Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1881-12-31
MR. RANDALL's REFUNDING BILL.
(Frsm the N. Y. World.l

But for Hayes hypocritical aud
dishonest veto of the refunding bill
passed by q democratic congress, oil
the relief now offered the business OF
the country by Mr.. Kandalrs bill
would already be enjoyed by it. Mr..
John Sherman, the secretary OF the
treasury under whose advice Mr..
Hayes presumably acted, has virtual.
ly confessed himself to be q charlatan
and impostor by bringing in bill
providing, as the democratic bill
vetoed by Hayes provided, for re-
funding at 5 per cent. The admission
that the democratic position of last
year was right aud the repub biican
position dishonest is not all
cans to make, but tho alter.
native 10 still more disagreeable,
for it consists in . notorious waste
of the public money for the evident
purpose Of avoiding that admission.
Mr.. Window attempted to dodge
both horns Uf his dilemma by piece
Of palpable usurpatioD. 1t was ne.
cessary for him to pretend to sustain
Hayes against congress, aud this he
undertook to do by making the pub.
lie creditors a present of one-half of
one per cent. more than congress had
considered the proper rste. II he
had "coutinued" the bonde at the rate
at which congress had consldered
they ought to be refunded, his action,
entirely without color Of authority
Though it was, might have commend
ed itself to congress for ratification %
All honest attempt to save the public
money. But Window not only un-
dertook to do of his own motion what
congress- could not do without the
assent of the president, but he sat up
his own judgment of tho rate of inter-
est which the United States could
pay again5t the judgment of congress.
There is, therefore, no reason why he
or his device should receive the aliyht-
est consideration from congress.
Ii there be any weak point in Mr..
Randali's bill it is that it treats the
individual contract of Windem with
the bondholders too muchias If Win
dom had been the authorized agent of
the United States to conclude such q
contract. Even il Window had is.
sued his bonds at 3 per cent. Instead
of 81 his action would SET a mischiev-
precedent unless congress makes it
sure that it is not to be construed as
a precedent. In other words, even if
Window had executed the will Of
| congress, his action would still re-
quire express ratification in order to
be binding on the United States. AS
he did not execute the will of con-
gress, but took the chance tnat COLI
gress would ratify an action which
detied its will, there is no reason why
his action should be held to bind the
United States. AS the World pointed
out the day after Windom's unau-
thorlzed proposition was made, the
right to continue the contracts of the
United States with it's creditors at 81
per cent. involves the right to con-
tinue them at 333 per cent. and if a
| secretary Is permitted to usurp the
powers of congress by making coll
tract at the former rate, there would
be 10 way of Furnishing or even Of
disavowing his action if he should
take it into his head to make con-
tract st the latter rate. A prompt
disavowal of Wlndom's pretended
contract, rather than such tender COLI
sideratiou of Windom's situation as
is generally shown in Mr.. Randall's
bill, should be the very first step
taken by congress in the matter of
refunding. After it has done that,
congress will be free to consider what
1t is for the public interest to do with
! reference both to the bonds unlaw-