Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1885-01-19
a Prince William Case.

the vestry Of Prince William county the
SUM of $500, to be put at interest on real
estate security, and the income TO be ap
piled to the education of poor children In
the said county. In 1875 the powers and
duties of the vestry were conferred upon
the overseers of the poor in the several
counties. Ga the Goth of November, 1890,
the overseers of the poor Of Prince William
lent the fund in Question to Cuthbert Bull
! lit, aud, pursuant to the testator's dlrec-
| tons, took rs security mortgage on GER
tain real estate in the county of Fauquier. In
1919, by an act OF Assembly, the overseers
of the poor were succeeded in the manage
ment of the fund by the School Com nis
sioners of Prince William. The interest
was regularly paid till November, 1850. By
on act passed september 20, 1868, authority
was given the owners of the morIgased
land to pay the debt 10 the Second Auditor.
Accordingly, payment in Confederate cur
renoy was made TO that Officer and the
lien Of the mortgage was thereupOn releas
ed. suit was brought by the School Board
Of Prince William as the successor OF the
School Commissioners, and decree was
rendered in the Plaintiff favor; the Cir
cult Court Of Fauquier holding the act OF
1868 and the pros eedings under it to be
void. From this decree en- appeal was taken,
which was Thursday decided by the Court
of Appeals reversing the decision OF the
lower court, Judge Lacy delivering the
opinion; concurred in by Judges .FauEts2a
roy and Richardson, Judges Lewis and Hin
ton dissenting.
The Court of Appeals sustained the ac'
Of the Legislature as the act of de Jucto
government, acting within the legitimate
scope of its actual powers. and held that
the government which had its seat at Rich
mond during the late civil war bad been
recognized as such by the act Of the restor-
ed government passed 10 1866, and this act
had been sustained by every court where II
had been called in question, citing the case
OF Din widde vs. Stuart 4 Palmer, in the
Court of Appeals of Virginia, and the case
Of Texas VS.. White, 7th Wallace. The act
Of 1868 was not an act IN ald oi the war
against the United States, but was an act
for the protection of rights ofproperties. ii
was concerning public fund, dedicated TO
a public use by the donor it was originally
placed In custody off body Of public officials,
) which body afterwards ceased 10 exist as
such BY virtue Of the fundamental changes
ia the structure Of The Government. Il bad
become necessary for tbs Legislature, near
" one hundred years ago 10 take charge ol
this fluid and place il in such hands as IN
its discretion seemed best for its preserva
ton, there being, no baud to hold Il: that
from time TO time since .he Legislature had
exercised this care and supervision Of
luis fund without question, and the County
School Board Only claimed their right
To control it by one OF these acts, while
they claimed uuder one act they de
MED tho validity Of the other, As an act
ultra vires; that by the very terms of The
D-quest the debtor was entitled to
pay the fuLd at his pleasure; that the
fund in 1868 bad ceased, by reason of 81 e
slate of the country, to pay any annual
rent or Interest; its benefits were cut oil
from The benefclariea, the land being whol y
uDproductive of any annual rent. 1t Wa a
fund peculiarly under The control OF the
Legislature, haviug been dedicated To pup
lie uses, and belonging 10 Class of persons
under the special projection and guardian
ship of the Legislature. 1t was fund
which, by an ancient acr, originating In the
necessities of the times soon after the revo-
lution&ry war, had been taken 10 charge Of
by the Legislature for lis protection aud
preservation; that the Legislature, in n
lime OF war and ia the midst of the great
est uro 'rtaiuty rs to the stability of all
Values, had thought proper 10 stretch forth
its hand and place it ouce more in what
WAS by il regarded as safe custody, 10 be
applied, as before, in accordance with the
terms of the trust by which it was created
that the result Of tina: &C ion was i'm material
to the question the Legislature had acted
within the legitimate scope Of its constitu-
.lonal powers aud within its actual powers,
aud as the supreme law-makiug power Of
the State that the act was the acS Of the
sovereign, and was valid and binding on
the class affected. That whether the act
proved unwise or not in the light of results
is not a matter of inquiry.
Under the authority of the actual gov.
eminent of the Stale the debtors paid the
debt they owed TO the Government through
the hands Of its chosen official, and by the
the land in question was perfected under
the very terms of their contract. Third
persons acting under the agis of The State
have purchased this land, and their rights
are to DO protected, and they cannot be re-
quired to pay second time, or have their
iaud taken from them and sold upon the
assumption that the Legislature Of Virginia
Of 1853 was Only nominal body without
lawful authority. The Legislature then ex.
listing had the power to enforce its enact
ments, and did enforce them against all
corners. This government was afterwards
overthrown, but the government erected
in its stead, under which We live, by one Of
its earliest acts recognized all such acts of
the former government as valid and bind.
ing, and its acts Of such a character and
the contracts made Hereunder have been
enforced in all the courts of the country.
The Bank of the Old Dominion vs. Nc
Weigh was case in no way analogous to
this and Of no authority on this question.
That was concerning private debt, this
concerning public fund, or one dedicated
to uses in their nature public.
The act Of 1868 was the exercise by the
State of such paternal or tutorial power
over the rights and interests of the poor
children of Prince William county as ap-
pear to be clearly within the power of the
sovereign, to be exercised by general laws.
and under the peculiar circumstances of
this case, by special act of The Legislature.
If injury has resulted it is rather within the
province of the sovereiSn 10 max restitution
than for enc of its citizens 10 suffer thereby