Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1884-10-04
The Hughes Bonds.
To the Editor of the Dispatch:

~ Uf I@NNtf ~ iftt /fHF"t''s
The adoption or rejection OF any pro-
posed construction Of IN ambiguous law
is very much affected in most minds by
consideration OF itS practical operation. II
is generally supposed that the recent act Of
Assembly amending and reenacting the
9Th section OF the Riddlehcrger act has
smOOihed out sll inconvenient wrinkles
from that remarkable enactment. Never
thecsS, in order to test the construction Of
said 9Th section suggested in my letter Of
October |, 1854. il may be useful to COM
pare the status Of person who funded a
q 900 conSol bond into Riddlebcrger
bond as soon as practicable after the lst OF
July. 1852, with the status OF person who,
but for the amendment aforesaid, night
have brought a like consol to be similarly
exchanged Immediately after July |, 1857,
an interval Of five years.
In July, 1887. the former will have
Riddleberger bond for 500, Tor its equiya-
lent, $500 bond, and fractional certiti-
cate for $780, and he will have received, in
ten equal semi-annual instruments OF S7.9j
each, the aggregate sum or $500 in
money. Add to this, for average simple
per cent. interest on the instruments,
s022t, and the sum (sSS.72s) will repre-
cent in July, 1887, the income from his
principal during live years.
In July, 1887. the latter. presenting a
$1,000 consol bond, with ten coupons OF
$50 each attached. would have received
lin accordance with the construction sug-
gested) Riddleberger bond for $500 IN
exchange for the consol bond, and for the
ten coupons Of $50 each another Riddle
berger bond for $500, dollar for dollar.
The difference between the value OF n
Riddeberger bond for $500 in July, 1887,
whatever that may be, and the sum OF
SSS.72t, estimated as above, would have
been the measure OF advantage or disad-
vantage rs between the earlier and the later
funding.
What will be the effect OF the late act APP
proved August 81. 1894, is matter for future
bureau and judicial legislation. The true
construction in thS behalf will never be
fixed except by "men OF good will" to-
wards The Riddleberger settlement.
The Board OF Commissioners OF the
Sinking Fund, composed OF friends every
way friendly to the Riddleberger act. and
standing in confidential relations to its au-
thors, constituting the law officially contem-
rOraneOusly with its passage, adopted and
pursued construction essentially different
from that OF Judge Hughes, and from that
suggested by the undersigned.
II was the practice OF the Board, in eX-
change for 81 900 consul bond with cou-
pons attached from January |, 1888, and
after, TO give Riddleberger bond GATED
July I. 1882, for $3.50 Tor rather bond for
$500 and fractional certificate, 1901 with 3
per cent. coupons from January 1, 1883.
and after; bond for bond. coupon fol cou-
pom. II at the time OF exchange there were
attached TO the Riddleberger bond deliy.
cred as aforesaid. any coupons past due.
the holder would Immediately cut them off.
and go Immediately to the Treasurer and
collect TIE amount thereof. And so in one
sense it may be said that the interest past
due and unpaid upon the same funded.r
accruing after July l, 1852, was paid dol
lar for dollar in money.
Whatever margin there NAV exist for
honest differences OF opinion az 10 constIuc.
ton in this behalf, II does not affect the
proposition involved In the matter OF the
Hughes bonds-to wit, coupons detached
from consol bonds which have not been
actually exchanged for Riddleberger bonds
cannot, under the law, be funded into Rid.
dleberger bonds dollar for dollar.
A careful revision OF the whole Riddle.
berger law, and a reprinting Of II ver6ati,n.
Hteratim, ct punctudtim as 1t stands enrolled
In the Capitol, would be public benefit.
JOHN I4oS.