The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-09-01

Of the argument contained in the letter, and
which the Wing omlts TO publish while 1t
altogether misstates it. -
Air. Barton puts the debt Gag u
would be under the Barbour Oil oo1 70
s8'goaa 9a
Under the present scttlemen ....... sl,74o1oz 20
Saving BIZ the set,lement.......... sSa4o,AI4 20
The Wing says that the writer is gs'iityIol
Sc false pretences" in making this estimate
under the /" BARBOUR BILL" claiming That he
should have said the funding Dill OF
1902 .s&,''f
Now. the funding bill Of 1870 was the
disease OF which the State was SICK Or.
BARBOUR came in and prescribed remedy,
but left the patient just as ne was before.
DR.. McCULLoCH was called in, and his medl-
cine makes vast change in his condition.
It was, therefore, right and proper 10 con-
slider the patient as he was after each sys-
tenn OF treatment, and ii it was true tnat
the BARBOUR bill left the debt as it was un-
der the funding bill of 1870, 1t was accurate
so to state 1t. Mr.. BARTON did not say that
the BARBOUR bill made the debt S34, 1885,
9o7. so, but only that it lett lit at that sum,
and hence the demonstration OF the BAR
BoUR bill as an insufficient remedy.
The same remarks apply to the annual
saving OF s791, 67O.25, effected by the Nc
CULLoCH bill over the BARBOUR bill.
The Wing denies that the BARBOUR bill
was ever intended to be settlement, but
was 10 be followed up by bill for read1ust-
ment. II this be true, then why the strug-
gle for this measure? why the denuncia-
tion of the Governor for vetoing it? and
why should it now be the only tangible ar
ticle Of belief in the Rep@lers' empty
creed?
The act Of readjustmert that it is said
was to follow the BARBOUR bill was reported
in the House February p, 1878, and is con-
tanned in the Wing Of February %, 1878. 1t
provides for per cent. for twenty years
and per cent. thereafter; for an exemp-
ton OF bonds from all taxation; for the
payment of interest at the Treasury, or in
New York or London, at the option OF the
holder; for issuing certificates for the full
amount of the arrears of interest ON the
public debt; and for reducing the interest
on the literary and sinking funds to the
same rate as on the other debt.
This bill, although reported by Mr.. BAR
BoUR's finance committee, for reasons uu-
known to this writer, never reached vote;
and hence it would perhaps be unfair to re-
gard that as the creature OF the Repealers.
with which the MCCULLocH bill should
have been compared, rather than with the
BARBOUR bill. II such a comparison be
now instituted, it will be seen to contain
bill to which its opponents object, and to
be not near so available a settlement to the
State. II the Wing dlsowns the BARBOUR
bill, will it adopt this bastard?
The Wing objects to Mr.. BARBoUR's letter
for describing the literary and sinking
funds from consideration in estimating the
public debt, and points to the Constitution
as requiring them TO be included.
Article Will, section 5, only directs the
application Of the interest OH the literary
fund to the public schools; it does not de-
termine the rate of interest. The act OF re-
adjustment to which we have referred re-
duces it to 8 per cent. and the Repeal
ers claim now that the literary fund must
share the fate OF all the public debt under
the MCCULL0CH bill. II we can reduce the
interest in spite Of the constitutional pro-
vision to per cent, why not to per
cent, or no per cent. And if so, why
consider 1t in estimating the debt? The
proper view seems to us to be to pay each
year so much interest on the literary fund
as with the capitation-taX and ten cents OF
the tax on each 800 OF real and personal
property will be sufficient for the public
schools, whether that requires no per cent,
/ per cent, or per cent. and in this view
OF the matter the literary fund may we'll be
excluded from present consideration in esti-
mating the public debt
Article x, section 8, only prescribes that
each law providing for the public debt shall
also provide sinking fund for its pay
ment. This the 9th section Of the McCUL-
LoCn bill does, but as it is only to begin in
1885, it should clearly not be counted now.
Moreover, the Wing must surely have
omit; ed to observe that this same section de-
stroys the present sinking fund by pro.
yidng that call certificates OF debt acquired
under the operation OF the sinking fund
created by the act of March 80, 1871, shall
be cancelled and delivered"
The Wing uses for it) very strange Ian
guage when, in arraigning Mr.. BARTON for
such gross unconStitutionality. it speaks
OF "a solemn promise, q sacred obligation,
and an indie eaSib!e debt" ~.
Mr.. BARToN's figures are again attacked
because be gets his net revenue from 1877
,'7s Qhe fiscal year ending September !,
1879; bis school tax from the estimate Tor
lS7S-'79; his government expenses Tor TINS
year, and his interest account fromS Tue
principal and arrears Of interest up TO ana
including January. 1879. AS these were
the latest sources OF information at the GATE
Of the letter august 1st), and perhaps the
most reliable now, It should hardly De cause
Tor cayil. But what does the Wing do in
the same article by way Of showing Its ac'
curacy?
It states the revenue as follows:
But Auditor Taylor estimates the
revenue (netl for 1S7S-'79 at.....$2 ,414,O20 81
Subject 10 4 deduction for bonds ex-
Z eInpt from taxation OF. % SZZ 10
t2,s47,lss %
# The Auditors statement, which the
,Whig quotes, does not make an estimate
for 1880. but n statement OF the receipts