Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-01-15

commission. which are herewith returned.
A brief review OF the negotiations will
therefore suffce In this connection.
The first proposition made By tho Bond
holders' Committee to your commission,
dated June 2. 1891, expressed the opinion
OF that committee that the principles OF
the Riddieberger legislation call tor an In
terest charge OF over $685. 600 per annum.
- Of July l, 1882. and the fundabls int
rest which has been maturing since that
date has materially increased the interest
The proposition contained the state
ment that: "0f the debt proposed to be
funded there is now outstanding owned
by the public an apparent maximum az OF
July 1, 1891. spproumating e2s, 000. 900.
OF this amount the Bondholdors Commit
tee control not less than .$?3. 900 900,
principal and interest. to said date; and
Tho committee hereby proposes to surren;
obligations which may be deposited, on
the bssis of 20.0O0, 900 of new 9 per cent.
bonds for the entire va, 0Oo, O0o."
THE Commission DKoLrNx.
To this proposition your commission re-
Piled, under date OF June 8. 1891, stating
among other things that. "The Virginia
Commission feels constrained to decline TO
entertain said proposal or 10 enter into 0
contract with the Bondholders COMMITTEES
on the basis thereof. The interest charge
required by said proposal largely exceeds
such unsettled obligations were the same
funded in accordance with the principles
of the Riddleberger bill. But apart from
this consideration, and in addition there
10. is the fact that the interest charge con-
templated by your proposal exceeds the
amount the State Is able to pay, after dis
charging its constitutional obligations
end providing other necessary expenses"
IN concluding their reply your commission
said THAT q settlement OF this matter y
greatly to be desired ON such basis rs Will
guarantee stability BY being within the re-
sources OF the State and the fixed opinions
which public sentiment has formulated;
and IL the Bondholders Committee feels
inclined to so change their figures as TO
bring them within the lines above indi-
Gated and within the limits OF the powers
OF negotiation conferred on TINS commits
sion by the legislative resolution under
which 1t exists, thew will be glad 70 con-
tinue these negotiations"
Your commission then adjourned. sub
ioct to reconventlon upon the call OF its
chairman, the Governor.
And on tho 18th Of November, 1891, your
commission. upon the call OF the Gov
erpor, reassembled at his office, In the city
Another proposition from the Bond
holders Committee, which bad been pre-
yiously forwarded by them to the Gov
ernor, was then submitted TO your CON-
In this proposition the Bondholders'
Committee expressed themselves as still
sdhering TO the opinion that their previous
proposition was within the principles OF
"a !, nd ALI wi
ability Of the State. Nevertheless they
submitted al amended proposition, stating
that "the committee proposes, TO sur
render. as Of July ], 1891, not less than
S23. 10000 (principal and interest tor
such a proportion OF ef9,000,0OO OF new 3
Der cent. bonds as the amount surrendered
bears to S2S.000,0OO.
Your commission declined TO accept tnis
proposition also. for the the reasons stated
In it's reply TO the Bondholder's Committee
OF June 3, 1891.
CONFERENCE OF sUB-coMMITTEHs.
Thereupon n subcommittee OF two from
vour commission was appointed 70 confer
with O subcommittee OF two from the
Bondholders' Committee, with view. II
possible. of arriving at some OASIS Tor fur-
Their negotiation.
The action of the subcommittee ap-
pears from its report to your full commis-
sion. fled with the minutes OF proceed
ings herewith returned.
On the 18th of November your commits
sion suggested to the Bondholders' Com
mittee a willingness to report favora6iy TO
the Legislature proposition to settle the
outstanding unsettled debt on the basis of
an issue of new bonds not TO exceed Q
maximum OF sls. O00. 900, to be exchanged
for outstanding unsettled obligations IN
tho proportion OF 10 TO 70 such new Donds
10 q M n.
terest for ten years and per cent.
for ninety years This would give in ex-
change for the $4,000, 900 Of outstanding
obligations held by the Bondholders' Com
mittee, something less than Sl6,OOO,0OO OF
the proposed new bonds.
In reply to this suggestion, the BONO.
holders Committee stated that they would
communicate 1t to their deposlting secu-
rity-holders, but would not advise its &C
ceptance.
Continuing. the committee said: I'VE
will, however. cheerfully recommend
either Of the following propositions: 5
per cent. 100-year bond similar in form and
features TO the Riddleberger bonds for
Sls, 900, 900, or o bond similar in form and
feature 10 the Riddleberger bonds for $1s,-
900 at 100 years. the first fve years inter
est 10 run at per cent, the next hveat ~
per cent, the balance OF the term per
cent"
In reply to this your commission, after
due deliberation and consultation with the
financial officers OF the State, on the next
day-viz., November 19th-offered toreport
favorably TO the Legislature the 1900, 900
proposition, provided the same should be
30 modified as to restrict the. interest an
nually payable to q per cent. for ten years,
and 8 per cent. for the remaining ninety
years, the bonds and interest obligations
to be of the same general character as those
provided by the Riddleberger bill, and it
being distinctly understood that the cou-
pons or other interest obligations are not
to be receivable for taxes.
This recommendation. 1t was provided,
should be made conditional on the Bond
holders Committee having In their posses
sion, with the authority to exchange
them, the obligations above mentioned,
amounting to at least $2s, 0O0, 900, and the
proposed new bonds to be exchanged tor
such outstanding obligations in the pro-
portion of nineteen of the former tor
twenty-oight of the latter.
To this the Bondholders' Committee re-
Piled, saying: we beg to say that tie
proposition submitted by US. as amended
by YOU, will go to our constituents with
our cheerful recommendation"
CONSIDERATIONS GUIDING THE COMMISSION.
In recommending TO the Legislature the
acceptance of this scheme of settlement
your commission has been guided by two
leading considerations-vlz. First, TO
keep the amount 10 be assumed by. the
State we'll within the amount assumed by
the Riddleberger bill, and second, to keep
the amount payable for interest well with
in the capacity Of the State to meet.
Were the State to-day to assume all the
obligations which by the terms of the
Riddleberger bill Il offered to take upon
itself, we have no hesitation in saying
that they could not be borne without q
considerable reduction Of expenditures or
9 considerable increase in the rate OF taxa
ton.
We are equally confident that the obi
cations to be assumed by the State, should
the proposed scheme be adopted may be
borne without resortiIig to either of the
above expedients.
This assertion of course implies that the
proposed scheme of settlement is more fa-
vorable to the State than the Riddleberger
bill was.
A brief statement showing this fact more
clearly will not, however, be out of place.
The amount assumed by the Riddleber-
ger bill is question as to which different
views may with good reasons for each, be
entertained.
The Bondholders' Committee, ss above
mentioned, very earnestly maintained that
the interest charged assumed by the State,