The Russellville Democrat., 1877-10-25
THE BOND-HOLDERS PRO- POSITiON.---AN ERROR OF THE FINANCE BOARD.

THE FINANCE BOARD.
 The Finance Board, Gov. Miller, Adams & Redficld and the Ga atte all claim and proclaim that the pro position of the bond holders, as em bodied in the Adams Redfield plan, is equivalent to the State simply paying the amount of her UNDIsPuT- ED OUTSTANDING BONDS AT PAR and getting in her disputed, or more commonly called FRAUDULENT BONDS FREE OF ALL COST. That is to say, the bond holders will surrender the S3, ,022, ,423 bonds which the Finance Board say is the amount of our just bonded indebtedness, and the $11,- 474. .50l fraudulent bonds for $3, ,243, IT in new bonds. The Finance Board say this is not only equiva- lent to getting in our universally acknowledged legal bonds at par, and receiving the so called fraudu- lent bonds as a gift, but that we even make $105,232 by tue opera tion. It will be observed that the amount of new bonds to be issued exceeds the amount of the valid bonds in the sum of $220,694, but after a long explanation and much figuring on this particular feature Of the plan, the Finance Board come to this conclusion:
 It is thus very clear that it would be to the interest of the State to issue the bonds with this excess rather than to pay six per cent in terest on the new bonds from the start. But if any one thinks differ ently, we have no doubt but that the holders of the undisputed debt would be glad to substitute a proposition to take new bonds bearing six per cent from date for the exact amount of the undisputed debt. they biing- ing Tn, as now proposed, all the dis puted bonds.
 We have examined the process of figuring by which the Finance Board arrive at this result very closely, and we must say that we cannot assent to it's correctness. There is differ ence of $2s4,033 between our meth cd and theirs. They give table to show their method of calculating it. On the left side of the table they compute the whole amount payable by the State, principal and interest, on issue of $3,022,423 of 30-year bonds, drawing 6 per cent interest This they make $S,462,7S4. On the right side, they compute the whole amount payable by the State, princi- pal and interest, on issue of $3, 243,- IF of 30-year bonds bearing inter est as provided under the Adams Redfield plan. This they make $S, 7S9,S47, showing clearly a loss to the State of $327,063. In order to explain away this loss, the Board treats the SAVING OF INTEREST during the first three years, while the new bonds only will draw ?, 3 and 4 per cent interest, as LOAN and CHARGES THE STATE INTEREST at the rate of six per cent per annum on it for the remainder of the term Of years dur ing which the bonds run. This, the Board say, amounts to $431, ,295, and by taking the above loss of $327 ,063 therefrom they show net saving to the State of $105, ,232. Now IS not the treating of the first three years saving of interest as loan and the charging of six per cent interest thereon, straining pretty hard to make point in favor of the Adams Redfield plan? We think it is, but if that is legitimate and fair, would it not also be legitimate and fair to take into account the interest on the SURPLUS OF INTEREST which the State pays under the AR. plan EVERY YEAR AFTER THE THIRD YEAR? Indeed is this not absolutely indispensable to fair, impartial computation of the whole plan? Taking this into the calculation let us see how it will stand. Under the AR. plan the State pays per cent interest on a surplus principal of $22O,694 every year after the third year. This amounts to sI3,24l per year for 27 years-$l3,24l surplus interest. Now as the Board in their table have CHARGED the State interest on the interest saved during the first three years, 1t is fair to CREDIT the State with interest on the annual $13,2 excess interest? And1 it not little singular that such practical, close business men as the gentlemen who compose the Board, should have