Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-03-05
For the Dispatch.
To the Joint Committee OH the Public
Debt.

Gentlemen You may have left
Richmond before this communication is
published. If not, 1t may appear so
late it cannot be considered by you.
But | wish to throw out an idea, so
that it may be considered by you in
Richmond or out Of Richmond and by
the State at large.
We have been for years engaged in
the settlement OF the State debt. After
the war we asked the creditor to sur
render one third of his debt, and he did
it. We undertook to pay him per
cent. on the balance OF his debt. and
failed. We afterwards undertook to
pay him per cent. of his interest and
promised to pay him the remaining ,
per cent. when able, and he assented to
that; and we have never paid that
per cent. Out of these troubles
came the NlcCulloch settlement.
Many persons. believing that settlement
fair and final accepted the McCullOch
bonds, and they are either held by the
original holders or are IN the hands Of
innocent neutrality-suspicious., it
may be, not for the sake Of speculation
and gain, but for investment or for the
purpose Of paying their own taxes.
Now, know of some that were bought
for this latter purpoSe-that have been
held for five years and have never been
used. The parties holding them did
not wish to use the coupons against the
desire and the interest of the State.
Whilst holding these bonds and
the coupons. they have paid their
taxes in money. They have been
doing this voluntarily for years,
hoping the State could, without in
convenience TO herself, stand to her
contract and accept these coupons
in taxes. She alleged and alleges her
inability to do so, and hence the Rid
dleberger settlement. Now, she says,
that or nothing, and she makes no dis
elimination between the citizen and the
foreigner between the 5ona-fde holder
Of her bonds for investment and the
holder for speculation between him
who is willing TO surrender without
loss and the Spectator who will only
surrender for gain. Is this right? Is
this equitable? Some of her own citi-
zenS own some Of these McCulloch
bonds, bought at 81, 81, and So cents
on the dollar. They have held them for
years without any effort to use the
coupons. They are willing to surrender
these bonds to the State at cost and in
terest. They do not wish to speculate
on the State. They are willing to pay
their taxes to the State, and to pay
them in money.
Is it right on the part of the State
to say, We will not pay you back what
you paid, but we will force you, my
good citizen, to take a Riddleberger
bond whether you wish it or not?
Now, what is the effect of that? A
thousand-dollar McCulloch bond was
worth, just prior to Governor Came
ron's election, fifty-three cents on the
dollar-equal to $3.50 in money. For
that bond, with its coupons attached,
the State will now give a Riddleberger
bond for about 800, with 3 per cent.
interest, which, if sold, is worth only
1927. That is, the citizen paid on the
faith Of the State $3.50, and has lost
sl35 interest, making s665, and now the
State forces him to accept SPA loss
Of 1898. And If he does not submit
to this loss quietly and like lamb he
is to be boycottsd the finger Of
seorn is to DO pointed ct him. The