The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1879-10-02
Hon. James Barbour's Letter.

Hon. James Barb0ur'S Letter.
We publish on the first page Of this issue
of the VIRGINIAN letter from Hon. Jas.
Barbour, of Culpeper, addressed to Mr.. w.
II. Peyton, OF this place. We do this as a
courtesy to the gentlemen who ranged with
us in advocacy of REIMBURSEMENT two years
ago, but who do not, for reasons unac-
countable to us, accept the McCulloch Bill
as final re-adjustment of the debt cues
ton. The object of that controversy, to
our mind, has been fully attained in the Bill
in question. Certainly the demands of the
re-adjusters of Augusta county have been
amply met, and, according to our appre-
hension, the position of the re-adiusters
generally of the State, has been practical
ly recognized and endorsed by the legisla-
ton of 1879. commended then, that the
debt proper for Virginia to assume was in
round numbers, $20,OOO,00O of principal,
bearing six per cent. interest, and $4,000,
600 Of accrued interest, with non-interest
bearing certificates of indebtedness-or the
debt capitalized at $50, 900, 900 bearing4 per
cent. interest,as ascertained in 1871 reduced
the interest charge substantially one-third
when the Funding Bill was adopted. This
was the basis of the REIMBURSEMENT we con-
tended for during that stormy controversy,
and the arguments used and the reasons as
signed then were received and accepted by
the great body of the Re-adjusters of the
State. 1t cut out the compound interest
feature of the alleged settlement Of 1871,
and brought the obligations of the State
within the capacity of the revenues derived
from the present rate of taxation. 1t re-
cognized the equities of the case; imposed
upon the State nothing that she did not
honestly and justly owe, and took from the
creditors nothing that under the circum-
stances surrounding the question, they
should not have cheerfully surrendered
This idea is formulated into law in the
McCulloch Bill, so adjusting the rate of in
terest, however, as to make its operations
press lighter upon the people than we, and
the fe-adjusters of the State generally, ex-
pected-giving us three per cent. for ten
years, during which period our taxable val
ues may be so increased as to make the four
per cent. for the succeeding twenty years
no more Onerous than the three per cent.
for the ten years and the possibility of the
State refunding the debt at lower rate of
interest than that imposed by the five per
cent. feature for the following ten years.
This, we maintain, lisa substantial recogni-
ton of the practical demands of the Read
justers. 1t covers every point they con-
tended for, except the REIMBURSEMENT Of
the tax-receiyable coupons, which becomes
mere abstract sentiment, operating no in
convenience and imposing no burdens, with
the revenues equal to the demand upon the
State for interest charge, support of gov
eminent and the public schools. Not only
does the present bill so re-adiust the debt
as to place it in the power Of the State to
meet the requirements under it without in
creasing the aggregate of taxation, or even
the rate of taxation, but it aims higher
and imposes more sacred consideration
it fres the debt at vhat me honestly o,re and
without inflicting discredit upon the Com
mOnwealth. In view of this conclusion,
and the further fact that the taX-receivable
coupon is part of the legislation of 1871
"a security the creditor has, and its posses
sion fortified by the decision of the highest
judicial tribunal of the State, we can see no
practical Benefit to be derived from con-
tention about it, however much we might
be disposed to condemn it as an orr ginal
proposition. In surrendering one-third OF
his interest, it is not reasonable that we
should require him to weaken what he re-
CARDS his security, especially when the State
is put to no practical disadvantage by its
retention.
We have stated the position of the read
justers, as we understood and maintained
it two years ago, and now covered by the Nc
Culloch Bill, as preliminary to a brief ex-
animation of the extra read justment
that Mr.. Barbour would have, and the
strained and ominous appeals he has seer
proper to make. Inverting the order of
his arrangement, the reader will be attract
ed by the stress Replaces upon the s'aggre-
gate'' and 'srate of taxation," and the de-
mand he utters that under no circumstances
must either be increased. Toconcede that
the aggregate" of taxation should not be
increased-which we believe every advocate
Of the McCulloch bill is willing to do, because
under. its operations it is not necessary to do
so-is not enough for Mr.. Barbour. The
aggregate of the revenues asznow paid by
the people will be ample for the current
and accruing obligations under the McCul-
loch bill, which would settle the question
of the ability Of the people to pay what
this bill requires. 1t is less than they have
been paying ever since 1871, and certainly
we can continue to pay, with the increased
facilities for business of all kinds, and es-
pecially the operations of the farming in
terests, when the assurance is given them
that no default in interest is to face them at
the end of each fiscal year. 1t is not the in
crease of the aggregate of revenues that
Mr.. Barbour is aiming at, for there will be
no necessity for that. It is an increase of
the 'srate" of taxation, under a decreased
assessment of real and personal property,
which it is assumed will exist in 1881, to
which his mind Is directed, failing to ex-
plain that such increase would not imply
an increase of the aggregate of taxation. I'll
not an argument addressed to the common
honesty of the people to pay what is recog-
nized as the debt. and what it has been
demonstrated by the experience of the past
ten years they can pay, but to avail of the
possible accident Of circumstances to refuse
to pay less by $500, 900 than they, now pay,
because the estimate Of the basis of taxa
ton may not be'as high in 1881 asst is now.
This certainly would not affect the ability of
the people to pay. A farm now assessed at
$4,000 and paying $50 taxes, would not be
the less able to pay $50 were it assessed at
$1,000. Its productive capacities would not
be decreased in proportion to the decreased
assessment, nor would the profits derived
from its operation and the ability of its pos
SCISSOR be affected in the least. The same