The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1877-05-10
WHOLE NO. l4Y

into court voluntarily it would, almost
certainly, have to pay the whole debt.
The bond-holders come forward and
say: ''Let us split the difference.
We will throw off one-half and you
pay the balance And Stebbins
says, like Artemus Ward. ssWe will
not be out done in generosity. We
will throw off the other half -
ssVote it down. shrieks Stebbins.
Suppose you do,-What then? Have
you settled the question? Have you
wiped out the bonds! Will Ban
quo's ghost never rise again?
Yes; the bond-holders have a judi
cial declarationfrom the United States
Supreme Court that the constitutional
amendment Of 1860, (which repudiated
the bonds, is itself nullity and that
the Legislature has no right to refer
questions Of legislation back to the
people; that the law-making power is
lodged in the Legislature, mot in the
people and that all such references
are null and void. This being true,
what is to prevent some future Legis-
lature from issuing new bonds for the
scltole of the old debt without SUBMIT
ing it to the people! The last Legis-
ature came very near closing the
matter up, on the basis of one-half,
without any such submission. The
proposition carried at one time in the
joint-committee Of the two houses, by
a majority Of one vote.
Suppose the pending proposition de-
feated; suppose a railroad combina-
tion grabs the $1,000 acres Of land;
and then suppose some subsequent
Legislature issues new bonds for the
full amount due on the old ones, say,
for seven or ten millions, what will
Stebbins do then? ''Repudiate again.
says Steb. But suppose the school fund
is at once invested in the new bonds,
what then! You can't repudiate the
bonds without wiping out the school
fund.
Isn't it better to close the thing up
while we have the lands to help pay
the debt?
/, But, says some one, the lands won't
pay the interest. No man doubts that
the 500, 900 acres will eventually sell
for as much, per acre, as our school
lands; this would make them yield
J three million dollars. If then the
lands don't sell readily enough to pay
the interest they will certainly realize
enough to pay the greater part Of the
, principal. But suppose the sales Of
, the land to pay one-half the interest,
then every man who owns a thousand
dollars worth Of property would have
{ to pay fifty cents per year as his share
, Of the tax, and as soon as the pop
ulation Of the State doubled, which it
would in ten years, he would pay only
twenty-five cents; and before the
1 bonds matured his tax would be re-
!. duced to twelve and half cents.
3 1.-THE half cent would represent Steb's
share Of the taxi Isn't it worth that
/ pittance to take the dirty plaster Of
/ reputation of the fair forehead Of
> the States A4
/ "But," says some one, ssyou, Mr.. ed.
!. itor, have heretofore preached dif.
!. ferent doctrine"
q Not bit of it. We voted against
! the issue Of the old bonds; we de-
d nounced them swindle as we do
t now and we opposed the former prop
! ositions Of settlement because they left
d loop-holes through which the bond.
e holders would have drawn the full
} amount Of their bonds, principal and
e interest; but we always held that the
]. State owed something on the bonds
J. and that sooner or later it must com
9 promise the debt. And this is the
e first proposition, coming from the
IS b0nd-hOlders that has ever been sub
e mitted to the people; and it is prop
3 osition which throws of One-half the
3 amount legally due on the bonds;post
I. pones the payment Of the principal To-
{. another twenty years and sets aside
i assets which will pay part il not tn
y whole Of the interest. Is it reasona
q blei
e-l And so,we conc1ude:-t the state b,
its own folly has got itself into . yer,
q dirty and discreditable mess; and th
syl sooner it gets out Of it, in any fai
is and honorable manner, the better 70
he the State and every decent man in il
1t Those are our sentiments.