Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1881-04-15
Frlaay Evenlng, AprII. IS. IssI.
Readjuster and Funder-Which
is fhe Gentleman?

EDITOR LEDGER respectfully
beg leave to differ with your CORE
spondent who styles himself a "True
Democrat" in your issue of April
IL, 1890, regarding the character Of
the Malone party in Virginia, and its
objects and intentions. In prints, l
think it proper to state, in order to
give some authority to my statements
that l was bred and born in Virginia,
and am but a few years removed from
there. l have c~onversed with the
right hand man Of Malone and with
many Of his followers, and am well
aware of all their views and purposes,
as evinced by the indisputable logic
of their actions. There is one differ
ence that your correspondent did not
allude to separating the two parties in
Virginia, and that is the 'funders"
wish to settle the debt with the con-
sent Of the creditors, and the read
~justers do not. The readjusters do
not ask the creditors any odds; laugh
at the obligations incurred by thestate
when it pledged its honor to pay the
money advanced to it, and make the
name of bondholder synonymous with
r~ascality of every character. The
funders do not yield to the readjusters
in their anxiety to settle at the lowest
rate possible, but profess respect for
their obligations and wish TO obtain
the consent of the creditors to a fair
and honorable compromise. Which
is the gentleman-the funder or the
readjuster2
Again, let us see about that war in
terest that your True Democrat" pro
fesses to LOOK upon with such detesta-
ton. Here is a little piece of history.
After the war, in 1873, when the dem.
ocrats had control of the state, and
there was no schism In the bosom Of
the party, with the consent of every
body the debt was funded, with cou-
pOns receivable in payment Of taxes
aud at six per cent. The courts have
affirmed the legality of these cou-
pons, and however poor a policy
1t was in the beginning to surrender
in this way the sovereignty Of the
state, the Hugh Mccullough bill pro
claims no such ideas, announces
no new scheme to fetter the
powers Of the state, but simply re-
tains a feature incorporated in the es.
sence Of the debt and very difficult to
get around. This wal interest, then
was embodied in the funding bill pass.
ed after the war, and the debt payer.
claim that it would be dishonorable tC
repudiate it. Had the question beer
raised Immediately after the war
and before the passage of the
funding act, there might be more
reason in the objection, buI
when its validity has been recognized
ly all true democrats,i it seems to me t
be rather a late date to deny the obi
CATION. Who is the gentleman, thu
funder or the r~eadjuster2 An indi
vidual and a state are very different
things any way, and no matte
what the supreme court has decided
regarding private notes and bonds, th,
matter is no wise so certain regardin,
the obligations of states. 1t would b
an interesting question to ascertain
how many nations in the world bavI
had war interests eliminated. Query
Was France relieved from the obliga
ton Of paying the interest on her deb
while the Prussian foe was ON he
soil?
Let us see what the readjuster pre-
tends to desire to settle the debt at
and then we will see what they intent
to settle it at. To gain power ant
oountenance they propose a settlemen
at 3 per cent, discarding West Vir
ginia's third (Which the funders alst
discard), and throwing overheard tn,
war interest, which, as | have shown