The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1886-07-29
argument to show that it was not an equi-

argument to show that it was not an equi-
table statement of the obligations of the
State and the rights of the creditors
Every other measure proposed in the Leg
islature that did not recognize the funding
bill of 1871 as right, met with similar cpl
thets, and thus the people of the country
outside Of Virginia were educated to be-
lieve that there was party in the State
which was intent on despoiling the credi-
tors of their property and forcibly taking
from them that to which the State had no
right in equity or law. It was this reck-
less, selfish and corrupt action of the Dem
ocratic leaders in Virginia that compile
Gated the difficulties growing out of the
State debt, and made them so formidable
to overcome. And now, forsooth, these
same guardians of the States honor ()
who stigmatized the patrons and support
ers of the Riddleberger bill as regulators
and robbers, are denouncing every one
who dares to raise question as to the JUS
tice of that basis of settlement, after they
have so mutilated it as to destroy its force
and nullify its provisions.
There is equity and justice in the bill of
Col. Brady, and it is the only way we can
see through which the State can escape
from the difficulties with which the OBJ
structive extremists of the Democratic
party have environed the question. Col.
Parsons has ably presented the merits of
the proposition of settlement, and we feel
satisfied that its equity and fairness will
sooner or later be recognized by great
majority of the people of the country.
In giving this conditional approval to
the plan suggested by Col. Parsons, it is
not meant to modify our belief in the JUS
tice of the Riddleberger bill. The con-
tract feature Of the coupons, and the ac-
tion of the United States Supreme Court
in relation to them cannot be ignored. The
creditors rest their case on that, inasmuch
as the safeguards Of the Riddleberger
measure were broken by the Legislature of
| 1884 and thus the interference OF the
Courts invited. The settlement proposed
in the papers here considered, would be
acceptable to the creditors /: would impose
no new burdens upon Virginia, and would
assign to West Virginia an amount she
could easily meet. and which she would
readily recognize, while the United States
1 Government, by consenting to the adjust.
ment, could, in measure, relieve the
creditors and Virginia and West Virginia
of an impending difficulty, at the same
time it would atone for wrong which
would never have been committed but fol
the necessities of war. The two States
would be thus freed from the complica
lions and litigation growing out and likely
to grow out of the present unsettled con
dition of the debt, and the energies of the
people emancipated from an oppressive
nightmare which hangs over them with
depressing, paralyzing effect. AS ques
tion of public policy, affecting the govern
ment, the States interested and the credi
tors, the acceptance by all parties con
cerned of the terms Of the proposed ad
justment, would be polite, apart from
any consideration of the merits of either
the legislation of 1871 or that of 1928
1t would be final disposal of the whole
controversy, take the issue out OF politi
cal contests, and give peace to the people
and.relieve them of the angry discussions
which have so much disturbed all tn
business and financial relations of TIN
Commonwealth.