Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-10
A Question of Words.

We might answer the following COM
munication by saying that "Justice of
Albemarle" was himself an original
Readiuster, as we think he was-and
one in high Office. Washington "
takes too seriously the declaration of
1885, "the debt question has ceased to
be one Of dollars and cents and become
one of State sovereignty" which was
made with reference to the latest de-
cisions rendered by the Supreme Court
of the United States. Washington "
may have considered the debt question
in that light from the beginning, but
most of the men who adopted the plat
form of 1885 did not. If they had so
considered it, there never would have
been any" Funders," or advocates of
the funding bill Of 1871 or that of
1879. Washington is right from
his standpoint. "Justice Of Abe
marie" is right from his standpoint.
Washington says:
To the Editor of the Dispatch:
find the following remarkable state
ment in the editorial columns of the
Dispatch of January 7th:
THE COUPON PRoBLEM.-"Justice OF AL
han 10 n a front
entitled, we think, 10 the credit OF having
been the first TO make in the public prints
the averment, afterwards embodied III the
Virginia Democratic platform, tnat tne
debt question had ceased TO be one OF DOL
lars and cents and become one OF state
sovereignty.
The same erroneous statement was
incorporated into the last Democratic
platform. But that was not so sur
prising, as it must have been intended
to reconcile the over-scrupulous and
ignorant to the debt plank in the Lynch
burg platform.
Is it true that the debt question has
ceased to be a question Of dollars and
cents and become one Of State soyer-
eighty? The inference from this state
ment is that so long as the debt ques-
ton was dealt with by the Readjusters
it was q question Of dollars and cents
and is it true that at some recent period
certainly since the Lynchburg Conven-
tion--the debt question has become a
question of State sovereignty:
Now, in justice to the men who have
contended for a resettlement OF the debt
question since 1871, and to the truth of
history, assert that there never was
but one principle involved in the debt
question, and that was the doctrine Of
the reserved right of the State to con-
troll its own internal affairs, including
the right of the State to exercise its
highest attribute of sovereignty-to
wit, the right to control absolutely its
own revenues. This was the main
question involved; all others, including
that of dollars and cents, were merely
incidental, or arising from the denial of
the right of the State to exercise her
reserved rights.
In q speech in the House Of Dele
gates on the 18th Of February, 1875,
the funding bill Of 1871 being undo
consideration, Mr.. Fulkerson, Of Wash
ington, said The question OF taxa.
ton is q political question-an essen
tial part Of sovereignty-and no Legs
lature and no court can properly de-
stroy, circumscribe, or abridge it. To
do so would be to violate States rights"
He said that in disregard Of this sove-
reign right, one Legislature had en-
deavored to tie the hands of all future
Legislatures for thirty-four years, and
the Court Of Appeals had sustained it.
He did not beliere the people wouid
long submit TO such usurpation. He
sketched the history of the funding bill,
how it was passed, &c.
The doctrine asserted in the funding
bill of 1871, and sustained by m any Of
our people and the Court Of Appeals,
that any Legislature Of the State had
the power TO barter and sell the sove-
reign power Of the State In the matter
Of taxation, was . fatal stab at the very
vitsls Of State sovereignty. Every ef-
fort made by the Readjusters and the
Legislature Of lSe3-'84 was an effort
Of the Commonwealth to regain the
sovereign rights denied her by the
courts Of the State and the United
States.
The statement, therefore. that the
debt question has ceased to Be quss-