The Montgomery tribune. (Montgomery City, Mo.) 1892-1910, 1900-10-19
WHERE ARE THE
SCHOOL FUNDS.
STEPHENS, SElBERT, CAR
RINGTON AND OTHERS Ex-
PLAIN.
Deception Rampant.

| School Fund bund, but 1t Is not
wrong willfully. If Stephens, Sci
bert and Darlington tell the truth
in regard to the fund, then the
TRIBUNE's position is correct shat
the fund has been used and a GER
tifcate or bond issued in its place,
on which every taxpayer in Mis-
souri, pays the interest instead of
relieving interest"
WHAT DARLINGTON SAYS.
ain 1872 the State Legislature
found that the State owed the
school fund about 5000, 900 and is
sued a State certificate Of indebt-
ednes'' te the school fund, a state
bond bearing six per cent and fix
ing a definite date of payment.
This recognized the states obliga-
ton and put it into tangible
FORM"
Here Darlington says the State
owed the school fund about $780,
900. How did it owe 1t? Did the
State use the 5000, 0O0?. Evidently,
yes. Did it pay back the money?
No. 1t gave a estate certificate of
Indebtedness" bearing 9 per cent
interest, which you and | are taxed
to pay every year. No democrat
deniest his.
"In 1875 the State Board of Ed
ucation, under the authority of the
constitution, sold its U. s.. bonds
and purchased State bonds. Con-
sidering that u. S. bonds were
above par, and State bonds below
par, that the state bonds bore a
higher rate of interest, this trans
action increased the permanent
funds about S400, 900 andthe annual
apportionment to the schools more
than $4,000. Another fact worth
confederation here Is that the state
showed It's faith in its own bonds
by investing its permanent school
funds in them. The result was that
our state bonds were soon at par
and have never since been below
par"
Darlington says the above trans
action increased the permanent
fund $500, 900 and the annual APP
portionment $4,000. Darlington
is correct in this but he does not
go on to say that the state used up
this S400, 900 for current expenses
and then collected $4,000 tax
each year from the taxpayers to
put into the apportionment fund.
Before the sale of the U. S. bonds
the United States paid the interest
and not the tax payers of Missouri.
'sIn 1881 the State Legislature
directed the issuance of a console
dated certificate of Indebtedness
, in lieu of all school fund securities.
The state bonds and the previous
, ly issued Certificates of indebted
ness'' two forms of securities to the
S school fund but of indebtedness by
: the state, were cancelled.
p This consolidated certificate OF
: Indebtedness issued by authority
of the state Just as renewal bonds
are issued, is signed by proper au-
thority and bears the seal OF the
state. 1t has a definite rate OF in
!, terest and falls due at q stated time
and is the states pledge to pay the
State Board of Education, to bt
held in trust for the school funo
It 50, 909, 900, 1t is, to all intents, ano
purposes, a bond, and is just a.
L secure as the state is responsible
Here Darlington speaks the trutl
4 and says that the $4,000 600 is t.
"a all intents and purposes a bono
i with a definite rate of interest.
Seibert swears that the stat
A. school and seminary fund is 81,
>. 1873, 632. 0S. This of course, includes
the SO, 909, 900 named here by Car
IL rington. Darlington says the deb
a is a bond bearing interest.
* sEIBERT's DECEPTION OR FALSE
HOOD.
Seibert wears in his report Q
i'd the bonded indebtedness of tn
he state that sit is only S2,342, 600 Il
A. option bonds bearing 3 liz pc
cent interest" Now the schoo
Is and seminary bonds amount {
TX "a, i3s, 632. Os drawing 5 and 9 pc
tie cent interest, and yet Seibert say
te and swears to 1t too, that tn
!. bonded debt Is only S2,3i2,0Ol
W The TRIBUNE denounces this
I'D deception or a falsehoodi on th
he part of Seibert but not on the pa
L. OF Darlington. Darlington come
5, out squarsly and says that 1t Is
bonded debt bearing s and o pr
or cent interest. The question
Ill now, what became OF the st,t3S
400. O2q