The anti-monopolist., 1877-05-31
LETTER FROM HON.
E. AYRES ON THE BOND
QUESTION.
Friend DOnneIlv:


your comments on my first article on
the Bond Question, and also for the
invitation to continue the discussion.
/ wish to make few comments on
your criticisms and shall endeavor to
do SO in as generous spirit as you
have manifested towards me.
lst. AS to the bondholders' claim
being "a debt de nOrO.' We as a
State. have persistently refused to ac-
knowledge an Indebtedness, on ac-
count of the nOn-validity of the bonds.
AS no Legislature met in 1859, the first
that met after the collapse of the Old
R. R. Companies was that of 1850,
fresh from the people and fresh from
Amendment. What was their action!
10 propose amendments as fOllOws:-
lst to foreclose ''further issue of
Minnesota State R. r. Bonds
ID. TO ''eXpunge" the Loan Amend
ment, Saving the rights of the State.
only,) ''frOm the constitution.
Sd. That mo law-making proyis-
ions for payment of interest or prin-
cipal of Minnesota r. r. Bonds, shall
be in force till such law has been sub
mitted to the people and adopted by a
Majority
If this is a further issue of the r..
R. Bonds, it certainly ignores the
constitutiOn;-if it is an issue of new
bonds on newly acknowledge indebt-
edness, it equally violates the consti-
tuition, where it forbids a State in
debtedness Of over one quarter of a
million. There are worse things
| ''staring us in the face" than this
old lifeless skeleton. Countless mort
cages, store debts, many giving up
their hOmeS-many out OF employ
ment-sOme with starvation staring
them in the face-besides our State is
heavily taxed to help the destitute
whose fields have been devastated by
grasshoppers-Our State badly in debt,
and our counties and cities also.
Self-preservation is the first law OF
nature. Acknowledged claims should
first demand our attention. In rela
ton to your next criticism l would
state, that you misconceive my mean
ing. 1 admit that the State had the
240 miles of imperfect grading-but
that nOW she has not. | was trying
to point out the difference between
handing valuable consideration
down to posterity-and handing dow1
nothing. New York owned hel
canals-MinnesOta owns her interna
Improvements. You say you agre,
with me that the State has not re
garded the bonds as ''valid claim
for the whOIe amount" Then tn,
point to arrive at between the Stat
and the bond-hOlders would seem t.
be, as to whdt is equitable. Chamber
lain says one-half-in your speech il
the Senate you said you would rathe
it had been one-fourth. Now, ther'
is wide difference between One-hal
and One-fOurth-abOut two milliOl
dOllars-an amount not to be trifle,
with. | was educated in the day
when Andrew Jackson was president
One Of his maxims was-''TO deman'
: nothing but what was clearly righ
and to submit to nothing aor0ng."
| cannot concur with yOn that W
legally owe anything. If deal wit
a minor who undertakes to transac
business without the consult of paren
or GUARDIAN can have no lego
claim against him. If do SO, know
ing all the circumstances, l can bu
1 poorly set up moral claim-especiall
r if deceive and cheat him. The 500
5 900 acres of land, if it were legitimat
g to appropriate them to pay thes
: bonds or interest-will not pay tn
interest, let alone the principal. The
/ will not sell fast enough to pay hdl
the interest. They have only accl
e mulated fund of S82, 900 in five year
e and the annual interest ON the me-
e bonds will be at least, $220, 900.
: If we vote no, we are still out Of til
}. trap, and posterity is also, still on
5 and the bond-holders taught anothe
r lesson, and that is, to consent to SOM
e thing that looks like equity and justit
y to the people. I cannot concur wit
) you that the sentiment is CROWN
e stronger in favor of paying the bond
t t-Chamberlain and his associates al
u growing weaker in their demand.
It is dividing our State into Bond al
Anti Bond men, and by-and-by the
b will be thorough State Organizatio
|, then woe to pettifogging GOverno