The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-10-03

posed to pay them but two thirds OF the
accruing interest, that being all, accord
ing to the language aof tho law, that
we thought we. ought to pay until
settlement; 4; was had 4 with West flr.
ginia; and this proposition they accepted
without murmur. Again, in 1871, findding,
after repeated efforts, that we could come
to no settlement with, West Virginia, we
proposed to our creditors that f;they would
throw of one third OF the debt, Or remit II
to the tender .mercies OF. West. Virginia,
snd extend the payment for thirty-four
years. that on their surrender to us OF their
old bonds we would issue to them a new
bond for two thirds Of the amount due
them, the interest upon which, when repre-
sented by matured coupons, should be le-
| gal tender for all debts and demands, includ-
ing taxes, due the State. As might have been
expected, this proposition OF: compromise
was not readily aceeptedoy the creditors.
THE FUNDING BILL. 80
The proposition became law, known as
the funding bill, on the 31st OF March, 1871,
and remained in full force for nearly full
twelve months-the subject OF much sense
less and violent discussion and animadver-
sion, together with many threats and some
attempts to stay its execution. Yet, under
all these circumstances, only about two
thirds OF the creditors accepted it. One
third declined to accept the compromise al
together, while most OF the other two thirds
did so reluctantly. They considered
| it the virtually giving up or away
OF one third Of their Just dues,, and
men :, holding valid claims, against
Irresponsible debtor are not often! guilty
Of such unusual generosity, especially
when the payment OF the balance is made
D. IY1(
over greatly extended period OF time. AS
matter of fact, our creditors did not 'ap-
prove OF the funding bill and are in no
wise responsible for its origin or enactment
into law. A portion OF them simply ac-
cepted, though tardily, what We voluntarily
and for our own advantage rendered to
them. They hold against us the same old
honest debt, honestly contracted prior TO
the 81 late onpleasantness," shorn, it is true,
of one entire third OF what was legally and
Justly due them, and represented by our
new promises to pay at q: much more dis
tant date, but all done at orr voluntary re-
quest and solicitation. - ..y-
Do we find in all this any justification for
withholding from our creditors their honest
dues, any pallation or excuse for the abuse
and vituperation heaped upon the heads OF
these victims Of our own injustice? Is 1t
not Il shame and disgrace that there should
be found in our State men who, to enhance
their own petty personal aims and interests,
are clamorous for the people to dishonor
themselves by damning their bcnefactors.
Let us understand each other clearly as we
advance.
CAN WE lNvALIDATE OUR DEBT?
I have not thus far discussed in any
respect our ability to pay, but rather the
justice, the equity, and the legality of our
liability to pay. They constitute two sepa-
rate and distinct questions, which should
never be confounded in discussing the SUBJ
ject of our public debt. Our liability is
one thing, while our ability to discharge that
liability is quite another. l have sought to
demonstrate, and hope with success, our
undoubted legal and equitable liability for
the debt, both by the history Of the debt it
self and by the uniform meritorious and gen.
erous conduct Of our creditors. But one
other query as to this branch Of the subject
remains to be considered. Have we done
ANYTHING ourselves which in any respect
impeaches or lessons our liability for the
dobt? That would be strange idea in
deed that debtor Of his own motion, and
without the assent OF the creditor, by any
other means than payment or bankruptcy
could defeat his legal obligation to pay.
And yet, unless this can be done. what is
the meaning or sense Of the outcry against
the now famous funding bill? Conceding
all that has been urged against that bill to
be true-whict, It fs not-is our Just liability
for the debt lessened or shaken. i'll the
slightest degree? Was it not clearly
within the competence of the Legislature to,
enact that bill into law? And was not the
law voluntary tender OF settlement by. the,
I,o, q
and so affirmed by the highest judicial tri-
bunal Of the state-a tribunal which for
purity, integrity, and profound ability and
knowledge OF the law, is the peer OF any
court in the nation. s-. '.s .>.. -.
THE CHARGE OF FRUAD.
It has been charged that the act was hasti-
" and inconsiderately passed, and by i'm
proper means but the charge is utterly
baseless. In my second message to the
Legislature, under date OF the 9Th Of March,
1870, after giving detailed statement OF
the assets and liabilities of the State among
other things / recommended a re0rganiza-
ton OF the State debt upon the general plan
subsequently incorporated into the funding
bill. 1t was before the Legislature and the
people for more than year before it was
acted upon. In my annual message OF De-
cember following again called attention to
the subject. Some three months afterwards,
according to my best recollection, by re-
quest of the chairmen of the Finance Com
mittees of the Senate and House OF Dele
gates respectively, i drafted bill which
was submitted to joint meeting OF both
committees. After some two4or three
meetings the bill was amended and
adopted, and the chairman OF each
committee was directed to report ; it
to his house and press. Tito Its passage.
After some amendments to the third section
by the Senate the bill passed the Legisla-
ture by a large. majority. How can it be
said that measure: which had virtually
been before the people and the Legislature
for thirteen months was hastily OF incon-,
siderately passed? II the bill; we're. cor
ruptly passed it was done. without my
knowledge. Had I been informed that it
had been passed by corrupt influences, or
that 1t was in anywise tainted with fraud,
1t is unnecessary for me to say that l would
have stamped itwith my condemnation by.
an Executive veto. Why did not these
gentleme who make the charge prove it
when the opportunity was afforded them at
the next session OF the Legislature, when
committee was raised for that purpose, or,
eanized to convict IL they could establish
the factss tt is q grave thing to
charge Legislature with corruption, and
ought not to be made except upon sub
stantial proofs. It has been announced,
too, on several occasions that the; Legis-
lat,ire acted upon false and erroneous esti-
mates: but, the truth is the gentlemen
themselves commit a far greater error IN
making the charge. In the message OF,
the 9th OF March, 1870, stated that II the
real property OF the State were assessed
aennrdinr to the mandates OF the Constitu-