The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-01-20

JDH IcyItW OF tUe VISktu ~ reC ~<vs -,
Of the history Of The fuud1ng bu' OF 1871
and Of the PROCEEDINGS under IT. hss peer
deemed necessary 10 show the injustice q
creditors which has grown out OF II, and o.
the acts of subsequent legislatures 10 regart
TO Il, and to make plain TO every one tbt
difficulties which stand In the way OF faiI
settlement.
I think every fafr-minded man must re
gret the existence OF these classlfcaf ions Of
the bonds OF the State, and Of the difference.
I'm the value 'of the bonds OF the different
Glasses. They were all given for money
borrowed for purposes connected with thu
best Interests OF the State. They were al
equally Just, and In equity al have equa
claims TO be paid by the State.
But we must deal with facts as they exist
The classification and disparity In value oil
the various classes c0nfronls US as stubborn
facts. We can neither strike them out al
existence nor ignore nor get around them
We must meet them sqnarely face to face
Nor can we disregard that provision OF the
Constitution OF the United States which
forbids any State from passing any law
which "impairs the obligation OF con-
tracts" Neither can we, as sensible and
patriotic men, set ourselves In opposition
to the calm and weIl-considered judgment
OF our own Court Of Appeals. or to the
well-known line OF decisions OF the Su.
preme Court OF the United States. which
support the judgment OF our own highest
judicial tribunal.
Various measures have from time TO time
been proposed TO relieve us from our diff
Guilty. We have had the McCulloch " bill.
the Barbour" bill, the Bocock Fowler"
BILL and the Riddleberger bill.
The Riddleberger bill Is an open aud
undisguised Reputation OF twelve millions
OF the public debt. 1t assumes the right Of
the State, one OF the parties to the contract,
to ignore utterly the rights OF the other
party. IL disregurds the prohibitions OF the
Constitution OF the United States. and it
boldly assumes the right of the State to pay
or not TO pay a just debt, as she may think
proper. Ii makes the State the sole judge
whether she will pay anything or nothing,
at her arbitrary will and discretion. II she
can repudiate at her own mere will twelve
millions OF the debt, why may she not
on the same principle, or rather want OF
principle, refuse 10 pay anything? Indeed.
| think the inference may fairly be drawn
from that bill that the alternative which it
intended 10 present 10 the creditors Is, take
twenty millions IN full discharge OF your
VI uUlulue uO bol plbIpO>t
10 discuss this bill. IL must shock the moral
sense OF any enlightened people.
The Barbour" and the "BOcOck- F0w-
Ter" bills are less Objectionable in form. but
not much less 20 in their etftc cts. They dis
claim reputation IN name. Indeed, they
recognize that the creditors have some dim
and shadowy rights; but they regard them
as very misty and underlined. They, in ef-
feet, LAY TO the creditors, We acknowledge
the justice Of your Uebts, and would be
glad 10 see you paid; indeed, we are will
ing TO apply any surplus OF our revenue
which may exist after The payment OF The
expenses Of our Government and OF our
public schools TO that object. But good
care Is taken not to give any guarantee that
any such surplus would exist. Ii is simply
idle TO suppose that any creditor-and more
especially any creditor who has the security
which the holder OF "consol" bonds enjoys
in the receiyabity of his coupons for
taxes and other dues TO the Common
wealth-wOuId think for Il moment Of &C.
cepiiDg the terms OF either OF those bills.
The "McCulIoch bill, though by no
means free from defects, was much less OBJ
jectionable than either OF the others. IL
distinctly recognized the fact that the credit
ors had rights which were entitled TO re-
spect, and it nominally substituted consent
for coercion in the arrangement which il |
proposed TO make with the creditors. 1t
provided for funding, with the consent OF
the creditors, and through the agency OF a
" syndicate" the three classes Of bonds |
above enumerated into new bonds having |
forty years TO run, bearing interest at the |
rate OF per centum per annum for the first |
ten years, per cent. for the next twenty |
years, and 5 per cent. for the remaining ten |
years. But in order TO make this exchange |
the creditor was required to present two |
thirds OF the amount proposed to be funded |
or exchanged in consol" bonds, and the |
remaining third either in "peeler" bonds,
or the equivalent in original ante-wars,
subject TO a deduction OF one third OF the |
face amount, that being the share 10 be
assumed by West Virginia.
In pecuniary point OF view, | always
thought that the provisions OF this BILL il
they could have been carried into effect,
would have been very advantageous TO the
been TO reduce the interest on the whole
debt TO an average OF about per cent. At
this rate the aggregate ofthe interest Oh the
whole debt OF S30,000.000, including all
three classes, would have amounted to
; ,200,0 900, which Is just the amount that
was beng annually paid in the form OF tax
receivable coupons on the 0.000, 600 OF out
cOnsol bonds. Assuming that the
whole amount Of S30.000,00 was just, and
must ultimately be paid, with interest, this
bill would have saved annually TO the State,
IN the form Of interest, the handsome sum
)f 100000.
The bill, however was Objectionable in
several particulars. In the first place, it
gave TO Syndicate" the exclusive right
Of funding the bonds. The holders Of both
,lasses OF bonds In the proportion required
or funding could not 20 TO the AUDITORS
)ffice directly and have them funded on
heir own account. but could approach the
government only through the syndicate" {
o whom they were compelled 10 pay tribute.
The bill operated harsbly also on the credit
,rs Of the second and third classes, who
we're compeled>to sell or exchange their
Donds ut less than one third Of their face | F,
'alue, and then accept reduced rate OF in
crest on this diminished amount. 1t is
rue that the bill on its face contemplated
he full aud free consent OF the creditors to {
he new funding process, but | apprehend
hat in nine cases out OF ten it was the pow s
rty, and not the will. OF the impoverished {
older which consented. c
But still greater objection TO this bill I
vas the mpracticability Of carrying it into I
ull effect. As the result proved, there 4
we're many holders of bonds OF all classes I
whose necessities were so great that they t
we're compelled to part with them, or fund ;
hem through the Syndicate" In this way y
omething over eight millions Of dollars |
we're funded: but I doubt il there had II