Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-15

debt sfa pdii,Q In the name OF the state OF
Virginia, and her bonds being held for tns
whole amount, much anxiety was felt and
manifested on the subject rs wen by the
state rs by her creditors.
He then proce eds: "Under these cifcun.
steDces, and hopeless Of an early settlement
with West Vifginia, the state OF virginia
proposed to her creditors by tnc &c. aIor q.
adjustment OF what she deemed her own ln-
debtedptss, which she assumed Qtalics oars
To be two thirds OF the entire debt Herob-
Ject, as declared In the preamble 10 the ACT,
was ito enable the State OF West Virginia
to settle her proportion OF said debt with
the holders thereof, and 10 prevent any
complications or difficulties which might
be iDterposed to any other manner OF set
restoring the credit of Virginia by propiding
for The prompt and certain payment Of The
| interest upon her proportion OF said deot as
The same hdu become due : aud her offer
was 10 tissue TO her creditors new bonds for
two thirds of the entire debt principal ana
interest, to run for thirtysfour years. with
inter est payable semi. annually on the az
gi,gate amount OF principal and interest,",
the bonds TO be coupon or registered, at the
option OF the crt dior, aud TO be convertible
the one into the other at like option and
to secure the prompt and certain pay ment
OF the interest as the same shall fall due,
and 10 give the coupons greater value they
were 10 be receivable, ut and after maturl-
~, for all taxes, debts and demands due
The state which should be so expressed
on their face" AS TO the remaining third
ossuBled 10 be the just proportion OF West
virginia, Judge Bouldin refers TO the certi-
ncate TO be issued therefor by the state OF
Virginia 10 all creditors who should accept
the terms proposed by the state In aid act
Of March 80, 1871.
m alters OF history, and from them he de-
duces the essential element in every con-
tract-a valuable consideration. That there
was no valuable consideration moving from
the holders OF the States bonds who ac-
cepted the terms thus proposed, not by the
State for her constitution forbade any such
pi opOsal), but by the Legislature, without
authority 10 do So is manifest rom the
matters OF history and the very terms OF the
act relied on by the learned Judge to sustai
his conclusion u at, as u all those who acs
cel ted the terms Of the act, IL was valid
contra CT founded on valuable considera-
ton. In dissenting opinion OF greataollity
and clearness, delivered in that case by
| staples. Judge, the want OF any beneflt TO
! the state from the funding bill OF March 80,
| 1871, is made so unanswerably clear that
che who runs may read. lie says In
any benefit from the funding bill-if that
| enactment is founded upon valuable
| considerations am unable 10 perceive
| IL. IL Is said that the creditor has
| released one third OF his debt do not so
understand IL, and will hazard the asser-
ton the creditor does not SO construe the
| law Ifthis was the intention ofthe trainers
| of the act, they have adopted an obscure
| and equivocal mode of expressing plain
and simple agreement. The creditor sur
| renders his bond and obtains new one for
two thirds of his debt and coupons for the
interest. For the re naming third the bond
is held In trust by the State, and certi1-
| cafe is given him stating that payment will
| be provided for in accordance with such set
| Element as may I've made with West Viz
ginia II that state Is faithful 10 tne oDll-
L.. o 0fFtll
| cations resting upon her, the creditor WIN
hand, IL she repudiates these Obligations,
there is no agreement or understanding ao-
| solving the State from the payment OF sucn
| OF the whole debt 40 before the passage OF
| the funding BILL" This Court has since SO
| hello in the case of Higgnbotham rs. The
| Commonwealth, 25th Graft, o2!J
| slate has derived any advantage from tne
cieditols acceptance of the provisions OF the
| funding act. The contrast II such IL be. is
wanting in the essential elements ola valua-
| be consideration. so much relied on In the
| opiIion OF The Supreme Court OF the United
States" referring to Freeman rs. NlckOl,l
| 10 is absolutely impossible TO read the
| terms of the funding bill and the form Of
| certificates issued hereunder, (Which Is set
| folth at large in the opinion Of Judge Boul-
| DIM, and fail TO see and be convinced OF the
upanswerable position taken by Judge
| Staples In his dissenting opinions:
| NOil1nE ever Clhlileu W rest vi tue
| ground of legal and valid contract could
well fall further snort OF It's aim than does
| the funding bill even when backed up with
| the creditors acceptance Of It's terms. so
| far nom being as proposing "a contract III
legal contemplation, IL undertakes To make
| an UNQUALIFIED surrender Of the right OF tue
| STATE To control her revenues, and this for
| thiIty- four years, regardless OF the eXigrn.
| clts and pressing need OF the state tndt
may ar!se N the mean time.
y
sunni ifOHS. IL assumes that by the
dsn embermen OF the State Of Nir-
| GINA she lost one third of her ter.
| ritoIy and population, and that West
| tn, I'd OF the old debt. The liability thus as
| sumed 10 rest upon West Virginia has, by
| tnat state, been treated land this. too Is
| paIt OF history more as an Idle Joke 1--WE
| are sorry TO say than In the spirit OF us
| tice and mutual obligation between sister
| states. Upon The same basiA 10 is assumed
| that this states proportion or the debt Is
| only two thiIds thereof and the funding
| bill proposes, not an exoneration from la
billy for the other third, but in effect pro.
! poses terms-ruinous terms-for the settle
| ment of the two thirds, and postponeme
| OF settlement as to the other third. May
| the evil day never come TO Virginia when
| that other third shall be demanded under
terms SO ruinoUs and humillatlng 10 her
| people
In his opinion Judge Boudin uses lam
| guage fIom which the conclusion would
| seem nece SSarily TO follow that there Is and
| can be 10 inviOlable contract feature cou-
| nected with the funding bill. He says: II
| is unQuestio nably true, that our Legislature
| cannot, by an act OF ordinary legislation,
bind or control, in any manner, subsequent
| Legislatures. such acts OF legislation
| are and OF right should be. always subject
| TO amendment or repeal But, he con-
tends II is equally true that by special leg
isation amounting TO contract supse-
| quent Legislature may be bound; ana ne
| cites hume rous instances which no one VIII
| contToven. The vice, it seems to us, In
| Judge BOuldin's argument Is that IL rests
| upon the unwarranted assum stlon OF valid
| contract, when the essential element or II
| valuable consideration Is palpably wanting.
| But that learned judge comedies IL TO be I'M
| question ably true that one Legislature can
| not, by n act OF ordinary legislation, bind
| or control subsequent Legislatures. ThiS
| being so, we ask what possible subject be-
| longs more certainly TO ordinary legislation
| Than the laying of revenue and providing
| for us collection and how itsha!l he applied
| And is 1t not obvious that any legislative
act which depiives future Legislatures OF
this all important right, must In the ma
| ture OF things. disnrm and degrade the
| State? ltVOuid seem that argument ought
| TO be unnecessary 10 repel an ldea 50 repuS-
| nant TO all our ideas Of legitimate leSisla-
| tive Authority.
hui TO sustain this alleged contract fea.
| tuIe the funding bill authorities are APP
| pealed to, These mostly, II not entirely,
| ielI,d on are State of New Jersey rs. VIII
| son, Cranch, 1874; woodruff rs. Tennessee
| 10 How. U. =, 100, and Freeman rs. NichoL
| Wall u. y, A.
| claimed 10 be contract was stipulation
| by the Legislature OF the then Colony Of
| New Jersey in a grant OF lands 10 the 10
| dams within the colony; that the lands
| granted should be forever exempt from
| taxation, In the year 1904, more than
| nifty eaIs after the date OF the grant.
| WHEN the colony had become q state
| OF the American Union, and after the In
| dIaps ha sold their lands and left the state,
an act was passed by the Legislature OF
| New jersey repeating the exemption clause
In the grant, and question arose between
| an owner OF a portion OF these lands and
the State of New Jersey as to the validity
| Of the act OF repeal.
TIE Supreme Court OF the United States
| held that the grant to the Indians was a
| valid contract. founded on valuable con-
sideiation, and that the act OF repeal im-
| paired the contract, and was void. There
| the consideration for the contract clearly
appeared. The Indians had large claims 10
| land In the Colony OF New Jeasey. These
| claims they Telinquished, and made deed
OF cesson TO The Colony, taking in con.
sldeIation thereof the grant OF land afore-
| said, No argument can be necessary 10
show the wide distinction between that
case, where every element essential 10
valid contract was present, and the funding
bill OF 1871, where the essential element OF
a valuable consideration Is, In every sense,
absolutely wanting.
| The other authorities relied on by the
| majority in Antoni IS. Wright are ably
| faln N, kxyT .tHo 20 N ID