Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1877-10-10

directed her cries to an Elisha insteat
Of Waddell, for the latter would hay,
promptly told her ''that law is law ant
morals are morals unless you can get
committee report the contrary. You
dead husband made contract which hi
had a right to make, and your sons be
come bondman because your husband
could not legally die till he had fulfilled
that contract. I am sorry for yor
Madam your husband made a goot
bargain his mistake was in dying be.
fore he PAID The debt. l would ADVISE
you to sell what little oil you have, ap-
ply the proceeds to the interest and pass
funding BILL" I marvel that Mr.
Wadtiell's eye did not fall upon any Of
the usury law codifed in his copy of the
Book of the Law"
Recurring to the debt, what was Vir-
giuia's portion by the two-thlrd rule
on fac Goth day Of January 1870? 1t
was $40, 825.3S2.SS; a fraction over
fifteen millions less than we assumed
to pay, and for which we are now held
on our bonds. This Is two-thirds Of all
the debt which Virginia contracted for
railroads, canals, plank roads, turn
pixies, bridges and every thing else,
deducting what had been retired "a
little ever $4,000, 0OO.)
Here, then, is the difference, in dol
lars and cents, between readjusters
and all Observation-Disclosures, re-
pudiators, funders, quibblers. As an
original question, no man whose opinion
is worth having, holds our Obligations
at more than this amount on the day of
our restoration as a state. Arbitrarily
assuming with the funding bill that two
thirds is our share, and the law and all
precedent fix this as our debt on the
Goth day Of January 1870. Whence,
then, the obligation TO pay more: The
answer comes 1.-THE funding bill made
a new contract embodying all this war
aud reconstruction interest; it was a
grevious mistake, but the Court of APP
peals has held this contract valid and
we have no constitutional means OF
Kidding ourselves oft" Its Numerically
true that a divided court did so hold on
the one point adjudicated. They did
hold, that, as an abstract proposition,
a state could divest It's sovereignty to
the extent OF subordinating It's existence,
the maintenance Of Is government
and instilutions-to the payment Of a
debt. TO this opinion Of three men
Gone absent and one dissenting) we
have adverse conclusions from the oldest
and ablest iur;sts of the State, the pro-
fessional peers Of the most learned Of
the court. Here, then. is another
difference Between readjusters and all
those OPT osed to reimbursement the
court on any and every possible avail
able point land dozens Of them have
been suggested by lawyersl until there
remains not doubt Of proper judicial
construction. This, you observe, is
neither unconstitutional nor revolution
any. Why then so much sklrmishing
againstit? There are not a few men In
this State whose annual speculations in
this debt afford subsistence and income.
There are a few who purchased the re-
pudiated 'peelers" from the widows
and orphans" we hearso much about,
who wantnoreversal, but want ''peelers'
made into tax-receivable coupon bonds.
There are not a few in this State who
are the paid attorneys and agents OF
outsiders. The national bank men are
Of this mind because they live in dread
of any demonstration against bonds
while they get interest on their capital
from the taxpayer and discountfrom the
borrower. lest adjustment should be-
come contagious and strike into the
Federal yitals. Agents of foreign H.
surance companies are against reope-
Ming because their companies have a
cheap security depositin the ''peelers.'
There are some larger tax payers who
are satisfied with the situation because
they can discharge their tax bills with
25 per cent. discount by purchasing
coupons. There is an occasional pro-
fessional gentleman who embraces the
opportunity to supply coSpons at a
small discount while he takes in ten,
fifteen, OF twenty per cent. profit. Put
all these together and we have the bulk
of the minority who peddle around theil
platitudes about honor and manutac-
ture the public sentiment in the State
against readjustment. Back to the
court. then, is the first demand Of the
readjusters. That court reversed its
decision for the settlement of Con.
federate debts, and again on the salt
cases. Why not give it on opportunity
on question of as much gravity as
this. in which is involved Is millions O.
faudulently funded interest bearing
nine hundred thousand Of interes
annually? What is forcible in re-adiust
ment would come after this. Concedine
that the whole question were again
RENTED by the court to the legislature
does any sane man suppose the holder:
of the bonds would voluntarily comt
in to have the Is millions stricken out
OF course not. The same force woult
necessarily be employed to which thu
trainers Of the funding bill resolved
That bill declared that no holder should
receive anything at the State treasur,
who did not take under it. a new
measure of adjustment would requir
no more force than this. Whoeve
read or knew ola public adjustmen
that was not forcible in this sense
| l L.. 81