Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1885-04-28
MR. DEzENDoRF ON THE VIRGINIA DEBT.

second-class matter
MIR. DEZENDORF ON THE VIRGINIA DEBT.
On Saturday last Mr. Dezendorf said 10
substance to the GAZETTE's Washington cor
respondent, as printed in the GAZETTE ol
that day, what he has since said at more
length to correspondent of the Baltimore
american, as follows:
The recent decision Of the Supreme Court
has fully vindicated the position which
have always maintained regarding the State
debt Of Virginia, viz, that the funding bill
of 1871 was contract with the creditors OF
The State, which, under the Constitution of
the United States, to which the laws Of Fir-
gina and all other States are subject, could
uot be set aside except by the voluntary act
of both parties to the contract, That, con-
sequently, the Riddleberger bill and all acts
or parts of acts of the General Assembly oi
| Virginia supplemental thereto were uncon-
stitutional, null and void. l was not in fa-
vor of the funding bill of 1871 at the time of
its passage, nor was the republican party OF
Virginia, although certain republican mem"
| bers of the legislature voted for it. 1t was
put through the General Assembly of the
| State by many of the same men who in 1879
| repudated and passed the Riddleberger BILL
The Funding bill of 1871 was framed ex-
pressly to bring its enactment within the
purview of the Constitution of the United
States in order to secure the prompt funding
of the debt, and to give value to the new
bonds. 1t was attacked as being q meas
ure enacted more in the interests Of the
bondholders than out of due regard to the
welfare of the people, and their capacity to
meet the obligations which it incurred 1t
set apart one. third of the amount Of the
whole debt, as at that time ascertaiued, as
chargeabc to the State of West Virginia
This was an er parte action, taken without
regard to justice or equity as to the amount
9f ths debt ebttats tf Was Table, or as the benefits
derived from the expenditure of the bor-
rowed money, for which the debt was orig
inally created. 1t was the fiat of the Gen
eral Assembly of Virginia which the state
of West Virginia has refused to recognize,
and, as think, justly so. This feature was,
believe, accepted by the bondholders, VINO
are bound thereby, and this concession was
claimed by them as good set Oil tor olheF
Questionable features. The matter viii,
however. I predict, at no distant day, form
a subject for judicial decision hy the Su
preme Court of the United States. II was
the affairs of the State could have been
honorably compromised, if the effort had
been made in the proper manner. 1t was
dictated and controlled hy many OF the
same parties who, in 1879, sought, by the
| passage of the Riddlehergcr bill and coupon
killers, to undo an uni ust law, framed WI n
strict regard to the Constitution OF the
United States, and binding by an equally
unjust law which violated the Constitution,
and is therefore imperative. The bond
holders having funded under the operations
of the funding bill, the good faith Of the
State was pledged for the fulfilnent OF the
contract, which as to the bonds so funded
is not voidabe.
There is good reason for saying that botn
measures had their origin in the speculative
tendencies of the originators, and that few
manpulators in each scheme added thou
sands to their store The above are no,
new opinions formed by me since the recent
decision, as any one will readily sec who
will take the trouble to look up the plat
form adopted by the republicans OF Virginia
in the convention which nominated Hon.
Robert w. Hughes for Governor the same
who as judge delivered the opinion on the
debt question recently sustained by the su-
preme Court, which platform was for the
most part drawn by myself. The republic
cans of Virginia were opposed to repudla-
tion while condemning the funding bill)
until many of them allowed themselves to
be forced into its support by the Arthur ad
ministration. (That President Garfield
took any part or lot in the support of this
measure I strenuously deny.) In order to
gain one vote in the Senate, the Ar
thur administration advocated and sus-
tanned q policy which violated the Con
stitution of the United States and was
utterly subversive of one of the tun.
damental principles Of the republican
party. The great mass of the democratic
party of the State were opposed to Tepudia
ton until the late President threw the whole
power of his administration in favor of it
and abdicated his authority in Virginia II
favor of it's chief supporter. small body
of republicans in the State-about oOOOO tc
; 40 OOOO-remained true to their convictions
of right, and refused to be driven by prose
cution or won by favor into the support
this new policy of the administration. Many
of them, disguised, took 40 part 10 the Stat'
contests; but their strength was shown las
, November. The democratic party OF tn
. state in 1888 abandoned their position OF
the debt question, accepted the Rlddieoer
!; ger bill, incorporating it in their platform
q matter of expediency in order TO oVercom
; the efforts of the Arthur administration, an
! beat the readjusters. Successful for tn
9 time, it is likely to prove to be broke
reed" as expedients always do, either !
personal or political point of view. n
sacrifice of principle for expediency's SAX
ever yet proved permanently successful
Now, as to the result in the State. Reac
iusters and democrats are alike demoralizet
the latter, perhaps, the more so from tn
Q fact that they had in 1883 gone beyond To
readiusters in readjustment. The repuol
cans who, like myself, have always oppose
: it. view the decision as an endorsement,
: their course, and are hopeful that it may ;
q the turning point in the struggle on IL
aoht nnestion- and result in permanel