The Russellville Democrat., 1877-10-18

debt excludes all the railroad and lcvee bonds, and all of the funded Holford bonds except the amounts actually received on them, that is to say $l2l ,336.59 and interest-de ducting, however, from the interest the amount of interest paid during the period of reconstruction, on the bonds in which the Holford bonds were funded, that is, Sl6S,3S3. By making this deduction we thus ob tain the amount of $229, 9,594, given in the table. The total amount of this undisputed debt is, therefore, $3,O22, 433, instead of S3,727,S27, as stated in the general and rough csti- mate of the proposition of Messrs. Adams and Redfield. It is proper to say that this over-cstlmate was not intentional, as will be apparent, when it is observed that this esti- mate could not, by being either too much or too little, affect the final result, as certain amount of old bonds must, in any event, be pre- sented before new bond could be issued. The proposition was reduc- ed to writing by Mir. Adams when he was on the eve of taking a train from the city, and on figures hastily made at that time by the members of the Board, upon data that have proved to be incorrect, with the less care, as accuracy in the general statement of the debt was not i'm portant, and with distinct and cx- press understanding that a new and careful estimate should be made which has now been done.
 6. It will have been observed that the proposal of Adams and Rediield includes only the surrender of $93l.- 95 of the undispnted debt for each $l,000 new bond. There is here a difference of $6S.05 between the old bonds and the new. This is not put in by way of buying up any of the disputed debt; but it is more than compensated by the lesser in. terest which the new bonds will bear. The undisputed debt being $3,022, ,423, the amount of the new bonds would be $3,243.I7-tho ex cess of the new over the old bonds being $220,649. It will be seen that the saving in the reduction of inter- est in the new bonds more than com pensates the State tor this over issue. Thus
 The direct saving to the
 State the first year, is
 the difference between
 per cent on $3,022, ,423
 and ? per cent on $3,-
 243.lI7, or. $1lG, ,4S3.0i Direct saving, secondyear
 or difference between 6
 per cent on $3,022, ,423
 and per cent on $3,-
 243,ll7is. =. s4,o51.S7 Direct saving, third year,
 in same way, interest at
 i per cent. ....,.. 5I,620.70 Total direct saving of in
 terest, first three years $252, l55.6l
 As the old bonds are bearing in terest, the settlement proceeds sub stantially on the basis of new six per cent bonds, but the interest is lessened for the first three years in order to allow the State to reduce her scrip indebtedness, and to avail herself of tine prospective increase of taxable property. Setting over the decrease of interest against the ex cess of new bonds over the old un- disputed debt, there would be say ing to the State of $3l, ,46l.6l.
 But in order to determine whether the plan works an ultimate benefit to the State, the question of interest must be considered.
 On the one hand, we practically receive, by way of loan, S252, l55.6l, /, and have it's use and forbearance during the thirty years for which the contract runs,-or, more accu- ratcly speaking, the use and forbear ance of the sums named below, as they accrue by the net saving at the date of each successive semi,arnual payment of interest during the period of reduction, viz
 For 29I years of. .. S5S,2ll o2 For 29 years, of, ... 5s,24l,52 For 2Si years. of 42,025. 93