The Grange advance. [volume] (Red Wing, Minn.) 1873-1877, 1877-06-20

| tuC 1duIOauS 1OSS ~ ~ IAAS AatSCSS
proportion Of their earnings, and.
were rendered unable to pay their
employees, and these latter accord
ingly lost their labor. Now We hear.
the present bond-holders denounced
because Of those losses and the re-
sultant sufferings, although'Gnobody.
opretends to tell us how they.:ca.ne
to be, scensurable. They arenoteto
lblan,e. N Those losses followed as
nsequences 81, the States repudia-
tion Of its, Obligations, and the par
ties twho 2o Il that legislatio:.n'syare
those who deserve to be condemned.
Those who bought the, deprecated
bonds afterwards, from holders
whose necessities compelled them to
sell for what they could get, deserve
credit for doing really charitable &C.:
tons, inasmuch as their purchases
amounted to voluntary division of
the loss with those who sold. go ..'
| That the. issuance of the bonds
was an ill-advised measure, is unde-
niable, but when the people author
lied it, they did not SO regard it.
They fully believed it to be good
policy and were almost unanimously
in favor of the loan. 1t may be that
the old railroad companies did PROM
ise that the State would never be
called upon to pay the bonds or in
terest, and it is hardly fair to pre-
sumo that they would not have kept
that pledge, had the State acted IN
good faith and sustained the credit
of the bonds it lent them and en-.
abled them to negotiate them and
use the proceeds. When this was
not done and the bonds deprecated
to worthlessness, the companies were
bankrupted and could not fulfil
their engagements. Then the State
seized their property by foreclosure
Of the mortgages g wen to secure it
against loss by reason of its liability
for. these very bonds. If it were not
liable for the bonds, what right had
lit to foreclose those mortgages and
possess itself of the property Oh,
1sbut it gave back the property is
the reply. Not So. 1t: gave away
the property, but to new companies,
and did not impose upon these any
> obligation Is take care of the bonds.
I'VE regre: the rejection of the
proposition. recently submitted, for
another reason: The bonds Of a
State cannot be permanently repud;-.
ated. We may vote against paying
them, declaring them to be unjust
and unfairly obtained, but they mill
continue to exist and dya7o interest,
and ultimately they" viN be paid.
The results of our recent act, there
fore, has been to impose upon the.
State, the continuation Of debt for
which the creditors agreed to take
one-half its amount if we would pay
it now in new bonds bearing a less
rate of interest. Whether they will
| ever again make = similarly liberal
offer remains to be seen. We very
much doubt it. No subsidy has
hitherto been necessary tovprocure
our advocacy Of the settlement of
4 these bonds, for the reason that we
sincerely believe their adjustment
essential to the future welfare of the
State. q We can much better afford
! to pay them, dollar for dollar, than
to rest under the stain ofrepudiation.
| ".'- "Fs- ,.:-T'- -.
I The remarkably heavy wind
+ which prevailed in this locality on
Thursday evening seems to have
been the outer current of what was
a terrible tornado in other localities