Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-12-21

various States per cent on the value land grants
within their limits by military bounty warrants.
Thurman thought the per cent. bill should stand
on its own merits. He objected to the Government
giving away SIS, 100000 to States. 1t was Govern
ment money. 1t is our duty to pay as fast as pos
| sible our s2,00o,o0o,0OO indebtedness Every
dollar Of the s7O0,o0o.OO0 or ss0O,0Oo,Ooo due
next year could be paid off in ten
years without unduy burdening the people !;
yet it is proposed to extend it for forty or
fifty years, and at the time give away s2s oo0,
600. Give away public land and Increase the ex-
penditures as we w,re doing, and the inevitable
result of this land policy is to create irreducible
public debt to make debt, like British consols,
perpetual annuity. He regarded perpetual debt
Of the greatest curses that could be inflicted
upon nation He opposed this bill a part of
the system OF legislation tending to bring on this
misfortune.
Cenkling thought Thurman's argument vitkted,
like many other good arguments, by the incorrect
ness OF his premises. In 1885 there was a surplus
in the treasury raised by taxes upon the population
then existing. The surplus was deposited with the
States then existing, subject to call by the Govern
ment. Ii was call loan. Subsequently the quality
of call loan taken from it by Act of Congress-
to the effect that the money should never be called
forexcept by Act of Congress and on due notice.
The doctrine of estoppel warranted the assertion
that when the Government, in times of great need
of money, did not apply for this money, when by
various actions prodaced the impression that it
not considered part OF the assets OF the Govern
ment, it was estopped from claiming money after
forty years had passed. and the States had with the
49,
to various purposes OF resumption. 1t was cen
sidered as gift. Conkling thought the past had
sufficiently demonstrated that the people, resources
and integrity OF the country would make impossible
any failure to pay the public debt.
Blaine regarded the Act of 1886 as a great folly,
resulting from the extreme theory that the surplus
of revenue must be divided among the whole popu-
lation. To recall the money now would be unjust,
not only because of the lapse of time and probable
outlawry of the claim, but also because the people
who got the money would not be the ones called
upon to return the money The men who then
lived in the benefited States had largely emigrated
The Senator from Oregon (Grover) would be called
upon to return the share he got as a citizen of
Maine, in which State the money was foolishly di-
vided per capita among the population. Blaine
was not citizen of Maine at that
time, but he would have to pay his
share of the money now citizen of
that State. No way of returning the money could
be found. The debt of former generation should
not be placed on this generation.
Thurman said that doctrine was untenable. There
was no bar of limitation to this debt. The money
was by law returnable on demand
The debate suspended and the consular ap-
piopriation bill referred to the Committee on APP
preparations.
Adjourned.