The Daily times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1886-1889, 1886-12-04
THE RrppLEBERGxR BILL
A. Viewed by the Dispatch
rDianatch of September IL. 1884,

The Wing totally misappreheuus tno n ihiiv
sota case The Chicago Tribune tells the truth
concerning that decsiOn-as follows:
"The Supreme Court Of Minnesota has re-
Gently made n decision for which II Is entltIeu
10 universal thanks. That State contracted, =
debt some twenty-hv years ago and issued its
bonds therefor. Subsequently, after paying
interest thereon for Il few years, technical
objection to the validity OF the bonds was us
covered and payment OF interest was stopped.
There was never any serious difficulty as 10 tne
merits of the debt, IL was justly and honestly
due. but the weakness which induces men 10
avoid honest payment upon legal quipppi1e "a'
too strong in the then infant State, ana mlniie-
sofa was permitted TO take place among the
repudiatinp States. BY way of clinching TINS
Reputation an amendment was made 70 tne
State Constitution. prohibiting any Legislation
looking TO the payment Of the debt unless the
law for that purpose was suolil,tleu eOa 'o''
Of the people. and was approved by them.
"Some years later bill authorizing the pay
ment of these bonds at the reasonable terms
offered by the holders was submitted 70 a vote
of the people, and the. bill was Voteu uo" Ii
At the last session Of the Legislature the credi-
tors. who have become Impoverished Dy tne
bad faith of the State, offered 10 accept Wnat
would be about 80 per cent. OF the deDt, anu
the Legislature passed law submitting inc
accordance of this offer TO vote OF the people,
subject however, to "A preliminary SUBMISSION
to the courts of the question whether TINS law;
even if ratified by vote OF the people, "ould
be constitutional.
this question. II has decided that in issuing
the bonds the State had entered into con
tract TO pay them according TO their tenor, ana
that the amendment to the State constitution
was i'm violation Of the National Constitution,
which prohibits any impairment on contracts,
and was therefore, void. the CONSTITUTIONAL
Amendment which made any law providing
for the payment of these bonds dependent on
its approval by vote OF the people was there-
fore unconstitutional"
That's Just what would be decided in a case
under the Riddleberger bill-namely, that in
Issuing her bonds Virginia had entered into a
contract to ray them according TO their tenor, =
and therefore that said bill is "in violation of
the national Constitution, which prohibits any
impairment of contracts, and is therefore
void" 1.-The law which makes any bill proyid-
ing for the payment OF these bonds dependent
on it's approval by vote of the people is
therefore unconstitutional"
The Philadelphia Press. n staunch Malone
organ, and a paper on which r. a. Burr is en-
plOyed-the same Burr who came 10 virginia
i'm 1850 and tried to Withdraw the Garfield cleo
tOral ticket i'm the interest Of the Malone cleo
tOral Observation-Disclosures the Minnesota case
That journal says
ain 1851 Minnesota then a Territory, issued
its bonds TO the amount OF S2,2l5,UDt 20 promote
the construction of railroads through its
sparsel y-scttled lands. a constitutional
amendment was adopted in 1850 providing that
any proposition looking 10 the payment OF TINS
debt should first be submitted to the people
aged creditors offered to take fifty cents on the
dollar. and the Legislature passed law sub
hitting the acceptance of their Oner 10 vote
of the people, subject, however, 70 prellmi-
nary submission TO the courts on the question
of its cOnstitutiOnality.
"The Supreme Court of the State has re-
Gently passed upon the question. III De
cides that the amendment 10 the state consul
tuition. which says that no law providing for
the payment of the railroad bonds shall take
effect until approved by the people, was void
as impairng the obligation OF contract con
trary to the prohibition of the national Constr
tuition This decision leaves the way clear FOR
the Legislature to make provisions for the pay
ment of the debt whenever 10 shall summon up
sufficient virtue TO do So"
The Wing says:
at is simply preposterous TO deduce from
that Judgment the principle that legislatures
may not of their own accord submit TO the vote
of the people anything they choose which is
not in itself unconstitutional"
Just so: anything which is not in itself un-
constitutional But that's the very point
The Riddleberger bin is in itself unconstitu-
tiona Its authors are afraid 70 allow it TO be
passed upon by the Supreme Court of Appeals.
They have, therefore, inserted in II an uncOu-
stitutional provision vainly attempting TO de-
prive that high tribunal of its constitutional
Jurisdiction We doubt if there is even Re
adjuster judge in Virginia who would not pro
nOunce the Riddleberger bill unconstitutional
if il were argued before him and he were com
PEELED TO decide the case. The Reputation of
~ per cent. Of the cOnsOl bonds and 81 percent.
of the peelers is certainly unconstitutional.
There can be no doubt upon this point. These
unconstitutional provisions are TO be submit
ted to vote Of the people. Clearly the Min
nesOta decision covers the case. There is no
room for doubt.
The Wing says:
Curious to say, the Minnesota decision prac
tically sustains the complete reputation of
the bonds"
The whig is entirely wrong, The court de
cided, on the contrary, as follows 1--WE quote
the Chicago Tines:
First, that the constitutional amendment
Of 1850 requiring the question of the payment
of the railroad bonds to be submitted TO the
people is void because it impairs
The obligation of the contract between the
State and the bondhoders."
What could be palmer? Instead OF sustain
ing 1.-THE complete reputation of the bonds"
the decision protects these bonds because they
constitute a contract between the State and
the bondholders.r The Times also says:
THE decision is regarded as a victory
for the debt-paying forty-seven."
All the journals in the United States which
have spoken of the case have, so far as their
the decision as one manfestly in favor OF pay
ing the debt. Read again the quotations above
given from the Chicago Tribune and the Phila-
delphia Press Read also again the following
from the Chicago Times:
THE decision of the Supreme Court Of Min
nesOta i'm relation TO the debt of that State is
important, not only because OF its local effect,
but because Of the broad principle it enun-
ciates, which is applicable to every act of Re
pudiatiOn. legislative or constitutional, adopt
cd i'm other States"
But the Wing plumbers all through its article.
II misunderstands the decision and runs on in
the following style:
There is no hint anywhere in the decision
that constitutional provision requiring such
vote. which did not at the same time suspend
or repudiate the debt, would be uncOnstitu-
tiOnal, or that, in like case, Legislature
might not at its own discretion submit any of
its acts for popular ratiilGatiQn or rejection -,
does "repudiate" the debt Of Yirgina-47 per
cent. of the principal of the consol bonds, and
nearly thrce-fOurths Of the interest. il does
repudiate 40 dollars of every 1000 dollar bond,
and A dollars and ten cents of every sixty dol