The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1883-11-15
The Debt Question.

,een referred to by the Northern press
II sympathy with them, in that light. and
some Of the Republican papers have been
made to believe that the assumption was
true. The fact is that it is the only gen.
uine repudiating force that has ever had
an organized existence in the State. 1t
would make pretense of paying the debt,
by acknowledging the amounts formulated
in the several funding bills Of 1871 and
1879, but it stubbornly refused to frame
tax bill to meet the demands of that leg
islation. Under Bourbon administration
the obligations of the State were in excess
of the revenues nearly million of dollars
annually. Time and again was resolu-
tion introduced in the Legislature to levy
a tax adequate to the requirements OF the
Commonwealth, but in no case did it ever
receive votes enough to make it anything
but farce This policy was augmenting
the debt annually. until, under Bourbon
management-with all departments of the
State Government in its control-it in
creased from SIS ZOO, 900 to 81 900, 900. This
policy continued, as it must have done
with that party in power, it would have
been only question of time when repu-
diation would have been forced upon the
State from sheer inability to pay. All their
contests were conducted on the unequiv-
ocal resolve that there should be no
increase of assessments and no increase
in the rate of taxation. They thus posi-
lively announced that while they admitted
the debt as formulated in the several fund
ing bills. they would not, under any cir
cumstances, make adequate provision to
meet its demands.
The Lynchburg Convention even re-
solved to accept the Riddleberger bill
which the Bourbons had declared to be a
measure of reputation and robbery, and
by this act published to the world that
they had no intention, if restored tC
power, of affirming their loud clamors
about debt-paying. In harmony with the
logical Interpretation of the record of this
so-called debt-paying party, is the senti
ment of a recent editorial in the Rich
mond Dispatch. The Louisville Courier
Journal, stated editorially.. that the first
duty of the incoming Democratic Legis'
lature would be to invalidate the Riddle
berger settlement, and that until the Dem
ocrats do that and proceed to settle hon
estly with the bondholders, the faint Of
reputation would rest upon them as i,
does upon the Republican, party in Vir
ginia. Upon this the Dispatch, Of thu
18th, the organ of the Virginia Democracy
comments as follows: THAT is to say
they ought to be guilty of dishonorablt
act. Such advice will not be taken in Vir
ginia. We would bel fools, indeed, aftel
the voters have at two elections declared
emphatically that they will not pay thu
debt as ascertained.by the funding bill Of
1871 if we should falsify our pledges made al
Lynchburg, deceive the Ipeople, show tht
voters that they were defrauded ont o.
their suffrages. and disgrace ourselves the
world over. We should be doubly damned. ,
After this outburst.. of honest indignation
the editor.proceeds to elucidate the debt
question, talking as glibly about West
Virginia 's..share ..as ..anyI Readjuster evel
did, and then concludes as follows: 1.-THE
whole story is that Virginia must disowr
(if you like the. word) responsibility fol
West Virginia IS third, though it is legally
her debt, and a good deal of it morally
hers. She must also lquidate Tor disown,
fifteen or more millions of the two-thirds
she took to herself--if for no other reason
because the people have twice solemnly
decided at the ballot-box that they will
| not pay the whole, and there is no consti
tutional way, that we know of, to make q
State pay her debts. Well, now, men and
brethren, what is the difference morally
between refusing to pay twenty millions
and refusing to pay thirteen millions? II
we are compelled to repudiate millions and
millions of the debt. we need not hesitate
to say that we draw the line at the Riddle.
berger bill. There. is great temptation to
let it all Slide but we resist it. We will
pay the twenty millions promised in the
settlement
Here we have..an honest confession con.
sistent with the whole record on this ques-
ton, of the partyithat the Dispatch repre-.
sents-thau all the high-sounding SEN
fences about debt-paying were simply
leather and prunella.'
1t was kbetween1t the two wings of the
Democratic party. that the Republicans
had to decide. The. Readjusters declaring
for what was assumed to be an equitable
ascertainment. of theIdeht, and making
provision to pay it, and the Bourbons de-
claring for the Funding bill estimate, &C.
companied with the resolve that no suffi.
cient provision would be madel to pay it.
The Republicans had been driven to make
this choice by the Northern Republican
press-the New York Times, Tribune, Phil.
adelphia Press, and others of like high
standing in the party. and the advice and
determination of the administration Of
President Garfield. to support the Readjus.
tiers in the contest of 1881. They were
forced to decide which of the. wings of the
Democratic~~party they would defeat in
that contest. AS the Readjusters, on all
other questions, were in accord with the
Republicans, and the BourbonS in direct
antagonism, and as the Readjusters on
this, held to more equitable and defen-
sible position than the Bourbons, the Re-
publicans united with them and achieved
success.
Taking the debt as an original PROPOSE
tion, dating in 1865. the Riddleberger bill
is defensible, except as to the rate of in
terest it fixes. We and other Republic
cans opposed the adoption of that bill at
the time of its.introduction, not because
it was not equitable. but for the reason
that.the Legislature chosen by the people
had adopted a settlement. and the courts
had decided it to be All inviolable contract.
We argued that even if the decision of
the Appellate Court were wrong. as we
thought it to be, it were better to bow to
its determination, and submit to an injus-
tice than to assail this most conservative
bulwark of the peoples rights and libel
ties.
Considered from standpoint of equi:
ty the Riddleberger settlement is not
except in the feature of
the rate of interest, and that was justi-
fed, as was claimed, by the condition of