Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-20
The Vashon Case.

make a point against the Dispatch by
what would be quibbling if our contem-
porary was not in dead earnest. We
said last week:
"This decision does not attack the
validity of the contract between the
State and her creditors as far as the
Legislature had the power to contract.
The bonds issued in 1871, as well 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 unconstitu-
tional."
That statement is literally true
every word of it. And yet our Lynch
burg contemporary dissents as follows:
alt signifies nothing that the deci-
sion does not attack the validity of the
funding bill, so far as the Legislature
had the power to contract when the
decision in terms, as the reader Will
see. declares that the funding act was
not the act of the State Of Virginia, but
of the Legislature, and that the Legis-
lature had no power to make such
a contract. I'VE presume the Court
means that only the State, through
constitutional convention, or through
the popular ratification of legislative
act, could make a binding contract of
this kind If the court maintains its
present views, and proper case should
be presented, they will undoubtedly
declare-just the reverse of what the
Dispatch states-that neither the fund
ing bonds of 1871 nor the McCulloch
bonds are valid"
1.-THE decision in terms" says no
such thing, and could say no such thing
no such question being before the court.
Indeed, as the Virginidn afterwards con-
cedes, it is a mere Obiter dictum in the
opinion of the court which it dignifes
with the word "decision." We remark
/. In the first place, as we have just
said, and as the Virginian admits, the
funding bill Of 1871 as a whole was not
before the court at all, and therefore
whatever the court says on that subject,
is mere obiter dictum-has no binding
force on or in any court in the Com
monwealth. The Virginian knows that
a court cannot pass upon case coram
non JUDGE.
2. In the second place the Supreme
Court of the United States in Antoni US.
Wright adjudged the funding act of
1871 to be constitutional. That is an
adjudicated question. The Nirginian's
italics are, therefore, not at all formi-
dable, unless indeed our contemporary
expects the Virginia Court of Appeals
to reverse the Supreme Court of the
United States.
8. A constitutional convention has
no more power to make binding
contract" than Legislature has. Nor
have the people. The United States
Supreme Court has decided that our
State Legislature did make bind
ing contract when it passed the
funding bill of 1871, and so we need not
discuss that point. A constitutional
convention couldn't do more. The point
in FASHION as. The Commonwealth, and
which the court expressly said had
never before been raised in that court,
was that the funding bill Of 1871 was
unconstitutional because under the
Constitution ratified in 1869 q valid
law could not be passed in 1871 in dis
regard Of the requirements Of thai
Constitution. II the existing Consti'
tuition Of Virginia had been ratified
subsequently to the passage of the
funding bill of 1871 the Supreme
Court Of Appeals Of Virginia would
have been compelled under decision
Of the Supreme Court Of the UniteC
States to decide that case in favor o
vAsHoN.
4. ~ the court maintains its pre-
sent views, aud proper case shoul'
BE- presented, they wia undoubtedl,
declare" &c. Well, what has that Il
do with what we saids We state will
absolute accuracy exactly what tho de
cision Is. and the v1ginias proceed
to tell what future decisions will be
But the Viryinian's prediction is no
justified by tbs facts, since the yir
ginia Court Of Appeals well know
that the question which the Virgiaio'
says that court would decide one We,
] has already been decided the other va