Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1886-10-18
The State Debt.

Sir:-In your issue of this morning you
have an editorial reference to the fact that
I am here in Virginia, and you suggest that
I must have been startled at the result of
the trials in the coupons cases which have
Just been decided in the United States Cir
cult Court. You also add that | have no
doubt before now reached the conclusion
that there is no money for the bondholders
IN these suits. As you have thus promi.
nently brought me before the people Of Nir.
ginia, trust you will allow me space in
which 10 make q short statement of the sit.
uation as | view it.
do not belong to that class of Firginia's
creditors TO which the Dispatch and other
Virginia papers habitually refer as Shy
LOCKS" | have never met an English bond
holder OF this type, nor do l believe that
any such exists. The bonds of the State of
Virginia which | own were purchased for
me years ago on the faith of Virginias high
credit, with the expectation that the prom.
lses she made when she issued them would
be faithfully fulfilled. i'll now submit to
the settlement which the authorities of the
State demand, the principal Of my property
will be reduced one-half and the annual in.
terest nearly three-fourths, whilst the tax
receivability Of the coupons of nv bonds
which is the one thing that makes the latter
OF value, will be taken from me. 7 appea,
to every right-thinking Virgnian, whatever
his political convictions may he, and ask if
this is a just way to treat those who have
already twice accepted reduction of their
claims and are willing even now to meet the
State fairly and accept whatever the State
can ialrly pay. The argument that poit-
lcal party in Virginia has made up its mind,
for party reasons not TO pay the States Just
debt or even to listen to proposals for rea.
sonable settlement based on her ability to
discharge her obligations scarcely commends
itselt to creditor, like myself. who sees the
Treasury of the State full to OVERLOOKING
whilst he and his family have to submit to
privation in consequence of the acts of those
who lew years ago repudiated with hor-
ror any connection with the movement to
deprive the bondholders Of their rights.
NOW, IN respect to the litigation which
has been going on in the courts, you must
bear in mind that this litigation has not
been forced on the State by the bondhold.
ers, but it has been forced on the bondhold-
era by the State. The State agreed with
them, when they surrendered onethird of
their claims in 1871, that they should have
tae privilege Of insttuting just this litiua-
ton to secure their rights in case at any
time some new political party should fail to
accord them. There is surely no oppro
brium to be cast upon me and my fellow
bondholders for simply seeking to avail
ourselves in the courts or rights which tb Q
State promised us We should have, aid
which she has forced US into litigation to
secure.
A word now as to the practical result of
tais ll'igatlon There have this week been
either tried or settled Gfty .one suits for
damages on account OF trcspasses by county
treasurers and by the BOARD of Indemnity,
VINO nave ieVled Oh the property of tax.
payers after tend er of coupons. Two Of
these cases were first tried and resulted in
verdict for the Plaintiffs for all the DAMAGES
they had sus. ained and their costs. The
States otlice!s, after these two trials, offered
70 settle ali the others on the same terms,
which ot1e the counsel for the plaintiffs ac.
copied The result was that Judgment was
entered against the defendants for S., G97. 54,
anu when you add to this amount the dam.
ages and costs in Fords and Dulany's first
Gaze, amounting to 1871 AZ, it appears that
TIE indemnify Board will have to take
IS, 1886 of the peoples money out of the
| Treasury to settle the account. It is to be
noted that amongst the cases just decided
there ia another recovery for MIR. H. G. Du-
lany OF 50, $685. Sc on account of taxes that he
pays in Loudoun couuty-his former recov.
cry of S427, 81 being for taxes in Shenandoah
county.
The account against the Indemnity Board
is, therefore, as follows:
Ford's & Dulanys first case....S 731 40
Fifty-onc trespass cases, decided Octo-
-, Der 18th to 18th. S,Go7 "a
MR.. fuckers fees according to MIR.
kuffin! .....:.................. 500 90
Costs paid by Indemnity Board for
suinmoning their own witnesses, saw 500 90
a., S1O,425 sc
Add eoupons-say 81 600 which
each taxpayer retain and will re-
EtOuCr this iail DDo m