New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-02-04
O,r1sF,cTION OF SENATOR SHERMAN.
Try TELEGRAPH TO THE TRTBUNEl


-a,,.oc,>, Fob 9-Scnator sherman is we'll
.t.sa3 with the outcome of the long debate OH
- pofrpdinr bill and saws the amendments Which
1oa, do not materially harm it. He was lndiller-
80 IN tb. Davis amendment, believing that IL 'no
tovos are reduced, as they are likely 10 pe' WV
no about five wears before the %35OoOo'ooo ol o.
er cents will be redeemed, and that the result
bo abont the same as if the new bonds were ni'''e
;rredaemable for five years. Mr.. Sherman l"NO,1 ,,
tbo rrinciple of tho Hawley amendment ana "ouiu
hove supported it if it had come III tho lo'ih Ci
,o,arate bill but did not wish to have II p"ce" a
. r;dor upon the Refunding bill. lie was eSpeci'iS
,,oosod that the Vest amendment and the fluino
ameudnent both of which received their chiel sup
ro,t from the Democracy, were voted down.
Tta democrats wished so to load the measure
with obnoxious amendments that 'ile nepuOi
,ronld themselves be driven into opposltlon' py
,''r r,o,,s tbev would preserve for future use
,tai, ,,ost ,recious financial grievance. The TACT
+bo+ oftcr so much painful labor the Senatorial
aonn,oin sbopld have delivered itself so harmless
" NAV be regarded as III some sense III oNi
Jence that the influence OF harum-scaIunl
fnoncicrs in Congress is waning. 1t Is, perhaps, 10
be regretted that the opportunity ouereu oS 'ho
boroinc of the Democrats against the reluhuihe
,l,n of Senator Window was not used TO better au-
vantage ~bv the Republicans. Senator Nlhuom
made an excellent defense against every attack, oV
his critics were not forced TO tell as dlstlhcty 's
they might have been what they would nave uone
or reconmended under the circumstances. Usually
tho answer to a question upon this Foih'
,ros evasiye. Once the opinion was
h,o,,cb, ont that Senator Window should
have accented the offer of the bondholders condl-
+iorollv and referred the matter to Congress for
,nission 10 retain in the Treasury the sum saved
The. absurd theory was advanced at great length
that the recognition of right to withhold portion
of the interest due the bOndhoders with thcH wiz
ten consent would give warrant for payne Oh
doube interest on another occasion
Mr. Window took occasion TO give some con-
vineuC figures in reply TO the assertions made IN the
debate that the Government was great tIoser by lea
son of President Hayess failure to sign the FUNDING
bill of last session. He said that the vetoed bill was
only one of two three measures which together
formed the scheme Of Che last session. Immediately
{olovipo the passage of the Funding bill in the
Senate that body had unanimously passed bill re-
nealing the tax OH bank deposits, while the Ways
and Means COMMITTEE Of the House had reported
liIl reueahng the two cent stamp tax. Both these
measures were part of the Funding scheme and
were designed to make the compulsory features OF
the bill less unp3atable to the banks. The amount
of bonds continued at 3l2 per cent interest
amounted to 1910 100000. The vetoed Re
funding bill made allowance of one-quar!eT
of per cent for the expenses Of printing and nego
tIating the new lOan which rate computed upon the
amount exchanged amounted 10 III, i44'ooO' 10 De
placed against the actual cost ol less than ten thou
sand dollars under the Windon system. The loss to
the Government by the repeal of the tax on deposits
and the stamp tax woud amount 10 more than
IS 600 600 annually which might be placed against
1Ae difference between per cent rate Of interest
as proposed in the vetoed BILL and the go per cent
rate adOpled by the late Secretary OF the treasury
namely. 81. .s97. 500 This showed great saving in
original cost in favor of the plan adopted as well
as an annual saving of more than @oooO oOo There
after zoo 90 -,
The bill was carried by a vote of So to is. The
affirmative vote was composed OF twenty Rcpubll-
cans sixteen Democrats and two Independents. in
the negative there were five Republicans and
thirteen Democrats.