The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1877-05-10
WHOLE NO. l48

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. 1--WE will
not be out done in generosity. We
will throw off the other half -
s'Vote 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 l86O,which repudiated
the bonds, is itself a 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
actole of the old debt without SUBMIT
ing it to the people! The last Legis-
allure 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-
ton grabs the 100000 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? ssRepudiate 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 100000 acres will eventually sell
for as much, per acre, as our school
lands; this would make them yield
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 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
ulati0n of the State doubled, which it
would in ten years, he would pay only
twenty-five cents; and before the
bonds matured his tax would be re-
duced to twelve and half cents.
, The half cent would represent Steb's
share of the tax Isn't it worth that
pittance to take the dirty plaster of
, reputation off the fair forehead of
the State?
| 'sBut," says some one, ''you, Mr.. ed
itor, have heretofore preached diff.
ferent doctrine.
. Not bit of it. We voted against
: the issue of the old bonds; we de-
| nounced them a swindle as we do
t now and we opposed the former prop.
: ositions of settlement because they left
| loop-holes through which the bond.
e holders would have drawn the full
: amount of their bonds, principal and
3 interest; but we always held that the
State owed something on the bonds
!. and that sooner or later it must com.
g promise the debt. And this is the
9 first proposition, coming from the
s bOnd-hOlders that has ever been sub
e mitted to the people; and it is a prop
! osition which throws off one-half the
) amount legally due on the b0nds;post'
!. pones the payment of the principal fol
). another twenty years and sets aside
i assets which will pay part if not thu
y whole of the interest. Is it reasona
blel
= And SO we conclude:-the state b,
it's own folly has got itself into yer,
a dirty and discreditable mess; and tn
y sooner it gets out Of it, in any fail
il and honorable manner, the better 70
le the State and every decent man in ii
it Those are our sentiments.