The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-01-02
CHI AR l. S TON :.
SATURDAY MORNING. JANUARY 2, 1869.
The savannah and Charleston Railroad
Company.

4
The bill before the Legislature for thu
reliefof this company proposes-hrst, an en-
dorsement by the State OF the company'E
bonds, in an amount sufficient to absorb tht
past due coupons, on the FIVE hundred and five
thousand dollars of bonds originally endors
ed by her-Mhich new issue shall rank un'
der the lien then given her,-snd secondly,
her retirement of this lien, and her con
sent TO another having priority over it, for
the security Of an issue of FIVE hundred
thousand dollars in bonds, to be used for
the reconstruction of the road. We believe
that this bill embodies the true and just
course to be pursued. 1t does the State no
harm: secures what the majority of her
citizens desire, viz: the earliest possible re-
construction of the road; promotes the
public good in the greatest degree; and, at
the same time sustains and vitalizes the
corporation which asks its passage.
What are the objections to it The fol-
lowing are among those urged: 1st That
| it asks of the State "further contribution"
in behalf of this road; ID. That it will in
crease our taxes; 81. That it will swell the
contingent liabilities" Of the State, and
thus imperil her credit; and 4th. That it in
wolves breach of good faith towards the
company's bondholder.
The two first are met by the simple facts
ofthe case. The bill does not ask the appro-
priation of single dollar, and, conse-
quently, there can be no increase of the
public debt on its account, the interest on
which would have to be provided by addi-
tional taxation. On the contrary, it looks
rather to diminution of taxation, by con-
verting neglected and unproductive Sec
tion of the State into an improved and tax
paying one. But it is said, that while the
bill may not ask an actual appropriation, it
certainly would be adding to the "contin-
"sent liability" of the State, and SO impair
her credit. We reply that it would do
neither the one or the other. What already
exists cannot be considered as contingent F"
None will deny that the endorser upon o
bond is as liable for the interest thereon
as for the principal; and hence the State is,
this day, as much bound to protect the accu-
mulated interest on these bonds, which she
endorsed, as the bonds themselves. when
ever due. Why object to giving ar express
sion to this liability? and placing it in o
shape available to her creditor and conye-
nient to herself. The omission to do it is
far more calculated to impair her credit.
But the broader ground is taken that the
bill proposes 10 fasteu upon the State the
liability to pay certain debt, when she
might rid herself oft By a sale of the prop
crty; and that she is next asked to weaken
her position, by accepting a second lien upon
this property in lieu of o first, which she
now holds, and thus render this "liability
"to pay" almost certainty. Now, oil this
is based upon the supposition, and, indeed,
the assurances ofthose taking this position
that if brought to sale, the road would to-
day command sum equal to all the obliga'
tions of the State in its behalf, or say
seven hundred thousand dollars. Any
chance of loss is not, then, admitted by
them. Now, all might agree that, let the
road belong to whom it may, an assumed
sum of FIVE hundred thousand dollars is
necessary to its completion. This e1pendi-
ture cannot be avoided II, then, the property
was worth seven hundred thousand dollars
before repair, it should uuqucstionably be
worth one million two hundred thousand
dollars after such repair; aud, consequently
if the State was safe in the first case, she
is not one whit the less go in the second
And here, in passing, let it be borne in
mind that the principal of the debt, abou
which SO much anxiety is manifested, is mol
yet due. But we are next met by the sup
position that the road may be Improbable,
and may be unable to pay its interest, when
the State would be compelled to interpose
its aid-and it is this liability we would
have her avoid. In reply, we would urge
with equal, if not greater plausibility, that
it will be profitable and will be able to
make its interest. This is the conviction
o. sound, shrewd, disintercsted und prac
,ical men. 1t must also be that of parties
willing to buy the road, or else they would
manifest no disposition to purchase it.
We have next TO consider the objection Of
the pdholder-that the passage Of this
bill would be an injustice to him. We
really do not see this; Indeed, we are at q
loss to discover in wha: way he is to be
affected by it. We have, first, to remind
him, however, Of fact Of which he may
be ignorant, tha. when the State endorsed
his bond, she expressly reserved to herself
the righ: to enact any laws she nigh: think
proper fer her protection in the premises