Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-03-13
NaItfaster fntelligenrer.
tUIBDAY HvENNa. MARCH ls. 1893.

4
==-==-----====-=---------- -----=---- ----=------
EuneDAY HvENuNo. MARCH 10. 1893.
State Finances.
The Legislature wastes time in dis |
eusEing the Philadelphia building COM |
mission bill. 1t is easy enough for it TO
- that the desire of the Philadelphia
people should be acceded to in this
matter. They do not seem to want the
commission and would like very much
to avoid further expenditure for the
STRUCTURE with which the commission
has obstructed its chief highways. Phil
adelphia is not like Pennsylvania, op.
pressed with too large revenue. The
plethoric treasury of the state can stand
any sort of depletion which the Legisla
ture is disposed togive it. In truth, it
would be better for the Legislature to
spend the states revenues than to have
them accumulated in the banks. If the
representatives of the people of the
state are determined that Philadelphia
shall finish the public buildings, tower
and all, under the direction of building
commission which the Legislature has
created, and over which the people OF
the city have no control, then we think
It no more than fair that the Legislature
should direct that the state shall pay the
bills. Instead of that we see that the
state officials are calling upon the city
for back taxes due by it, and that they
are revising the returns of money at
interest in the city, so that the state
may get its tax upon all the property
subject to it.
No doubt it is the duty of the state
officials thus to collect its lawful rev.
enues. But when the present receipts
are greater than its needs, it is obvious
that something should be cone by the
Legislature to relieve the people from
the unnecessary burthen OF taxation
imposed by the present laws. 1t can
discuss this question more profitably
than any other matter. 1t is the utmost
folly to accumulate more money
in the treasury than is needed.
It is nothing but Stiffness 10
gather together moneys in the sinking
fund, even when there is no profitable
use for them there pending the time
when the state debt can be redeemed. A
sinking fund is a good institution when
creditors want their money and when
they are willing to exchange their
funds for cash at par /; but when they
like the bonds better than the money, it
is certainly not for their accommodation
that the money is put into the sinking
fund. And when the bonds are bearing
q low rate of interest, and cannot he
purchased save at high premium, it
surely is not to the interest of the people
that their money should be gathered into
q sinking fund to be used in such costly
redemption. Since the state debt is
not due, and the states creditors do not
want their money, it should be left with
the people to await the time when it he
comes payable. Then, perhaps, our gov
ernors will be wiser than they were when
they issued an irredeemable debt. Then
it will be the policy of the state, as it
was its policy when its late loans were
issued, to make its bonds redeemable at
its pleasure, so that its surplus funds
may at any time be used in taking them
up. The men who offered the loans which
the state cannot now redeem, because
they are not due, may not have done this
maliciously, but there can be no question
that they did it very stupidity. 1t has
been apparent at any time within the
last decade that Pennsylvania small
debt should not be issued for any fixed
term of years. 1t was no more advisable
for her to do than for the United States.
Both have had a costly experience with
this style of financiering.
It's supposed that the constitution re-
quires the appropriation of $3.50, 900 an
nrally to the sinking fund but is not
this an error ? 1t simply declares that
"the General Assembly shall continue
and maintain the sinking fund sufficient
to pay the accruing interest on such
debt, and annually to reduce the
principal thereof by sum not less than
two hundred and fifty thousand dol
lars.' Will not this constitutional
mandate be met by keeping two hundred
and fifty thousand dollars in the sinking
fund applicable to the payment of the
public debt We assume that the state
is required to pay that much of its deb:
annually, not to Juy it. And when it
cannot pay it, hy reason Of its creditors
being unwilling to take the money which
their bonds call for, surely it is imp"ssi
ble for the state to reduce the prircipa!
of its debt, as the constitution provides ;
all that can he done to carry out the
constitutional injunction is to keep on
hand in the treasury the amount which
the constitution requires to be provided
for the annual reduction Of the debt.
Its language is that the Assembly "shall
maintain the sinking fund sufii-
cient annually to reduce the principal
of the state debt $25O,OOO;" and surely
this is done when that sum is at all
times kept in the treasury subject to the
demand of the state creditors and await
ing their willingness to take the money
for their bonds. 1t is not sensible con-