Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-15


after coDcedipg. as before remarked, that
In matters OF ordinary legislation. one L.
gislature cannot bind subsequent Le-
Rislatures. and that such acts OF Iegis-
always subject 70 amendment and FREE
peal, fays: but 10 ~ equally Arue
that by special legislation amounting
to contract, u subsequent Legislature
msy be bound. IL is bound irreyo'
rorsry or perpetual exemption OF specific
property from taxation; by n bond Issued by
the state for money loaned. or other SUM-
Gent consideration; by charters OF incor-
poration without reservations, and BY al
legitimate legislative contracts" Ana
again, on page e5&, In answer 10 the oblec-
ton that the contract was repugnant 10
section 3, Article VIII, OF our state Constl-
tuition, the same learned Judge said " We
think there is no such conflict I'm the case.
The interest on the debt funded may TO
paid in the mode prescribed. and the con-
stitntional provision In relation 10 the
schools respected and compiled with In
reply TO this, staples j.. referring 10 said
section 3, on page sci. said: "Ihe money
derived from the sources In that section al
luded TO, II trust fund, and the Legislature
Is made trustee for It's invlolable applica-
ton TO the promotion OF the cause OF edu-
cation, and that body Is absolutely prooi.
bited from appIopriating IL TO any DINER
purpose, as any other trustee N r..
strained nom applying trust fund
10 MS Individual ueDts. III is Naiu bnht
the obligation to pay the public debt Is
asstronE 3 nd sacred, under the Constitution,
as that OF providing for the support OF the
public schools. That may be so; still IL does
not follow that revenues dedicated by the
Constitution TO one object exclusively can
be applied to another" And on page e62
the same learne ed Judge said: lit can hard.
~ be Dect sary To adduce argument or
authority TO show that no valid contract
can be founded on law which violates the
nj a
truth Is conceded in the opinion OF the
majority of the court, as the contention
there is only that a subsequent Degisa-
ture is bound by all legitimate legislative
contracts"
In making these extracts from these clash
ing opinions the object Is, by contrasting
them, 10 bring into clearer light not only
their points OF disagreement, but also those
IN which they agree. IL Is obvious that the
majority OF the court did not deny the con-
stitutionaI obligation OF the Legislature To
provide for the schcos though 1t did con-
lend that the ARRANGEMENTS made IOf lhe
payment OF the Interest on the funded
debt constituted a valid contract that
was improbable by subsequent legislation.
and yet Insisted that the arrangement did
not conflict with section s, Article WILL,
doubtless, especially es there had at that
time been no law passed levyiug the specl:
fc taxes provided for by that section anu
setting the revenues therefrom derived
apart for. and applying the same TO- 1he
schools.
ON page $50 Bouldln, judge, says: The
Obligation TO provide for the interest due by
the COUPONS IL as high as the duty OF apply
ing the capitatlon tax and other Iun1s 10
the schools. Both du,ies are allke ooilga-
tory and both may be discharged, as there
is no conflict between them" A. this
point 10 may be interpolated that the State
Constitution, section s, Article ", directs
The Legislature to provide sinking fund
for the payment Of the principal OF the pub
"a .ah m
payment OF the interest, and I'm that re.
spect differs from the former Constitution,
whilst lis mandate that the legislature
shall dedicate certain revenues To the
schools is singularly specific; and In view
Of this difference IL Is not easy To see how
the two obligations can be equal. the one
being clearly self.impOsed by the legsla-
tive contract and the other being Imposed
by the Constitution.
But returning 10 the point depressed from,
one OF the grounds on which the dissenting
Judge deemed the alleged contract unconst-
tutIOnal, was that the coupons might absorb
the entire revenue, as well that alluded
to in section s, Article WILL, as any other,
and leave the schools destitute OF support.
such apprehens ion was well founded, as
the Legislature had not then taken any
STEPS in obedience to the Constitution to
discriminate the school taxes from those
levied for the support OF the government.
The revenues were assessed. collected paid
into the Treasury OF the State, and kept as
a whole, without any separation or specii-
cation as to how 10 should be applied, and
there was no way OF discriminating between
those De signed for ordinary governmental
purposes and those which the Legislature
should have set apart for and applied 10 the
support Of the public free schools. Under
such circumstances OF course all were more
likely to be absorbed by the tax receivable
coupons. This could not have been the case
had section &, Article VIII, been self'exe.
cutting. From the nature of things u was
HE.l l.ssfE NfafN
providing tor separate assessments, collec.
tons, and applications OF the school
tax, I'm VOID. TO render the cOnsti-
tutional provision practically available
for the purposes Tor which II was intended.
For some uDaccountable reason, or from
mere inadYertence, the Legislature had ne
elected passing a law carrying out this pro-
vision. in Clark rs. Tyler. 3Oth Graft. l3i,
when this court decided that fines imposed
for violations OF law were embraced IN the
funding act OF 1871 aud we're dischargeaole
with overdue coupons cut from bonds
issued under that act, staples. j., consist
emily with his views in AntOnl rs. wright,
again dissented, and in his opinion referred
to the fact that fines were still paid into the
treasury indiscriminately with other pub
lie dues, and emphatically suggested that
the Ii gisature ought long ago 10 have
passed law carrying into effect said con-
stitutional provision and setting apart the
fines for school purposes. And such con-
tinued TO be the status when Williamson
rs. Massey, 81 Graft, 1877. was decided In
1850. AT length, awakened TO u sense OF
its plain, imperative duty in that regard,
the Legislature did. on the 18TH OF March,
1884 pass the act referred 10 In the answer
OF Treasurer Greenhow, the plalntih IN
error here. See Acts OF 1883 4, chapter
$50, section 2. page Sol, which reads: "On
tracts OF lands and lots and the i'm
provements thereon not exempt from
taxation there shall be a tax OF
thirty cents on every hundred dol>
lars of the assessed value thereof,
which shall be applied To the support Of the
Government. and further tax OF ten cents
on every hundred dollars OF the assessed
value thereof, which shall be- applied to the
support OF the public free schools 0f the
Stale" And section lib. page 6O3. reads:
"All taxes assessed on pre- perty. real or
personal, by this act and ded Gated by II 10
The maintenance Of the pubic free schools
OF the State, shall be paid and collected
only in tie lawful money OF the United
States, and shall he paid into the treasury
10 the credit Of the (ree- school fund, and
shall be used for no other purpose whatso-
ever. And 10 this end the Auditor OF Pub.
lie Accounts shall have the books of the
commissioners OF the revenue prepared
with reference TO the separate assessment
and collection OF said schOol-taX, and the
several treasurers OF the Commonwealth
shall have the taN-bills in their counties
and corporations 80 made out as to specify
the amount OF the tax due from each tax
pay or TO the public free school fund. inclu-
ding the capitatlon taxes. Of whatever Kind
or nature, and to keep said capitatlon tax
and school taxes separate ana distlnctf from
all Othertaxes or revenues so collected Dy
him and forward the same thus separate
and distinct, To the Auditor OF Public Ac
counts which shall be kept separate and
distinct by him nom all other taxes or Teve-
nues until paid To the public free schools.
Now, the matter Set up IN the Treasurers
sIsv er is sufficient in law to Justify his re-
fusal To receive 80 much OF the coupons ten
dered him by NashOn. the taxpayer and
defendant IN error here, as was intended as
payment OF that portion OF the tax that
WIS dedicated to the support OF the public
free. schools provided that said sections
and 1l3 are IN accordance with the duty inn
posed and the authority conferred on the
Legs AZURE by said section s, Article Will,
OF our state Constitution.
The simple question. then. Is as To the
consistency OF those sections OF the act OF
the 10Th Of March. 1884, with the Aforesaid
provision of the Constitution. But that con-
sistency is a thing 80 plain that there is not
the least tendency To obscurity except by a
multiplication OF words. IL goes without
saying; II speaks for itself; 10 Is pain To the
naked eye OF common sense; there can DE
no two opinions about II: the enactment OF
those two sections was not only warranted,
but was positively commanded by
that highest authority for legislation.
the organic law Of the state. section OF
Article VIII, which reads: " The General
Assembly shall apply the annual interest on
the literary fund, the cspitation tax pro-
yided for by this Constitution for public
nee school purposes, and An annual tax
upon the property OF the State OF not less
than one mill nor more than five mills on
the dollar for the equal benefit OF all the