The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1896-06-24


papers opposed to the Reform move
ment and could be attributed to NAL
ice and desire to secure political
advantage. But as many Reform
papers have been equally unreason.
able and Sc in their comments, |
have decided to give full history of
the refunding matter SO that fair
minded men may Judge for them
selves how unjust and cruel all the
insinuations and accusations that
have been made against me and
against Governor Tillman, with
whom was associated in the trans
action
The original refunding act was
passed in 1889 l came into office
December. 1890, and at the close of
the fiscal year, October 81, 1891, |
reported officially as follows:
II complied with Instructions
given in the act and had proper
notices inserted in newspapers. l
also had circulars and copies of the
act printed and notices given that
they could be had on application by
parties desiring information a.d have
sent out large number of copies.
Until July, 1892 the Office is re
stricted to the system of exchanging
the new per cent for the brown
consols. But little progress has
been made in exchanging. Only
s29. 5000 of new 4 per cents have
been exchanged for an equal amount
of brown consols. Under the rigid
requirement of the act. | am afraid
not many exchanges will be affect.
ed E"
The Legislature amended the act in
December, 1891, at my suggestion,
and provided for the ayment of a
commission for placing the new
bonds if it should be necessary.
However, we were still restricted to
issuing bonds bearing only per
cent. interest and not allowed to sell
them at less than par
In my annual report of October 81,
1892, stated as follows /: "Thc
holders of the brown consols have
not shown their willingness to ex
charge them for the new bonds, but
seem to prefer to await their maturi-
ty before deciding what they will do
Negotiations for placing new bonds
have not yet been completed"
During visit to Charleston prior
to October, 1892, was told by more
than one prominent bondholder and
fnancier in that city, whose names |
can give, if necessary, that it was
useless for the State to attempt to
refund in bonds bearing less than 5
per cent. interest. One of these
gentlemen went so far as to say that
inasmuch as the State had,
under the consolidation act of 1883,
settled with the holders of her bonds
at so cents on the dollar, she ought
not to expect her bondhoIders TO eX-
change thei r maturing bonds for 9th.
er than 5 per cent bonds
While in New York prior to Octo-
Der, 1892, was assured by prom
inent dealer in South Carolina bonds
that the State could not float bond
bearing less than 5 per- cent. inter-
est and could not evei float 5 per
cent bond unless she made some
settlement of the non fundable bonds
listed on the stock exchange, amount
ing to 5,965, 900 and other bonds in
which there was inv 'idity.
Copies of our refunding act aud
the best showing of our finances
that could be made were presented
in person Or through the mail to
such houses as D, sxel, Morgan &
Co.. but without result.
We have been criticised for allow
ing one man an exclusive option on
the bonds to be issued. We were
led to the adoption of this plan on
account of the bad condition the
States credit was in, and We had
in mind the experience of Treasurer
Bamberg when he undertook to re-
fund the deficiency bonds, amount
ing to only 100000. Some of the
newspapers noticed his advertisement,
savagely attacked the credit of the
State, both in Europe and in the
United States, and ridiculed the invi-
tation for bids for South Carolina
bonds. Other parties wrote him in
sulting letters We knew alec there
were dissatisfied holders of invalid
State bonds and other professed
creditors of the State, who were
aware that the State was approach
ing financial crisis They knew
that almost her entire bonded debt
and on which she was paying 6 per
cent. interest was about to mature
and nracficalIv the State had NOT q