The Savannah morning news., 1901-12-06

| II would be interesting TO know how
| those members of the Legislature who
! voted against the Blalock resolution
| 10 pay the interest on the state bonds
/ for the coming year out of the public
property fund propose to provide the
means for paying the teachers of the
public schools. pensions to the class
Of INDECENT widows put on the pension
roll last year and the new appropria-
lions made at the present session. 1t
seems to us that their position that
the constitution forbids the payment
OF the interest on the bonds from that
fund-that the fund can be applied
only to the principal. is untenable. The
common sense view seems TO be that
the interest on the bonds is as much
a part of the bonds as the principal.
1t is a fact that when there is de-
fault in the payment of the interest
on bonds the principal becomes due,
and the interest, when a settlement is
made, is as much a part Of the debt
as the principal. And that no doubt
would be the case if there should be
a default in the interest on the bonds
Of the state. The state is under as
great an obligation to pay the inter
est as the principal of the bonds. What
does it matter therefore whether the
public property fund is applied to the
payment of interest or principal? Be
sides, If statements made on the floor
of the House are correct, the courts
have decided that the interest due on
a bond is as much a part of the debt
as the principal.
Why should the state keep several
hundred thousand dollars on deposit,
drawing only two per cent. interest,
when it has to borrow money to meet
its obligations if the courts have rem
dered decisions which justify the using
of it for paying interest on it's debt?
It strikes us that there must be
something radically wrong in the
states financial affairs. For a number
Of years there has not been enough
money on hand to meet the states OBJ
legations. Instead of the taxes of
each year being made to pay the OBJ
legations of that year there has been
a deficiency, and the revenues of the
coming year have been drawn upon.
Last year the appropriations were
much greater than the revenues. That
fact was pointed out before the Legis-
lature adjourned. The Legislature,
however, seemed to think that it was
not its duty to bring the expenditures
within the revenues, and it looks as
if it were its purpose to appropriate
more money this year than there is
likely to be in the treasury. Does that
look as If the Legislature were doing
its duty-as if it were courageously
shouldering the responsibility which
properly devolves upon it?
No doubt the Governor examined
carefully the question of the states
right to use the public property fund
for the payment of interest on the
states bonds before he recommended
its use, and 1t is safe to say that the
committee that made a favorable re-
port upon the matter did the same
thing. By refusing to adopt the Gov
ernor's recommendation it will be
necessary to raise the rate of taxation,
cut down the appropriations sufficient
ly to bring the expenditures with the
revenues or leave the states finances
in a condition of confusion. If the
policy that was adopted last year of
making appropriations for which no
money has been provided the impress
sion will be strengthened that that the
Legislature has shirked it's duties and
l. 4 L..