The weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1878-1881, 1881-04-26
WINDOWS FUNDING SCHEME.

practicable measure for the reminding OF the
SIS and 6's maturing bonds of 1851. AS this
funding scheme of WINDOWS is one which
will cut an important figure in future politi-
cal campaigns, it may be as well for us to re-
view, briefly, the whole subject matter that
our readers may see just where republican
ignorance and arrogance is likely to land the
finances of the government.
Under an act of congress, passed July
18th, 1861, and another act passed on the 9Th
of August following, $195, 900, 900 of bonds
were issued bearing interest at the rate of 6
per cent. per annum, payable at the pleasure
of the United States after twenty years from
date. Under subsequent congressional en-
actments, bonds to tie amount of $470,0O0,OOO
bearing interest at the rate of 5 per cent. per
annum become due May l, 1881, and $685.
100000 bearing 6 per cent. interest become
due June 30, 1881. To redeem these bonds
the late Fernando w God drew up a funding
bill that provided for the issuance of $780,
0OO, 900 of bonds and $500, 200, 900 of treasury
notes each bearing interest at the rate of 3
per cent. per annum. This bill passed both
HOuStS u COlSicSS u d NCtuCu w La 10 a
day Or Two before he retired from office. For
this veto Hayes was severely censured by the
press and people of the country. 1t requires
but a few moments calculation to show that
this act of Mr.. Hayes costs the people
nearly $l5,00O,O00 annually in interest
money, but the national banks, princi-
pally those in New York City,
that held these bonds we're benefited in this
amount by the veto. 1t was not long before
the republicans found that in listening to the
national banks Mr. Hayes had seriously COM
promised the future success of the republican
party. The democrats openly charged that
one of the reasons why Hayes vetoed the bill
was because its enactment into a law would
popuIarize the democratic party and attach
the people to it. This reason was unyues-
tionably an important factor that caus the
defeat of the bill, but the New York banks
We're the principal levers that overthrow it.
Now, to quiet the clamor of the press and
the people, and toturn aside their Indignation,
Mr.. Window originated and entered into a lit
tie funding scheme ofhis own. This Minnesota
debt-repudiator, loud .mouthed antlmonopolist
and at the present time a defendant in the
suit of Mr.. Henry Willard against the North
ern Pacific railway company, restraining the
issue of $1s,000,O00 worth of shares
of that company's stock to him and his asso-
c~iates, has a history that does not inspire the
confidence Of the people in his financial abil-
tiles. As we SAID, this gentleman proposes
to dispense with congress and run the finances
of the governme. IT according to his own
sweet will and pleasure His plan is a very
simple one, and if there were no other parties
to the contract, and if it were authorized by
law, and it did not establish a dangerous
precedent, we presume no one would offer an
objection to it. But fortunately for Mr..
Window and his pet measure, it is full Of in
consistencies and without warrant
of law. We said his plan is
There are about 5000, 600, 900 of 6 per cent.
bonds payable at the pleasure of the govern
ment after June Both next. These bonds are
held under a contract between the govern
ment and the holders. This contract auth Or
ICES the treasurer of the United States to re-
deem the bonds when they become due, in
gold, or to allow them to remain outstanding
at the rate OF interest which they have always
borne. Mr.. Window refuses to redeem them
but proposes to break the contract so far as
to reduce the rate of interest upon them. He
gives to A., who holds a $1,000 bond, and
says, "Sir, l will extend our bond to all in
definite period OF time, and allow you 81 per
oo,,t ipfarast ayn,n, may ~ frnn, tha 1et
day of July, 1881, if you DESIRE" OF course,
Mr.. A, who does not care to have his bond
redeemed, agrees, and Mr.. Window attixes a
stamp upon the face Of the bond for 81 per
cent. interest. This he may do with B, e, D,
and so on to the end of the list, until the
whole amount is taken up at 81 per cent. i'll
terest.
This looks like a fair proceeding upon the
face of it. But right here arises the question,
where does Mr.. Window get his authority fol
making these bargains with the holders OF
the bonds? And another pertinent question
arises. If he can refund them at 81 per cent,
Gan he not refund them at 10 per cent? If he
has the power to lower the rate of interest
has he not the power to raise it? Can he re-
) fund a bond without the authority of congressi
If so, of what use is it for congress to pass a
, funding bill? Ii this precedent be established
l could not a secretary of the treasury entel
into an agreement with holders of bonds ant
raise the Interest upon them to his own pri
vate advantage.
And again, suppose congress should ignore
. this unauthorized act of Mr.. Window, and a
its next session pass-as it is intimated 1t will
another 3 per cent. funding bill, what will thu
: holders of the old 9 per cent bonds do.