Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1883-09-11
From the Richmond Dispatch Of Sept. 4th.
The Henkel Bill.

W. W. Henry, Esq, writes to US from
| his present place of soiourn the following
| letter concerning the Henkel bill 1t con
| firms the statement we made the other day
in regard to that bill. 1t ought to be add
ed that according to our recollection the
bill passed unanimously in one if not IL
both houses, though good many of the
| Readjusters no doubt declined to vote:
SEPTEMBER LIST, 1888.
To the Editor Of the Dispatch:
! In your paper of the 30th there is an in
quiry about the Henkel bill, which is now
claimed as Readjuster measure. Having
been active in the passage of that bill, de-
sire to say few words about the circum-
stances under which it became law
When the McCulloch bill for the settle
ment of the State debt was under discus
sion in the House of Delegates Mr.. Henlzel
said to mo that he and some others who
had acted with the Malone party were sat.
isfied with the proposed settlement, and
would vote for it if an act was passed which
would protect the school fund until the
debt wassrefunded, and the revenue was
| demonstrated to be sufficient to pay the ex-
penses of government, the school quota,
and the interest on the funded debt I told
him that it was the desire of the friends Of
the bill, so far as knew, to protect thor
oughly the school fund and we determined
to call a conference of the supporters of the
bill in order that we might agree on q suit
able measure for this purpose. That con-
| ference was held at the room of Mr.. Bocock,
at the Exchange HOTEL and was largely at
| tended. After discussing the various bills
which had been presented for the protec-
ton of the public schools, among which
was one by General Bradley T. johnson,
the conference agreed that the one present
ed by Mr.. Henkel in the House was the
best. Some notifications were suggested,
and Mr. Henkel and myself were asked tc
embody the views of the conference in a
partial report to be presented when the
| House met the next day. This we did, but
upon consultation with several of the
prominent members it was deemed best tc
have the bill acted on in the Senate first,
as it would be more certainly reached III
the House as Senate bill, it being late in
the session. Accordingly, Mr.. Henkel and
myself went over to the Senate and had a
conference with Major Daniel and Mr..
Grimsley, who approved our scheme, and
promised to present the bill at the earliest
opportunity. They were unable to do SC
on that day, and, having to leave the city
on the next day, they gave the bill to Mr.
Smith, of Nelson, who made slight
change in it, making it continuous, instead
of temporary, in its operation, as 1 now re-
member, and introduced it in the Senate.
When it came to its passage number Of
the leading Readjusters absented them
selves, afraid to oppose it, and yet not
willing to support so important a measure
which had not been brought forward by
their party. When it came to the House
it was supported there, as in the Senate,
by the votes of the friends of the McCul-
loch BILL and was recognized as a measure
of the Conservative party. Had L the
journals with me l would give the names
Of the members who supported tie bill,
which would demonstrate the correctness
Of my statement. This bill went into eff
feet, and proved perfect protection to
the schools, one year before Mr.. Taylor
was displaced as auditor, and the current
school fund now is no larger and no more
perfectly protected than during that year.
The difference between the school fund
now and then arises from the payment of
arrears which had previously accumulated,
but which Mr.. Taylor had estimated and
reported to the Legislature, and for the
| payment Of which an act was passed by
the AIcCulloch bill
WILLIAM W. HENRY,