Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1871-10-10
For the Spectator.
The Fnndiur Rill

y,
to see how far the objections were we'll founded.
L have lived long enough to know, that some
persons, about election times, seek to raise
great clamor IN regard to matters of which
they know little themselves and others willtul-
ly mlsrepresent measures, for the purpose of
promoting their own chances of getting into
Office.
[ doubt whether one of those persons who
are most clamorous In their opposition to this
bill ever read It, or could give you an intelli-
gent account of its provisions
To enable your readers to form correct onin-
ion of this much ia ked-of bill, [ will give a
brief analysis of its features.
Everybody knows that since 1850, there has
been strong feeling throughout the State of
Virginia In favor of internal improvements =
Every part OF the State wanted Railroads. Ca
nails and Iurnplkes, to afford the Farmers ia
cllltIes to get to market, and to develop the re-
sources of the State No man within the last
thirty years, could have been elected to the
Legislature from Augusta, or any of the Val
ley or Piedmont countess who would not pledge
himself to advocate vote for liberal system
Of internal improvements.
In response to this popular demand many
Canals, Railroads and Turnpikes were built
throughout the State. OF these Augusta and
the other Valley counties got their full share
10 build these roads, &c, which are now the
main sources OF our prosperity, large sums of
money were borrowed much of it being the
money of widows and orphans, which trustees,
guardians and executors we're direc' ed to invest
In safe stocks. To secure the payment of the
sums of money thus borrowed, bonds were is
sued, and the faith and honor of Virginia SOL
EMMY pledged to the lenders.
In this way large debt was created which.
including unpaid interest. amounted On the LIST
M i IN
five millions of dollars. The a0hole or nearly
all OF thas debt sCds created IN contributing to
public a0orks. s0hich ace noao oDn and hare in
daiiy use. This debt was created by the old
State of Virginia before she was divided, and
was mainly created by the votes oil representa-
tives from Middle and Western Virginia the
tide water counties generally voting against all
improvements. The whole State, therefore, in
GLIDING West Virginia, was bound for this
debt. But the State having been divided, it
became desirable that the debt also should be
divided, SO that each State should assume and
pay Its proper share. 1t was like the case of a
assumes bis share of the debts of the firm.
As the bonds stood, they were joint bonds,
binding both States. Any payment made
| would be on account of the whole debt. This
was inconvenient, and led to complications. =
To avoid this difficulty the funding bill was
framed.
Upon looking to the taxable values of the
property of Eastern and Western Virginia. as
they stood before the war, it was ascertained
that about two-thirds of the taxable property
was situated in the old State, and one-third 10
the newly created State 1t was, therefore,
very properly concluded, that Virginia should
assume two-thirds, and West Virginia one
third of the common debt; for if the State
had not been divided, that was about the rate
which they would, respectively, have been OBJ
llged to contribute, to pay the interest and
principal
Having thus ascertained the proper share
which each was bound to pay, the Legislature
proceeded to separate Virginia's share Of the
debt from that of West Virginia.
To effect this object the funding bill provi-
ded, that the creditors of the old State as it
existed before the war, should present their
bonds to the 2od Auditor, who should there
upon take up the old bonds and issue new
bonds, of the present State of \ irginia, for
two-thirds of the debt, and give certificates of
the amount Of the other third, to be hereafter
settled and paid by West Virginia.
1t strikes me that there was no great wrong
done to any body by this arrangement 1t is
| pretty much what any prudent man would be
| likely to do. in regard to his private affairs
partnership, would you not prefer, if you could,
| to give your own bonds for your share of the
debt than to let the old partnership bonds,
| binding you for the whole, stand ? 1t is true
you could not get rid of your ultimate liability
| tor the whole, 10 the event that any OF the 9TH
er partners failed, but your liability would be
| as surety, and not as principal. You could be
| made to pay only in the event, that the other
partners failed TO pay. 1t is just SO with Viz
ginia. She gives her bonds for what she owes,
and can only be held as surety for Western Vir-
| GINA, and bound in the case OF her inability to
pay
The main theory of the Funding bill, is
therefore, not justly liable to the bitter denun-
| Citations pronounced against it.
| But there are two objections to the details OF
the bill, which are very earnestly pressed by Its
| opponents.
| lst That the new bonds were given for two
thirds of the interest, as we'll as OF the princi
pal
| 2nd. That the coupons for interest, are made
receivable In payment Of taxes to the State.
Let US examine these objections, and see
whether they are tenable.
| 1t is known to everybody, that the State has
not been able, since the war. to pay her interest.
The same thing has happened with individual
| debtors. But did any one ever think hard Of
his creditor, if he required him to give new
| bond, including the interest? Is there any
| thing wrong in it? Should the creditor suffer
loss, in consequence OF his indulgence in ex-
tending time TO his debtor? Everybody viii
| answer 10 the negative. Aud yet this is exact
y what the State OF Virginia has done. She
has taken up old bonds, many of which were
overdue, and all approaching maturity, and has
given new bonds which are not payable for thir-
ty-four years Is not this pretty good fuan
cial operation? Which of your readers, if he
had an old bond pressing him which had been
due for ten years, would not gladly consent to
give new bond, including the interest, if he
could get an extension OF tie time of pay nent
thirty four years. And if this would be wise
on the part of an individual why is 1t not wise
on the part of the State? The new bonds is
sued under the funding bill are not payable IN
til LIST July, 1905.
And here [ beg leave to mention another
fact, which should not be lost sight Of 1t is
true that no individual can sue state to re-
cover debt due from that State. But it is
equally true, that any State can sue ano her
State In the Supreme Court of the u S.
Now suppose the funding bill had not been
passed, and that the old bonds which are over
due, and about to become due, had remained
outstanding, what could prevent the State OF
Maryland, tor example, from buying up, for a
mere song, these dshonored bonds, and bring
ing suit to recover them in the Supreme Court
of the y. S? What defence could Virginia
have made? Judgment would have been OBJ
llged to go against her, and federal bayonets
could readily enforce the judgment. The L g.
lslature that failed to levy taxes to pay, would
be held In contempt OF Court, and liable to fine
and Imprisonment until they did lay the prop
er taxes In this Way we might be forced 10