New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-08-20
A CAUSTIC RETORT.

TIE HON. JOHN S. WISE IN REPLY TO RECENT
UTrERANcEs OF EX-GOVERNOR CHAMBERLAIN.
Tpthe EGuor Of The Tribune.
SIR: On my arrival here after a fortnight
campaigning in the mountains OF Southwest Virginia.
Ireceved copy OF letter OF Mr. ID. II. Chamberlain,
dated Burlington. w. August 1885. and published In
The York Times critcsing newspaper report
of my views the Virginia debt decision recently
derod.
The ostensble object of the letter raise
with me as what Virginia laws considered the
decision OF the Supreme Court The real object
was to continue the struggle against oblivion which
ex-carpetbag Governor OF South Carolina has been so
bravey making for some years by keeping himself be-
fore public the champion Of sundry principles and
sentiments which he was never suspected OF practising
will into discussion with him vr-
gnia debt question. 1t rather long range for my
paigu TO fire st objects Of his size perched upon the
mountains OF Vermont. Bat as he has rudely and
wantony volunteered TO imply that had not truly
stated the Virginia laws considered I'm the decision
OF the Supreme Court will let the briesof his associate
and the language OF the decision itself reply TO
his lmpertnent way of stating his point The point he
maess that the Court decided the upon Readuster
legislation only Mr. Chamberlain is the counsel some
bondhoders and presume the fee paid occasioned his
interest IN this matter and covered his retainer be
superserviceably intrusive and pert in his letter.
Mr.. Royal, who argued the cause the side with
Chamberlain. gives his statement above very plump
denial His brief reads as folows:
When look 10 the legislation that the State has
adopted the rst thing that strikes the attention Is the
The act Of January IL, 1882.
These two acts were the Readjuster acts The brief
then proceeds:
II these two acts stood alone the couponhoider could
make no complaint OF them since the decision OF this
Court IN the OF Antoni Crcenhow. But
when that case was decided they stood alone
what they DO not DO now. And since they nave been
subsequently supplemented by other legislation which
od DOT exist when Anton Greenhow decided it
insisted that they may now be referred 70 consttut
~ part OF one general plan, which had not been u
folded at that time, etc.
The subsequent supplemental legislation referred to
by Mr. Royal was the act Of March 49, 1884, passed by
the Bourbon Legislature.
Mr.. Maury another associate Of Mr.. Chamberlain,
nied brief for the saying in reference TO
the acts and the remedy which they furnished
to the bondhoders:
contend. however that this new remedy hss been re-
pealed perhaps through nadyertence perhaps ign0-
rahty; Tor WHAT may not be presumed OF Legislature
capable OF passing the laws just alluded 10
The Legislature thus criticised the Bourbon Legs
laure OF s83s4 and tho act alluded 10 was the act of
1854 by that body-and this criticism was by Demo-
cratic lawyer
The statement Of Mr. Chamberlain as to pondexter vs.
Greenhow that this decision turns turns only ON
Resduscr legislation, namely the act OF the Virginia
Readuster Legislature OF January 49, 1882 IL rather
surprising In view OF the syllabus OF that case which be-
gins: "Tbe Act OF the General Assembly OF y,r sl
einia, OF January 2e. 1882, and the amendatory /
act OF March 49, 1884, and void
Iho amopdaory act Of March Is, 1884, was passed by
Bcnroon Legislature two years after the Readustsr
Legislature adjourned, and, contend the ainenda
A'ry Bourbon act had just the eject Mr.. Royal |