Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-07-04

States. Win INC hHo"ioo6o vi 'hio
fact. despite the efforts of enslaviug
LAWYERS to establish the principle that
mere precedent--the opinion Of fallible,
and often shallow and half.informsd,
and sometimes corrupt judges-shall
take the place Of law, and so legiti-
Matte bribery, they have decided
that the soveregntyby virtue of which
they legislate against frauds as amongst
individuals gives as full authority to
apply the same rales to all who deal
with them as q Commonwealth.
With the same confidence they brush
away the decisions Of their own courts,
and conclude that there is no difference
in principle between. ascertaining and
fixing the share Of indebtedness attach
ing to each part of severed State and
the share attaching to each member Of
dissolved business partnership. Under
the influence of this conclusion they
know that it is proper to ascertain what
was the amount Of the public debt Of
the old State Of Virginia on the lst day
Of January, 1861, that being the date
of the ayulsion of West Virginia and
then to assign to each its proportionate
share Of that debt, subject to such
credits as each may be entitled to de-
mand.
Under the principles of international
and municipal law which govern the
case, they know that it is just to as
sumo not more than two thirds Of the
debt OF 1861 as the portion of Viz
GINA; that all sums improperly paid
by her are to be deducted from that
two thirds, and that that rule strikes
of all interest, simple or compound,
paid in a period of general and ma
tional calamity" as well as all excess
of interest, especially when paid under
fraudulent ensctments, over and above
that due on the properly-ascertsined
Indebtedness Of the State.
They also know that the property OF
the partnership may be appropriated BY
the party in possession, which has an
equitable claim pro tanto against the
other; and that in this way the State
may claim the money resulting from the
sale of the partnership interest in public
works sold in 1866 and 1867, and they
are prepared to believe that if the in
debtedness of the State of Virginia had
been ascertained in this, the only proper
way, it would have been found that in
1870, the year when the Federal Gov
eminent relieved the captured State
from her usurping grasp, it amounted to
less than 100000 instead of to
S3O,47S,74l.49, the sum claimed to be
due under the fraudulent act of March
1871, or $2l, 03j, 81 exclusive of GER
tain coupons), which General Malone
imposed upon the ReadjuSters as the
true debt, and which is now accepted
as such by the Democratic party.
But why. am asked, if my state
ment be correct, did not the Readjust-
ers show more Democratic strength in
their conflict with the Punders: |
reply that it was because of the want
of confidence in General Malone, and
Of the distrust and disgust which was
everywhere felt for his tools and agents.
think | do not exaggerate when | de-
clare that not to myself only, but to
other Readjusters as well, nineteen
wentieths-outside Of the cities, we'll
nigh all-of those who have spoken on
the subject have said that they and
their friends would have been with US
as soon as they understood the question,
but that they could not stand associa-
ton with General Malone. But, making
every allowance for exaggerstion, it NAV
be safely said that all who may have
then hesitated on that ground, or from
a romantic notion that honor demanded
the payment of the full debt claimed,
although it should have been imposed
by fraudulent legislation, are nov in
lIuenced to the other side from over
whelmiDg considerations that have since
arisen.
In October, loo2, the Supreme Cour!
of the United States decided that suit
against an officer Of the State Of Viz
ginia was "a suit against the State it.
self" In April, 1885, the Supreme
Court Of the United States decided that
suit against an officer of the State
twas not a suit against the State
These contradicting opinions were ut
tered by the same judge, one whose
seat on the bench was bought for him
at a great price by railroad presidents,
who were at the same time traders in
votes.
This was a ilagrant violation Of the
Constitution. and as dangerous in the
motive as in the fact Of violation.
1t was the triumph Of money over
liberty.
In the Fourth Judicial circuit Of
the United States on the Sth day Of
April last, in the sui. OF \. j. Ford,
proprietor Of FOrd's Hotel, against
William Taylor, treasurer of Ilenric),
Judge Bond swore the jury, and in al
vance of the trial, to obey any instruc-
tons be might give them. In this way
NC uA6u up jury " QUIZ hihisSAA' NiN
under illegal Instructions, given in
such gross violation Of law, he forced
upon the officer of the State, and upon
the State itself, fragrant and, as | be-
lieve, a violation Of the Constitution of
the United States and of the rights Of
the State-a violation more dangerous,
because more inyidiOus, than the usurp-
ing decisions Of the Supreme Court.
This is the triumph Of usurPa.ion
over liberty.
To suppose the people insensibls
to the character Of such assaults and
blind to the consequences Of tame
submission to them to suppose that
they will admit the justice Of de-
mands growing out Of legislative fraud,
sought to be enforced by judicial yio-
lence, certain to result in bankruptcy,
and to suggest that they can apologize
to the men who are trying to bow their
necks to this yoke-these suggestions
do, in my humble judgment, not only
underrate their good sense, but insult
their patriotism and their courage.
FRANK G.. RUFFIN.
An ArgumentatiVe Reporter.
fSan EranclecO pogt