The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1893-02-01
WHAT Is THERE IN THIS?
II True the State Loses Something Like
S1OO,OOO-Gov. Tillman Should
Explain.
THE State.

Governor Tillman has not answered
the questions propounded to him by
The State, Monday. He does not care
to say anything on the subject of the
refunding of the debt.
The principal question The State
asked him was this:
"Is it true that Blair & Co., No. 33
Wall street, New York, BANKERS rated
at over $4,000, 900, offered par for the
issue without cost to the State, on con-
dition that the. principal and interest
should be payable in gold?"
Governor Tillman does not deny that
such an offer was made, and in view of
assurances to US that it was made, we
have to conclude that such was the
case. Why, then, did the Governor
refuse an offer which would have saved
the State Sl30,OO0 in commission to the
brokers, and the fees of Mr.. Colvin
Rhind Of Augusta, Ca, besides? Why?
Was it because the Farmers Alli-
ance might have called him ''gold
bug" if be accepted it? Was it because
there is prejudice in that organization
against recognizing gold IS superior to
silver or governmental promises to pay?
Or was it because there would have
been no money in such sale, without
commissions, for the Governors
friends?
Does the Governor expect gold to 60
above par within twenty years, and to
be therefore unavailable? If so, why?
Does be think that South Carolina
cannot pay her bonds in gold as we'll
as the great corporations which have
issued gold bonds? Ifso, why?
Give US reasons, O Governor! You
leave US to believe that you have done
this thing at cost to the taxpayers of
from sl3O, 900 to sl50,00O, and you do
not tell US why. The people are en-
titled to the facts. Ifyou have rejected
such an offer, tell them why.
Why, Governor, why?
MORE LOSS FOR TAXPAYERS.
[Greenville News.]
It appears that an offer was made to
place the bonds of this State for three
fourths of one per cent. if they were
made payable in gold. Three-fourths of
one per cent. would have been, on S6,-
10000 ofbonds, S45, 900. Instead Of THAT
we have currency bond and have paid
two and a quarter per cent, which on
the s6,OOO,OOO is S135,0CO. That is $780,
GOO clean and clear out of the pockets of
the taxpayers. In fact, the loss may
be more. The Columbia Register, ad-
ministration organ, tells US that gold
bonds would have commanded a pre-
MUM. We suppose it speaks by au-
thority. Suppose that premium had
been but one per cent-suppose the
State had received Sl01 for every 500
of her bonds? According to the Reg
ister's statement that would have
saved 100000 on the total issue. In
stead of that we are to pay Sl35;000.
The total loss is, therefore, $4,000
plus 100000, equal to Sl95,000 clear loss
by not having gold bearing bonds.
The Register says the Legislature
would never have consented to a gold
bond. That may be true, although we
suspect the Legislature would have
voted for gold bonds or anything else
the Governor called for. It was his
Legislature, chosen to suit him, and
did as he wanted done. 1t is imma'
terial however, whose fault it is. The
people of this State will know that,
however it came about, Sl95,0O OF
their hard earned money has been lost
in the deal.
If they are willing to pay that much
for settlement against gold, or be-
cause this is "a silver State" they have
the right to Go so. It is, however,
rather high price for matter of SEN
timent for an administration supposed
to be rigidly practical.