The Daily times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1886-1889, 1886-11-30
THE BURNING ISSUE.

Mr.. William j. Royals proposal for new
settlement of the State debt has many merits,
two prominent ones being its definiteness and
its understood approval by the bondhOlders
| themselves. II has its difficulties, however,
not merely in its conflict with reimbursement ms
! formulated i'm the Riddleberger bill ana ITS
auxiiaries but i'm the attitude of parties To-
wards each other on the subject, ana IN the
attitude of the people towards both parties
touching the matter The main difficulties are
| these latter, for both parties are jealousy
/ watching each other, eager to seize any adyan-
! tage or chance of advantage, while the pOpu-
! lar eye is full Of keen suspicion. In such Il
| situation nothing is more cOWardly than
party. or its partisan bosses. In Sucn Il case
! party action can only be encouraged or IOrced
/ by IA resOlute Independent initiative the de
! terminng impulse 10 any decisive motion must
come from without.
But, beyond the two merits we have already
/ recognized as prominent in Mr.. Royals pro
posal, do its details furnish an adequate and
prominent basis for an independent and pOpu-
/ lar movement? Now, read1ustment has had
/ its varied developments and TRANSFORMATIONS,
and brief recurrence TO the course OF these
cannot be without value and effect IN the
present inquiry. The Riddleberger bill itself,
in its present shape, is not what II was origin
ally. The first Riddleberger bill passed, and
which Governor Holiday vetoed, did not pre-
tend to stand upon a stated account, founded
upon the original debt of the old undivided
state, with debit and credit exhibit OF this
virginia toward her alleged tWO-thlrdS share
of the Indebtedness Of the Commonwealth of
/ 1851 as the existing statute does. IL stood on
sentimental grounds, and appealed 10 equity
showing the wounds and losses of this State rs
arguments for the abatement insisted on. Inc
/ bill i'm its final shape discards the original
pleas Except with regard TO the rate OF in
! terest). and claims 10 readjuSt according 10
/ law and justice on the facts ana fgures Mr.;
| Royall's proposal, while ignoring the principal
/ of each OF these Riddleberger bills, fully con
cedes the equitable aspect of the case rs urged
/ by both bills with respect TO the rate OF in
-. IN, for lf mn a. m 90
/ readiuster attention and consideration.
The diminutiOn of the principal of the debt,
/ as recognized by the funding bill IN 1871, was
/ itself, however, an afterthOught IN readJust-
ment As late as the last of February, 1872
| when the readjustcrs organized at Mozart hall
i'm Richmond. General Mahone himself made an
/ address received with applause, in which he
/ expressed his readiness TO meet the recognized
principal of 1879 at a rate of interest cOmpati-
BILE with our revenues, without an increase OF
taXatiOn-tnc expenses OF government, schools.
&C., TO be first met That readjustment did at
/ length attack the principal of the debt OF loil
| is now known To have been due TO a cOmprO-
mise with the rcpudiatOrs led by Rev. John r..
Massey, now Lieutenant Governor and presi-
/ dent of the Senate.
Going back further we find that the Barbour
bill of 1873 vetoed by Governor Holiday, had
many points of resemblance and identity with
MIR. Royals proposition. That bill was the
first gun of the war that has since ragged so
fuiOuslX Yet III was not aimed AT the princl-
pal of tine debt. and it sought 70 appropriate
the revenue so as, after providing for the cX-
peuses of government and the support Of the
free schools, to apply the balance to the pay
mcnt OF interest on the public debt. Going
back 20 lS,2-the very next year after the pas
sage of the funding billiard we see no attack
on either the principal or the rate OF interest
OF the settlement OF 1871, but acts restricted
solely 70 an avoidance. or appeal, OF the tax
receivable quality of the coupons.
In this rapid review of the anti-cOupOn his
tory. the progressive tendency OF any move
ment. right or wrong, is strikingly illustrated
and this tendency warns all concerned that the
longer this matter fingers the worse il is apt 10
grow. II suggests. too, that absolute resist
ance and denial is not the way TO check and re
verse il. This Mr. Royal recognizes 10 lib
cral extent as TO interest, and we have no
doubt that this wise concession on his part viii
stir corresponding spirit on the other side
20 be followed by mutual approaches, rs sug-
gcsted by bir. Cooper i'm his letter 10 the Dis
patch,n TO a common ground where every rca-
sOnablc demand Will be finally adjusted
I'm fact. We regard Mr.. Royals proposal as
an overture which only marks the beginning
of the end 90 be realized. As foolish and wicked
as reimbursement may be, IL is not 10 be denied
that ia has caused and is causing as much
loss 10 the bOndhOlders rs 10 the state, and that
neither will be wise % insist too stringcntly,
ON right that nciteS wrong and brings loss
The right 20 shear the wOOlf may be indubita
bic; but il may not pay 70 enforce IT, The
time has surely come for "A conference and
compromise in which mutual concession shall
replace evasion and compulsiOn. Let us al
stop and consider lndeX-Appeal.