Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1879-04-18
Letter from q. q. Riddleberger.
WOODSTOCK. VA.
April 10Th, 9 }

Aplll 1-tH. '"-/
To the Editor Of the indicator:
Observing in your editorial notice CT the
Charlottesville discussion that you sympa-
thize with me, and accepting, of course
that your sympathy is sincere, l take the
liberty of expressing my profound acknow-.
Judgements.
l am not surprised 50 observe that | was
fused up" "squelched," demolished"
nor am [ silly enough to expect any other
report from the funding press. am
rather glad to know that both sides are
satisfied with the results in Albemarle.
Indeed, if future generations were left to
rely upon the kilograms and newspaper re-
ports of the war bet the States, az
they were sent OF written from the field.
the life puzzle would be, on the one sid,
how we we're subjugated at all, and OH tbs
other, why they were 80 long on this roa'
to Richmond. But, dear VINDICATOR,
do wish with your permission to corit'i
one misrepresentation. which, by the Wa,
only appears second hand in your cclum
| had no occasion to Say, nur did |. tina
had never voted for funding bill"
did say that never was per cent. ie-
adiuster,' which explained to mean tina
| was opposed to the funding bill and th'
brokers' bill for many other reasons thai
their per cent. atures; and these Othe'
obi, ctions | argued for more than one
half of nv time. l did not hear what ust
either Messrs. Smith or MCMILLAN made
of this. In my anxiety to get back t.
court I left the meeting for the
evening train, confding in Senator
Massey's skill and courage. But was too
late for the train and returned only in
time to hear the last three minutes of Mr.
McMullan's arraignment of me for voting
! for a three, six and nine per cent. funding
bill. How any record that l have made
can affect the question is beyond my
ken; and were only the truth told
now 1 should not care or notice
it. l did vote for such bill.
may have voted for half dozen of them.
[ think every readjuster of that day did
so. The circumstance were these: That
huge Joint finance committee which Speak
or Hanger packed In violation of what we
believed to be every principle of
parliamentary law, and gave a min
GRITTY of the House majority of the COM
mittee, reported two bills The House,
subsequently to the Speakers appoint
ment added three members by election and
was one of these. That alone should
suffice to show how l stood on the ques-
tion in the estimation of the anti-funders.
One of these bills was for three, six and
nine per cent. for twelve. ten and twelve
years respectively, reserving to each sue
ceeding legislature full power over the
whole question and declaring in its third
section that no coupons should be receiva-
BILE for taxes. Fourteen funders on that
committee reported another bill, recogniZ-
ing the funding bill of 1871, paying four
per cent. interest on the debt as funded
and issuing certificates of Indebtedness for
the remaining two pei cent. BY the one
bill we would at least have been even for
twelve years; for then we owed nothing
but the bonded debt, had surplus in the
treasury of 81 100000, and our taxable
values were $3O,0O0,000 more than now.
At the end Of the twelve years, the Gener-
al Assembly had supreme control and
could have done just as they pleased or as
the condition of tile State required. BY
the other bill we would have been adding
100000 OF certificates to our debt each
year and recognizing the funding bill.
Between these two competing propositions
1 voted for the first. Need add that I
have never shed tear over the ultimate
defeat of both?
And, by the way, it was during this
struggle that Hon. r. A. Coghill, Gen.
Jas. A. Walker, and such prominent read
justers so forclbly argued that we could
not possibly pay more than three per cent.
l would really like to hear some of these
gentlemen now, when it is proposed to
give us nearly $3,000,000 more of principal
debt, convert it all into gold, exempt the
bonds from taxation-with outstanding
cou pons and unpaid appropriations ex-
ceeding $1,000,000, assessments reduced
nearly $30,000,000 and prospect of furth-
er and much larger reductions ID 1880.
In conclusion of this brief communica-
ton Of my profound Acknowledgements
beg to say that it will suit my conven-
fence to be at the May term of Angus a
riosity about the squelching business, if
either of the Charlottesville gentlemen, or
any other of the Brokers bill champions,
are spelling for a tilt. Why worry about
the frogs if it afford fun for the boys? We
cannot all be happy at once, you know.
If the Brokers bill should be accepted
then the sooner the s'sman politicians
who agitate it are finally "squelched" the
better for the state. But wo should GER
tainly know, if possible, whether the peo-
pie will accept it. Agitation for either
purpose will result in good. If the people
shall be deceived again, instead of agita-
ting 1t Will be earth quaKlng.
ours,
FL. H. RIDLEBERGER.
We publish Mr.. Rlddleberger's explana-
nation with pleasure, though we think very
few even of his own party will be satisfied
with it. In the mean time in view of all
the circumstances we would recommend
to Harry's perusal the following descrip-
ton of meeting similar to the Charlottes
vile one:
Abner Dean. of Angels, raised a point of order.
A chunk of old red sandstone struck him in the
abdomen.
He smiled a sort OF of sickly smile, and curled up
on the floor,
And the subsequent proceedings interested him no
more.