Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1879-03-05

w, alter dlscountlng the proportion OF
such shrinkage in the revenue derived
from property 10 be borne by the school
fund. To make up this deficiency dur
ing the period Of ten years, an increase
in the rate of taxation OF l35 cents on
the 500 will be necessary, making the
rate requisite to maintain the net reve-
nue. derived from the present basis of
values, 693 cents on the 500 of prop
erty. After The expiration OF the ten
years, to pay an additional l per cent.
of interest, it will be necessary. on the
basis of values estimated to follow the
re -assessment 0 { 1880, to increase the
rate of taxation full I cents more on the
800, making the rate Of taxation, from
that time forward, II cents on the 500
Of property.
But it must be- observed, that this
statement has been made up on the
hypothesis that the whole debt was
funded at once. The bill proposed only
suggests that $4,000, 900 shall be funded
during the current year-of this $1,000
900, a little over 100000 woull be
consols and the balance in peters,
Three per cent. interest upon that S.
O00,0 900 would be S240,000, and there
would still be coupons upon the remain
ing SIS, 1000, 600 at per cent. maturing
during the present year, amounting to
5000, 900. Making a total interest LA
bllity for the first year of l.l40, OOO.-
So that during the present year, with a
net revenue Of 81, IA, 9Sl.3S, coupons
would mature to the extent of at least
81, lao, 900, leaving about 5000 surplus
out OF which to meet the present float
ING debt of the State, amounting to
S765, 900, and so many of the 500, 0O9
past-duc coupons as may be presented
for payment. In what condition would
our treasury be betwecIf this and Janu-
airy LIST, 1880. and who would come for
ward to aid the Treasurer in his hercu'
lean task of supplying the absolutely
necessary demands upon the State?
Such beng the outlook for our pay
ment of3 per cent. under the new order
of things proposed, what is there, we
may ask, in the past or present, respect
ing the condition Of the people or the
resources of this State, to justify the
opinion that the day when we can pay
more than per cent. interest is near
enough at hand to be determined? Ten
years in the life OF a State brings ordl'
narily as few changes IN material condl-
ton as one year in that OF an individual.
The upward progress from poverty and
depression, such as that which surrounds
this people, to better and more pros
porous period, is toilsOme, weary, slow.
! If the depression were local, we might
calculate with more confidence, but
when it is neither confined to this State,
nor this country, nor this continent
who can predict the time when a bright
er day will dawn? To assume to dc
more, under such circumstances, tlan i
justified by the present resources OF the
| Commonwealth and the known cOndl-
ton of her people, will be to embark or
a sea of uncertainty in no wise calculat.
ed to give repose to the subject, and tC
start with doubts destructive Of all con-
fdence in the new Obligation, utterly
subverslve Of the object OF settle
ment.
hold, therefore, that there is nothing
in our present condition or future out
look iustifylng a settlement at a tate
higher than three per cent.
The supporters of this bill advocate II
mainly upon the ground that 1t saves a
large amount of interest. But, as
understand the question, it is not What
do we save? but What can we pay? II
this proposed settlement. although re-
ducing our annual liabilities, yet requires
an increase OF taxation, as | have shown
it does, | would enquire. Can the peo-
pie of this State bear such au increase
Will they bear it? If not, or if we have
good reason to believe, from their past
and uniform declarations, that they will
not, is it in good faith, either to them or
the bondhOlders to enact law which
can only become operative by such in
crease IN. the rate Of taxation?
But at three per cent, or any other
rate, would be unwilling TO perpetuate,
by any act of mine, the self.executing,
tax-receivable feature Of the present
bonds, as repugnant to the sovereignty
of the State, as derOgatory to the digni-
ty and good faith of the Commonwealth,
aud as an alienation Of her sovereignty.
which it is not in the power of her Leg
lslature to cOnsummate. 1t may be that
the expression of such conviction will
be construed as a captious or unreason'
able objection. 1t may be ascribed to
a purpose TO defeat a settlement. II
may be said that the concession Of such
provision is q sine qua non in any new
arrangement in view Of that feature ii
the present bonds. TIE such objection:
| have but one reply, and that is, that
hold the feature in such adherence
would never support it, and am Thankful
that l hold no public position where my
vote opposing it might interfere with al
otherwise practicable solution of Tho
problem.
In this discussion | wish to record th.
fact, that the difference between TIL,
advocates of this bill and myself is no
one of principle, but simply as to thu
practicability of the scheme, except al
to the coupon and certain other features
of the proposed law, to which | vii
again reter-for whether the schem,
now up. or the suggestion shall here
after make, be ultimately adopted, i
must be compulsory upon the grea
number of creditors, who are neilhe
represented nor consulted when gu
General Assembly acts. All partie!
are now agreed that REIMBURSEMENT il
right and proper, and the difference
seem to be confined 10 the measure ant
mode Of etlecting it and whether thu
one or the other be ultimately adopted
hold that unless such legislation il
secured as will prevent merely partia
funding OF the debt, Wo will, instead o
securing beneficial settlement. merely
have confusion worse COMPOUNDED,
But, sir, will not pause to analyzt
the logic of those arguments which
starting with the statement that We
owe six per cent, on our debt, con-
clude that it is honest to pay three
per cent, four or FIVE per cent, witt
tax receivable coupons, bat dishones
to settle at three per cent. without the
Tax receivable feature in the bond
II - Il -. 1.