The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1882-05-11
The Question ofHonor.

Mr.. Editor:-My suggestions in
the last CITIZEN that the democratic
party should resolve to waive Il
compromise with the creditors of
the state for the present and provide
by appropriate legislation for pur-
chasing the bonds in the market,
thereby annually reducing and
finally eXtinguishing the debt alto
gether in n few years, has been
generally discussed, and 1 have
heard of but one plausible objection
to it, and 1 confess it is one over
which I stumbled for time, until |
came to weigh it carefully in the
light Of facts as they exist. The
directors say it would not be honor
able for the state to thus buy in her
bonds at a discount. Well, | con
TESS it does look a little shabby ut
first blush, if we view it from a
theoretical standpoint. But this
has long since ceased to be Il theo-
retical question, and has resolved
itself into a practical one, and the
question now is what is the best
that can be done under existing
facts and circumstances? Whence
comes this objection, Mr.. Editor.
Who is it that says it is not honor
able for the state to buy her bonds
at a discount, paying cash for them
in the market? They are the men
who are even now trying to buy
these same bonds at Il discount, pay
ing therefor not in cash, but with
other bonds of the state exactly !
similar to those now outstanding, !
without offering any additional Sc
curity to the holder. Now can the |
the most fastidious objectOr tell us
how it can be more honorable to |
buy the state bonds at a discount |
and pay for them in more bonds
than it is to buy them at a discount
for cash? As an abstract question
of principle, there is possibly little
difference, but there is a very wide
difference when you consider it as
a matter of principal and interest
and the difference in the
far reaching results Of the one plan
or the other involves questions of
both principle and principal, which
become very vital to the taxpayers
the cash plan is at
least Just as honorable as the com
promise or new bond plan, and
practically it is a great deal more
so. The first gives the creditor the
value of his bond in money, which
has a settled par value; the other
gives him new bond no bett0r than
the old, of uncertain value. which
NAV in turn have to be refunded in
a few wears. The one eXtinguishes
the debt slowly, it is true, but surely;
the other only extends it and posi-
bly, perpctuates it. The one secures
more to the creditor and costs less
10 the debtor, the other secures
nothing to the creditor but another
promise to pay just like the one he
now has, while it enlarges the bur ,
len of the debtor. The one Is a
inality, the other Il perpetuatiOn Of !
he matter. The one will meet the
approval of the debtor and of the 4
.rcditor. now and hereafter, the :
,thcr will not. The one can be )
,ffectual and lasting; the other can
lot, for hold that the decision of {
he supreme court has rendered i'm
possible any bonded settlement by !.
he state legislature that will be
binding longer than two years. !
Then as matter Of principle as !
veil as principal, as matter OF }
Justice to the creditor rs well as
Justice to the debtor, there is no :
way to settle this question more :
or more equitably, or :,
more practically, than the one sug =
rested. And then the settlement :
must be made by the democratic :
,arty in its primary meetings, In I
is county conventions and in its :,
tate conventions. Let it adopt =
his idea in its platform, and 1t will J.
AIRY the state in August by a =
anger majority than ever before in .
IS history. Then the people will !
e satisfied. the creditors rejOiced, =
nd the state will move on 10 pros !
Gritty with accelerated speed, after y
aving this mighty incubus, this =
reat financial anaconda lifted from :
er neck. DEMOCRAT. u y
The rain yesterday was a regular L
Dot soaker and gulley-washeT. II