Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-12-30
TUESDAY. DECEMBER 80, 1890.
Extra Session, Again-The New Plan.


We have said again and again that If
promising plan for settling the State debt
of Virginia should be agreed upon by the
persons who have undertaken TO perform
that task the Legislature ought to be con-
vened In order that the only body having
the power TO legislate upon the subject
might have an opportunity to pass upon
the merits of that plan. Well, plan has
been agreed upon. Whether it Is more or
lees promising than we had expected we
shall not say until we have had time to
consider its various features and ponder
the arguments or reasons which influenced
the gentlemen who formulated. And yet
our few casual remarks upon this subject
have called forth articles which almost
compel us to say something in explanation
Of our position.
We are not prepared TO discuss this topic
fully Just now, and in what we are about
TO say will try not TO go any further than
the facts in our possession will justify us
in going. Here, for example, Is warning
note from a prominent ex-Readjuster IN
Southwest Virginia:
The Governors views are sound on the
question Of an extra session OF the Legisla-
ture, if they are correctly reported IN the
papers.
There Is no necessity or public demand
for an extra session, and one will conclude
from an examination of the acts OF the
regular session that there was little need OF
that session; still the ponderous volume
containing it's acts is large enough to hold
all the laws necessary to keep thus Com-
monwealth in healthy and prosperous
condition for quarter of a century,
The present Legislature was not elected
on an issue involving the settlement or
change of the settlement Of the public
debt. and il is certain that no proposition
will be made by the bondholders as favora-
bic TO the people as the Riddleberger set
Element. The proof of this is the fact that
they still refuse 10 accept that settlement;
II is to be presumed that they will demand
O greater amount, and tax receivable cou-
pons for interest; and it is certain the
people will not agree TO coupons on any
amount, and If Mr.. Cleveland expects this
people to vote for him again II will be well
FOR HIM not TO recommend the undemo-
cratic principle of the coupon feature III
any settlement.
let the proposition for a settlement be
submitted, and let the next Legislature be
elected on that ISSUE and If the. people
adopt it the settlement will be final
SOUTHWEST.
We are not surprised that the bond
holders ask for non-taxable bonds. They
do not understand our people. Possibly
they ask more than they expect to receive.
However, we know no more on this point
than Southwest does. But we must
own that the following extract from
the new "plan and proposition might
bear that meaning. We quote:
Second: The new bonds to bear such
rate of interest and to have such exceptions
and TO be Of such character as the representd-
fines OF Virqinid and the committee consider
best calculated 10 oice them 0e Standing etev 'oea
desroe in TIE moIey markets Of ne ,oorld"
That Language may mean much OF little.
We let it pass.
Southwest alludes in another place to
"the coupon feature" He objects to
making the coupons receivable for taxes.
So do all our people.
We quote another paragraph from the
new "plan and proposition AS follows:
Fourth: This plan and proposition shall
include the right of the bondholders' COM
mittee as agents for the depositing credi-
tors TO settle pending suits and judgments
against tax payers who have rendered cou-
pons for taxes and to receiue and dehoer &c
DE STATE as part Of 0e outstanding dot the coti-
pons inpoiood."
This, too, we may characterize az an un-
promising suggestion. But the following
admission We quote as an Offset to what we
have just quoted:
IAN account correctly stated as of this
date would find an amount due to the
creditors much larger than The amount on
uh,ch vugaliG can al present pay per cent. J"
That Is more promising suggestion. SO
is the following:
= "The subject for negotiation, therefore,
between the bondholders committee and
the State commission is narrowed to two
questions: What can the State afford TO
pay? And what can the creditors AFFORD to
Accepti"
1t is to be hoped that the State commits
sion and the creditors committee can
find point of agreement in this sugges-
ton