The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1845-01-31

terest proposed. II the bond-holders lie.
cline accepting the proposition then we
must adopt some other plan for the com.
pleIion of the canal; for consider il OF
The utmost importance for us to secure
that important object to enable US to re-
store our credit. ] would propose to give
the bond'holders until the first Of May or
June to determine whether they would
accept the above plan. If they did not
! would propose to raise loan on a
pledge OF the canal and canal property,
and appropriate the fund raised by taxa,
ZION to pay the interest upon said loan, al
lowing ten per cent. interest. This would,
without doubt, secure the completion Of
the canal; and think it would be much
better to pay higher rate of interest than
to sacrifice the canal property TO complete
the canal. would further provide that
after the completion Of the canal aud the
repayment OF this loan, the amount raised
by taxation; the revenues Of the canal,
and the receipt from the sales of the pro-
perry should be appropriated exclusively
TO pay the interest upon the public debt
The first sales Of canal property after the
completion Of the canal, would pay off the
loan; and then we could commence pay
ing the bond-holders so that in four years
from the present time with the amount
raised by taxation, the tolls from the ca
nal, &C., we could probably commence
paying the whole in,eres, upon the state
debt.
This last proposition is only an alter
native one, which we probably should
never be required to carry out, for if we
show disposition to pay portion OF our
interest, | have not the slightest doubt
that the bondholders will accept the pre-
sent canal law, and complete the canal
forthwith.
have thus briefly sketched plan
which leave to the consideration of the
committee. | am not particular about
the adoption of this plan. am for any
plan that shall prove TO the world that we
'bNhu w pay Oui HOUcht ucUlS.
Mr.. X. SAID he regretted to hear some
remarks that had fallen from gentlemen
lie was sorry to see the Indifference man
ilestcd about the debt by some of them.
Was 1t possible that. after borrowing
sl0,000,000 from innocent and unofien-
ding parties. who had confded in our re-
publican virtue, we would commit an ar.
blsrary act Of violence for base love of
gain! Was it possible that we would
shelter ourselves behind a technicali,v--
avail ourselves of our sovereignty. and
because a state could not be sued-bd
defiance to our creditors If we were
liable TO the laws that are enforced against
weaker parties; if the baillT stood at our
door ready to levy upon our property,
would we be thus Indifferent about the
payment of our debt. Then, what is il
but the knowledge that the demands of
justice cannot be enforced against us. that
renders us so calous upon this subject
Why do senators talk about delay VIII
we ever be in better condition than we
now are to commence The payment of our
debit We have had time to survey our
difficulties, TO recover from our alarm,
and 10 examlng our resources. We have
been prudent! and economical during the
last few years, and now we are ia a con-
dillon 10 act upon this important subject.
Delay is not only dishonorable but un.
wise. state Of insolvency is the most
expensive OF oil conditions. defy sem
alors TO show thai by putting of payment
we will ever be in better condition 10
pay. This was the language last session,
and will be again. Does any one believe
we will be any more able or willing TO
pay next year! | ask what difference
there is between denying Inc obligation
OF contract, and admitting its obligation,
but neglecling TO keep il--beiween an
open reputation OF debt, and irGudu- !
len!ly Withholding the money. Ia BOIL |
cases the same injustice is done 10 the
creditors and in both cases the injustice
- WIipiiy zone by HE debtor, and 1t rs
OF little consequence by what name it is
called, or under The shadow of what pre-
tence refuge is taken. Our bonds are
both in form and substance property.
They may be sold, bequealhed and inner
tied. and are things of value lawfully held |
by the possessor. What is the difference
as to the question of right, whether we
take possession of them by force, and rob |
their owners, or whether we render them
valncless by refusing to pay ,hems We
in effect destroy the bonds, aud The only
difference would be lha, in the latter case
we leave in the possession of the owner
the paper upon which the bond is drawn
distinction which will hardly be deem
ed important. We do in all bu, name