National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-09-22
THE DISTRICT s.s5 BONDS.
Letter from Moses Kelley. Esq.


Latter from Noses Kelley. ESQ.
The following clear, concise and able letter
from the treasurer Of the sinking fund board con-
corning the "Distriot ffty-yesr bonds, +" indorsed
by the board Of commissioners, Messrs. Sweeny,
Corcorsn and Davis, contains matter Of vast i'm
portance, not only to every interested in these
bonds, but to every citizen In the District, and
will be read with interest:
WASHINGTON, d. c., Sept. Q, 1875.
MY DEAR SIR: In compliance with your re-
quest the following suggestions are respectfully
"District Of Columbia ffty-year bonds"
Theee bonds are, in reality, the bonds Of the
they should not be classed and treated as such.
This fact seems to have been entirely overlooked,
and an impression created that the bonds were
District Of Columbia. with quailfed and limited
Endorsement by the United States. Cautious in.
vestors therefore, have been nervously exercised
States was pledged in sufficiently clear terms to
protect the bonds as against such qualined In
doreement.
Asto The technical completeness of this indorse-
question at one time. In the draft copy Of the
original law Of June %, 1874, authorizing the is
sue OF tne ponds, Two little words Of Two letters
supplied by an smendatory act; so that now the
guarantee Of their payment by the United States
including the Comptrollef OF the Tressary and
the Attorney General. Hereupon doubt gives
place to confidence; Investments are made in con-
Siderable amounts, not only By private tndivid-
usls, but by savings banks, trust and other COM
panies. When IL is solemnly announced by dep
pty attorney general Of New York that both the
letter and spirit Of the savings bank law OF this
State forbid the Investment by savings banks In
thebonds in question" because the United States
did not. by said act Of June 20, lsI4, pledge its
terest and principal Of said bonds" a
new terror SEXES the tImid purchasers of the
pose Of them at whatever sacrifice. Would 1t not
have been kind to these people IL the deputy at
torney general of the State Of New York had
taken the trouble to inform them that, while the
act Of June 20, 1874, was defective, the act OF
March 8, 1875, was intended TO cure the defectH
and that the otfcers Of the united STATES, whose
such to be its effect2
But this did not suit his purpose. whyP AFTER
about the Endorsement Of the bonds If It can be
made to appear that the indorser Is the drawer as
well; and sgchis precisely the case. ,,o,, .,,,.
corporate nor governmental existence, but Is, In
these respects, the veriest myth. 1t can create
no can NO & %bsrs ts pay
have no voice or agency In framing their own
laws, or managing their own affairs "To eser.
else exclusive IegtSldtion In all cases whatsoever
over this District, is the province Of Congress
alone, under special provisions OF the Oonstitu-
ton Of the United States. (See clause II, sec. s.
This Congress is elected from States composing
the Union; and New York being the greatest Of
all, her people send the largest number Of Repre-
sentatives, and through them exert the widest in
fiuence in passing the laws under which the In
habitants Of the District Of Columbia must be con-
tent to live. This absolute lpoWer Of Congress
has been exercised in various ways-at first
through q board OF commissioners, (see act Of
BY the act Of LIST May, 1902, this was changed,
and the power transferred TO q superintendent,
appointed by the President Immediately after,
BY act Of Sd May, 1902, q city government was
the President, and council elected by free white
taxpayers. This arrangement was subsequently
modified by allowing the people to elect their own
citizens over twenty years of age, without
gard to color or property qualthcations, which
continued In force until ISL, when Congress
through which to exercise its supreme control.
A governor and council were authorized to be ap-
pointed BY the President, with the approval o. q
alegislative assembly for local government.
branch Of the Assembly directly responsibie to
the people Of the District had only what may be
called "yeto" power. 1t could create ne debt,
nor could It issue bonds-nor, indeed. could the
Legislative Assembly itself do this without the
consent of Congress, from which Its power was de-
rived and which reserved the right to review Its
acts.
At the same time Congress created a Board OF
Public Works ito be appointed by the President
and Senate) to act as It's agent In reference to the
was clothed with very large discretionary power,
and was alone responsible to Congress for the way
IN which this was exercised. The people OF the
District had sort Of agency In the selection oil
its members, nor control over them when selected.
This board was not their agent, but that Of Con-
gress, and the people here cannot be held res9on-
sible for its acts.
Large expenditures were made by the board,
and its actions, as well as those Of the Governor
and Assembly, were so sharply criticised as to lead
Congress to abolish this entire machinery and Il
place the affairs Of the District In the hands o
three Commissioners, appointed by the President
and Senate, and an officer Of the United State
army detailed from the engineer corps. This wa
done by the act Of June 20, 1874, and to-day thu
power Of these officers acting as the chosen agent
city of w ashington can erect house or stable
upon his own lot without their permit.
At the same time Congress Instructed 'sd the Nv,
to carefully audit all claims arising out Of thu
| acts Of its former agents, and directed the com
mIssioners of the sinking fund to issue the SO
| bonds In question in exchange for certificate o
such audit whenever demaA fed.
| 1t is thus seen that thess ends a-e Issued By
the officers OF the United States, in payment o
liabilities created by her own agents, and the con
cluson is inevitable that they are the bonds Of thu
| United States. II they are not, they are aoso
even pretended that they are issued by any othel
power having lawful existence:
In conclusion 1t remains to add only few word
as to the pledge Of the faith OF the United State
for the payment Of both interest and principal
coupled with q provision consecrating certain
revenues to be raised o sacred Iunu 10 meet DOtn
1t is usual for the faith Of the United States Il
| be pledged for the payment OF the interest anC
| principal Of its bonds, but the cases where par
counts are exceptional. This was done to securi
loan authorized by act of April Is, 1912, the ST.
section Of which sets apart moneys arising from
duties on goods, wares and merchandise which
may be imported into the United States" for tina
purpose BY the 10th section Of the act Of Janu
airy %, lS4I, the sales Of the public land wert
pledged for the loan authorized by that act, and
doubtless other cases Of similar character coult
| be found If necessary.
In the case of the bonds in question, Congress
not only pledged the public faith to secure then
time to levy the taxes and make the appropris
| ton needed to redeem that pledge. By act o
March 8, 1875, It levied q tax upon the property
| within the District Of Columbia, provided for IL
prompt collection, directed the amount collected
| to be deposited in the Treasury of the UniteC
States, and prohibited its being drawn out agair
| except upon warrant Of Its own duly-appointeC
agents.
Surely this ought to satisfy the most skeptIca
as to the understanding Of Congress on this sub
ject, emphasizing, as II does, the opinions gveI
| by the comptrollers Of the Treasury and the At
| torney General of the United States.
| If the views herein expressed be correct, tn
question arises why should not these bonds b
| classed with and treated by the governing com
mittee Of the stock board as other securities o
the United States?
In the hope that they may be, remain yours
ISignedj MOSES KELLEY.
Edtcdrd Brandon, esq, Netc York CITY.
Having considered the above communication o
MIR. Kelley, treasurer Of our board, we concur II