Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-24
sUNpAY..........JANUARY "a, 1886
The Vashon Case.

validity oil the contract oe."ooh viz
State and her creditors so far as the
legislature had the power to contract.
The bonds issued in 1871, as we'll as
the McCulloch bonds, are as good as
ever. So are the coupons OF those
bonds. The only difference is that the
coupons cannot now be lawfully re-
ceiyed for that portion Of taxes levied
for the support Of the public schools.
The law of Virginia already provides
that they shall not be received for that
purpose, and the law is constitutional"
The Virginian itself changed the
word constitutional " to unconsti-
tutiopal." The right word was used
by us.l
Speaking of the above paragraph,
our Lynchburg contemporary said
few days afterwards:
eve cannot, therefore, assent to the
construction which the Dispatch puts
upon the decision"
On the Goth we insisted that our
language as quoted was an absolutely
correct statement Of what had been de-
cided by the court.
On the 22d the Vrginian returned
to the subject in an article more than
two columns long but as it fails to
point out single averment Of ours that
is not true, we might well drop the
subject. Let us examine these aver
ments
|. "This decision does not attack
the validity Of the contract between the
State and her creditors so far as the
LEGISLATURE had the power TO contract"
Isn't that statement absolutely accu-
rate: The Tirginian will not deny
that it is.
.. 1.-THE bonds issued in 1871, as
well as the McCULLOCH bonds, are as
good as ever. So are the coupons Of
those bonds" Isn't that statement
correct one? Will any lawyer say that
those bonds or these coupons are not
now as good as they were before the
decision was rendered? The bonds are
as high as they were before the deci-
sion was rendered. Surely the brokers
and bankers know what the decision
was.
3. "The only difference is that the
coupons cannot now be lawfully received
for that portion of taxes levied for the
support of the public schools" That
is all the difference.
4. "The law OF Virginia already pro-
vides that they shall not be received for
that purpose, and the law is constltu-
tional." This statement is absolutely
true.
We ask our Lynchburg contemporary
to tussle" with those points. They
are the ones he assailed.
Nevertheless, as the Virg'n'an mani
tests an admirable spirit in its articles,
we will notice one or two Of its ut
terances. The long article which We
have mentioned seems to have been
written with the intention Of showing
that the Supreme Court of Appeals OF
Virginia would if case involving that
question were brought before that tri.
bunal decide the funding act Of ISL to
be unconstitutional. We cannot for
one moment entertain that belief. But
as we said nothing on that point in the
paragraph from which the VIrginian
dissented in its first article, and as our
negative prediction would be worth just
as much as, and no more than, the Vr-
ginian's affirmative prediction, we will
not touch that point. We confine our
selves, and we ask the Vrginian to
confine itself, to the points at issue.
We have no objection, however, to
"tussle with the following:
"If, therefore, school taxes are
embraced in the & all taxes, debts, aud
demands mentioned in the funding
bill a. payable in coupons, then that
part of the funding bill must, Of course,
be unconstitutional aud void. We
would like to see the Dispatch tussle
with that confederation according as
Tony Lumpkin would say"
We beg leave to reply that if" school
taxes" are embraced in the "aH taxes,
debts, and demands mentioned in the
funding bill as payable in coupons, then
that part Of the funding bill Of 1871 is
unconstitutional and void" not in its
entirety, but SO far only as it attempts
to make coupons receivable for school
taxes. And this last is in substance
exactly what the Supreme Court Of APP
peals decided in the vAsHoN case.
We will add here that the vice Of the
Yiryinian's argument lies in the as
sumption that all Of law is unconsti-
tutional II part Of IT is. In other words,
we hold that the funding act Of 1871
end the law under which VAsHoN's
suit was defeated are both constitu.
tional. TIE Later is constitutional in
lifts parts. The former was when pass.
ed constitutional in all of its features,
but in 1884 1t was repealed so far o.
the school taxes were concerned. Cou.
pons were receivable for sal taxss -
from 1871 10 1884. In 1884 . new Law
was passed excepting school taxes.
These are now payable only in money
but oil the rest Of the act Of 1871 Is