The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1878-12-05

The baltimore american Of the 3rd inst,
commends extravagantly the address of the
recently formed ''society" in Richmond to
sustain the Funding Bill, and assumes that
''the appearance of the address has pro-
duced tremendous racket among the peo-
pie who are bent upon demanding virginia's
creditors upon any serviceable excuse" In
this assumption the American is mistaken.
The people Of Virginia do not propose to
defraud the creditors of the State out of
one dollar they justly owe. The Funding
Bill is not an honest presentation of the hon.
est obligations of the State. 1t has been
conceded by the State and admitted by the
creditors that the proportion of the original
debt properly chargable to Virginia is $780,
100000. This the people are ready to re-
cognize, and make provision for the pay
ment of six per cent. interest on it, with a
non-interest bearing certificate OF indebt-
edness for the accumulated interest or four
per cent upon the $lO,0oO,O0O accumulated
interest and the prlncipal-abont $50, 600, 900.
The Funding Bill was enacted without
any reference to the condition of the peo-
pie and upon an utterly false estimate of the
taxable resources of the State. 1t was as
sumed as the basis of that legislation that the
real and personal property of the State was
$730,000,000. An assessment was made the
following year after the enactment Of that
legislation, which revealed the fact that the
real and personal property valuation was
about 1920, 000, 900, considerably.less than half
the assumed valuation upon which the Fund
ing Bill was predicated Even this amount
was reached by delusive and unjust meth
cd, and by duplicating the assessment upon
at least one-third, and probably one-half OF
the property. For instance, if piece of
property is purchased for $1,000 and $4,000
paid in hand, with $4,000 in deferred pay
ments, the $1,000 is assessed as the property
of the purchaser, and the $4,000 as the
property of the seller, thus taxing three
lfths of the property twice. This does not
| represent the real taxable resources of the
State, but greatly exceeds them, and when
it is remembered that even by this false
method of assessment, the valuation of
property is less than>one-half of what it was
stated to be, when the Funding Bill was
adopted, the injustice it operates upon the
people can easily be seen, and the eXplana-
ton of the default Of interest made plain.
The Funding Bill was adopted under Cir
cumstances and by influences which render
it obnoxious to the moral sense of the peo-
pie, apart from the great wrong in a tinan
cial and business point, it inflicted. The peo-
pie of Maryland nor the people of any other
State would submit to such double wrong,
nor ought they to do so. The Legislature that
enacted it was not elected with reference to
| 1.-THE matter had never been discussed or
considered by the people, until after it was
| declared law, and then they promptly re-
pudiated it. 1t provided for compound in
terest when the people were not in a condi-
ton to pay simple interest without great
deprivation it embraced interest accumn-
lated during the progress of the war, and
while in the process of reconstruction, when
the State had no control over its revenues,
which absolutely placed the people in a
worse condition than they would have been
had they been compelled to assume the en-
tire Indebtedness of the original State.
Virginia does not want to, nor will she
repndiate a dollar she honestly and justly
ought to pay. If it requires an increase of
taxation to meet a four per cent. bond for
the capitalized debt, or six per cent. on the
original debt assigned to her, the people
will meet it. They want to settle the ma tier
and get it out of politics. but they will new
er give their consent to the Funding Bill ar
rangement and the double injustice and
wrong it perpetrates.