The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-01-27

81; Alabama nves 70 "a; do elghts, efXa %; do.
RAILROAD eights % 90; South Carolina skies, rs
81; do. new, January and July, 6pA Q se,s; DO no..
Apri ana october. 90 81; Arkansas SKIES So = 60i
do. sevens. 81 co.
THE WABASH AND ERIE CANAL BONDS.
The question OF the redemption by tho state Of
Indiana OF the unsurrenderod bonds OF the Wabash
and Erie Canal Is again agitatIng the authorities OF
that state. Recently the Governor solicited the
opinion OF several prominent legal gentlemen
whose conclusions are the basis OF a movement In
the State Legislature looking to tho redemption OF
the bonds, which are extensively held by the New
York savings institutions, and other corporations In
this vicinity. The points OF the opinion are thus
summed up in the response to the Goyernor'syn
quiry:-
SO far, therefore as concerns those unsurrendered
bonds referred to in your letter, held 10y parties who
declined TO become parIies In the Butler adjustment
OF lo4j47 we think II very clear that they Valid
legal demands against the state, and that It NJ tho
and TO provide for their payment. AZ suggested
already, the payment Of these bonds cannot be en-
forced BY direct regal proceedings against the state
But rs The holders Of tho bonds nave lien TO secure
their payment on property once owned by tine state,
but now owned by private persons ana corporations,
ment may DO c0erced by legal proceedings against
the present owners OF the property 70 foreclose the
zen. The case OF Trustees Of Inc Wabash and Erie
Canal vs.. Beers, above cited estab lsheS tho right
OF the bondholders thus to ..rocced.
An those unfinished pubic works were disposed
OF by the State l.r wat was deemed by the Legisla
ture an adequate consideration. lii no case was
the assumption or the payment OF those
co Se works OF se Mere part not o. sn aI
subject to any lien OF this Indebtedness.
The present owners OF those several public works are
unGer no moral or legal obligation to pay those
bonds than they are to pay any other debt or the
state. Ihey are liable other citizens are, to pay
their moral and legal duty In the premises cnds.
There y clearly no more Justice IN permitting This
or this debt than taere would be in coniscatlng any
other private property OF theirs for tile payment OF
should arbitrarily refuse payment OF those Dons to
the holders ana should permit the Wabash and Erie
Canal aud the other canals and roads covered by the
lien to be sold under judicial proceedings 10 satisfy
the debt, without making full and Just compensa-
ton TO the wnerS OF the works sold 1t certainly
would be justly cnargeab!e with violation Of good
faith.
/, out OF the proceeds Of such sales the bonds
should be satisfied the liability OF the state yo nd
| not be AT an end IL would only assume new and
probably more serious form. The owners OF the
| spectyc canals and roads so sold would immedl.
ately have claim against the state the justice OF
winch would be too manifest TO be denied. The att
tute OF the owners OF tho stock Of the Wabash and
Erie Canal towards the State Is such thai II the canal
| should DO sold upon This lien most serious embar-
| easements must result. Ii IL understood that the
owners OF that canal stock desire that the State
should resume the ownership OF the canal ana re.
assume The indebtedness adjusted under The Butler
compromise and thar they claim this rs legal or
! moral right. This question had not thus far been
considered either In tue legislative or judicial de-
partment OF the State government. But 1t Is I'M
derstood thai many citizens wholly controyerted
the claim, and that contest over the question,
either III the legislative IN the judicial
forum. is immin mt. Ii the canal, or either
division OF IT, should be sold upon both either OF
the liens referred TO, To satisfy the outstanding
bonds OF the State, and If tie creditors, who mad
taken the canal In compromise OF their dehts should
thereupon demand q iecsion OF the compromise
agreement, ana they be let In again as creditors,
tier demand would be entitled 10 serious consider
alton.
II they should urge that their bonds that mad been
surrendered by Them 10 the State in exchange for
Tile canal should be restored to them, because the
state had suffered the property to be sold and taken
from them FOR the payment of It's debt to other
persons, the argument would TO say the least Of H.
be plausible. Aud 1t seems not improbable that II
- - seir and iAs nam Tho nosaa.
sion OF Its present owners under the lien eren, sd Dy
the State In 1886 and prior thereto for debt whlc
it has neither paid nor adjusted, the claim for re.
sumption OF that part OF her debt which was adj
, insted under the Butler compromise would grow IN
imD5ss...nce and gain great strength and. IN tho
Judgment or the pcrc-le. become practically settled
In advance against the State, &, l. would be DIM.
cult If not impossible, to say pa tue parties 70 that
settlement should have neither Their bonds tue
property which they agreed to receive IN their dis
| charge,