Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-11-24
What Think You NowP


-------------
What Think You Now?
MIR. royal Is so fair and so courteous
an opponent that 1t is pleasure to have q
joust with him. We always endcavor to be
as fair and az courteous as our adversary;
and therefore we will not say that In the
following letter he confesses what we had
suspected TO be the true state OF the case as
TO the new debt proposition alleged to have
been made to the State Of Virginia. We let
each reader Judge for himself. Dir. royal
hes "no authority TO state anything FUR
Their than the creditors themselves have
said" Exactly so. There Is nobody In
Richmond who has any authority to speak
for the bondholders. They are IN Eng
land. We are here.
But the statement that Mr.. ROYAL has
no authority to 90 further than his princi-
pals have authorized him TO 60 implies that
he has authority TO 90 as far. And yet this
trusted agent OF the bondholders author.
lied to go as far as they have gone In talk
ing 10 him cannot inform the people of
Virginia whether or not his principals are
willing to accept five millions OF dollars
more than the RIDDLEBERGER act provides
for paying nor whether they would ac-
ceet q rate OF interest Of per cent. upon
that amount, nor, indeed, whether or not
they would agree to accept less than per
cent. upon thirty millions OF dollars In
deed, we suspect that this latter sum OF
thirty millions at per cent. Is their ulti-
matum.
The alleged new proposition was q dam
gerous one as understood by some OF our
people. But what is it now? Who will
say that the State ought to open her Urea.
sury to coupons under such circumstances
And this suggests to us to ask Mr.. royal
whether, in case the State agrees to ap-
point "intelligent men to have "con-
ference" with the creditors. these latter
will obligate themselves in advance that 20
coupons shall be sold to taxpayers
pending negotiationsy VIII they, first
OF all, agree not to flood the Treasury
with coupons whilst the State is
preparing TO negotiate? OF course
IL they have all the bonds, they have con.
troll of all the coupons, and if they have
not all the bonds, they are not authorized
to act for oil the bondholders.
Mr.. ROYAL speaks OF the bondholders
being "committed by their offer" to ac-
cept 8 per cent. il the residue Of money
in tie Treasury would not pay more
than that rate. But Is it not their under
standing, and was 1t not when the "ofler"
was made, that they would get not less than
4 per cent?
MIR. royal sends us the decision in
ChaGfn rs. Taylor. We asked him for it
because he said in bis letter in Yesterdays
Dispatch that in that case the court had
decided that the coupon need not be one
that had been verified before tender. We
had never seen any such statement. We
have reexamined the opinion in that case.
and cannot lind that that question was
raised. 1t was not raised before the case
first went up on appeal, and OF course 1t
could not be raised when 1t went
up the second time. The court says:
"The rejoinder OF the defendant al
lowed to be filed after the judgment OF re-
yersal. therefore sought again to draw in
question the very matter which had been
already finally adiudged by this court in the
same case. II did not deny the genuineneSs
Of The coupons rendered"
Now, il the genuineness Of the coupons
was not denied, how could the court de-
eide that they need not be verified cou-
pons2 This question was not before the
court at all according to its own ayerment.
10 the Editor Of The Dispatch:
You asked me this morning to say
whether the creditors OF the State will ac-
ccpt per cent. ON s25,0O0,00O Of princi-
pal.
| have no authority 10 state anything
further than the creditors themselves have
said. which is: That they will settle with
the state on the basis OF the present reve-
nue. after maintaining the public schools
and the expenses Of the state government.
II this would be no more than 3 per cent.
on 81. ZOO, eco they are committed by their
Offer to accepting II. unless the State shall
postpone her acceptance OF the offer so I'M
| reasonably as TO justify them in withdraw
| ing it.
The substance Of the whole matter Is
| this: The creditors only ask frair treat
ment. They are not set Of Shylocks. II
is not their interest to cripple Virginia. II
| is their interest TO aid in every way to build
| her up that the payment OF their claims
NAV be the better assured. All that is ne
cessary Is an open, fair, free conference be
tween intelligent men representing the
state, and like body representing the
creditors, and whatever Is fair and just the
state can rely upon having done. But who
can expect men apprised OF their rights Il
surrender them at the demand Of Others
who openly defy the law in making the de
mand, aud boast OF The fact that they ar
deiying the law IN making 1t?
You ask me to send YOU the decision o.
The supreme Court in ChqtIn rs. Taylor
| send YOU the ll6th volume OF the Sll
prcme Court decisions, in which you vii
ind 1t at page 56I.
You will find the case TO be this: Chaili'
sued Taylor for a trespass IN levying OF
his horse after he had rendered coupons
TAYLOR Justified his trespsss by alleging
that the coupons had not been verified un
der Coupon. Killer No. before they wer
rendered. II give you the substance OF tn
case without going into the details OF tn
pleadings.l The Supreme Court uadn
mOusiu decided that this was no defence
and that Taylor was liable for a trespass /
making the levy. Mark YOU, all nine G
I ,ho ;nsttccs concurred i'm fhiS decision