreme
Court last Monday, he would be satisfied
that the change in public feeling has fixed
the fact that he will never get dollar
more than the Riddleberger bill gives him.
The decision has swept the deck clear
OF debt payers as they were called. The
sense Of Indignation at the outrage on the
State in her sovereign right, has burned
out Of the bosoms of all of that class of
men who during the REIMBURSEMENT cam
paigns worked and spoke for the credi-
tors, every thought Of now yielding an
inch to them, and in many cases, however
anjustly they turn this indignation on
the creditors themselves as the cause of
ftia attonnfad humiIi a tion of fho Stato
In Virginia the creditor has lost his
last friend. AS We write, a prominent
member Of the bar, well known as
"Bourbon debt payer" of the most ex-
treme type, who worked and spoke against
the Riddleberger bill, comes to US with
plan to maintain the supremacy of Vir-
GINA in her own affairs and defeat the at
tempt to force her to pay more than that
bill provides. So much for the help the
creditors are likely to get from even the
''Bourbons" of Virginia.
From a party stand point the decision
was received with as much dissatisfaction
as from state stand point. The Repub-
licans had quiet hope that if the worst
came and the court decided against the
State. the decision would be based On the
Democratic ''tinkering" with readjust-
ment legislation. in the last legislature
They were astonished when they saw the
court put the coulter into all REIMBURSEMENT
legislation and pillow it up from the very
bottom, overthrowing the coupon bill
passed by the readjuster legislature of
'S1-'82, (which the very same court year
ago had pronounced CONSTITUTIONAL and
overturning the wisdom OF Malone and
Riddleberger, as we'll as the later Demo-
cratic wisdom which sought to supplement
and re-enf0rce 1t. The Democrats IN their
turn had hoped for plain field for this
falls campaign with a settled debt, and
had been led to expect it by the former
decisions of the Supreme Court. The
Mondays decision has united both parties
on two points at -dissatisfactio
with. and want of faith in Justice Stanley
Matthews. and sullen and immovabla
resolution not to pay dollar more than
the Riddleberger settlement calls for
Further, the leaders of both parties will
cooperate in every effort to defeat the
intended result of this decision against
Virginia, made directly in opposition to
the Eleventh Amendment to the Federal
constitution. But what IS this decision of
the Supreme Court Divested of all the
superfuous matter contained in the col
umns it fills, the decision is this:
L. Au legislation since 1871 to prevent
the reception of coupons for taxes-both
that OF the Readjuster legislature in 1882
and the Democratic legislature in 1884 is
unconstitutional, null, aud void.
2. That all coupons are equivalent to
money; that after making due tender of
them to the collector, the taxpayer has
nothing more to do, and that if the colec-
tor levies after the tender, he is respon-
sible individually, and not as an officer Of
the State, for damages to the taxpayer.
8. The tax collector who levies can be
sued for trespass, as an individual, in a
State Court, but not in U. S. Court
How this decision came about is pass
ing topic Of interest. In March, 1888 tie
coupon killer supplement to the Riddle
berger bill, passed by the Readjusger le
gislature in 1882, was pronounced by the
q. 5. Supreme Court to be Constitutional
1t was a divided court-for the con-
stitutionality were Chief Justice Waite,
and Justices Mathews, Bradley, Miller,
and Gray-fiye; against the constitution
atty, Justices Woods, Blatchford, Field.
and Harlan-four. Last Monday tho same
bill was again passed on-Chief Justice
Waite, and Justices Bradley, Miller, aud
Gray az voting for its constitutionalitg;
and Justices Matthews, Harlan, Woods,
Biatchford, and Field Isl voting it uncon-
stitutional The former ruling Of the court
was reversed and the Eleventh Amend
ment to the Constitution set aside, as is
seen, by Justice Stanley Mathews. How
this change came in two years is one of
those mysteries which are aggregated un-
der the name of uncertainties of the
law" but which should be moro properly
attributed to the certainties of Influences
on individuals who decide what the la " is.
And now as to the effect. This decision.
il there were any power to carry it out,
would precipitate 81, 100000 of coupons on
the Treasury of Virginia. Nobody believes
that it will do any such thing-not even
the counsel for the English bondholders
who, in two hours after the rendering of
the decision, announced that his clients
wanted compromise. The bondhol d.
ers, British or otherwise, will get no COM
promise and nothing but what the Rid
HIats hi rvix