Year: 1874

Il is understood that the Finance Commit
tee in the Senate is proposing to introduce
abiII requiring all State warrants, Issued be-
fore the fifteenth Of January last TO be con-
Vcrted into bonds Of the State, bearing eight
per cent. interest. The effect Of such law
would be most unjust in its effects, and re-
suit in the most serious injury to those who
have acted upon the faith Of the State. To
prove this, let US consider what State OBJ
LEGATION is. Is it not to be viewed in just
the same light as an individual contracts
Is not warrant issued by the Comp
troller solemn promise that the State will
pay its face value to the holder9 And
should it not be the first duty Of the State
to provide means to pay all such certificates
Of indebtedness : We claim that the State
possesses no rightto abridge the claims of
its rightful creditors. Take, for instance,
the case of a clerk, who has received war
rants for the last twelve months, and not
being inclined to throw away the price Of
his honest labor for sixty or seventy cents
on the dollar-recollect that he has bor-
rowed money at exorbitant rates Of interest,
hoping in the end to receive his money and
save at least part Of the depreciation upon
warrants Then let US ask, was it not the
duty, and is it not more particularly so now,
since we desire to prove to the world the
Justice of our cause, that money should be
placed in the treasury to meet these obliga-
tions9 Is this the most perfect measure
or Justice, or is it more proper to
say to the employee that he shall not
be paid as proposed, but that while money
is commanding two, three or four per cent.
a month in the market, he shall put his
warrants into bonds, payable in ten or more
years time, with interest, in the mean time,
at only eight per cent. Such PROPOSE
tion might suit the capitalists of Wall
street, seeking investment for their surplus
funds, but not the poor laborer for this
State. And if the State is to pay pei
cent. upon the outstanding Indebtedness,
why, in the name of Justice, could ii
/ not borrow from these very capitalists,
and thus pay the debts owed to those who
nre suffering in consequence of non-pay'
raeht. Has the State right even to force
4 its creditors to accept payment in q differ
ent shape from that pronisedl And, out
side of few capitalists, who, that hold
State warrants, could afford, with safety tc
themselves, to submit to a settlement ir
bonds9 We repeat it-it would be great
injustice, and more especially since such q
bill would be a respecter of persons. II
would at once create a difference in the
value of warrants issued before and after
the date named. For instance, take war
rant dated the fourteenth, and another the
sixteenth of january, under the existence
Of abonding bill, and offer each of them fol
sale in the market, what dealer would put
money in the first for which he would be
compelled to wait ten years or more, and
receive eight per cent. per annum, when
he could just as readily, by loaning
on the best of security, make twenty
or thirty. The warrant dated on the
sixteenth would have a ready market value,
and the one dated the fourteenth. would
really. have a nominal one. The result then
would be that the original holder would
be forced to suffer heavy loss, when it was
really the duty of the State to redeem it:
solemn pledge at once in money. In the
name of justice we would say let the ricf
and great State of Texas, with its un
bounded resources, borrow money and pay
of its warrants, and not force its en-
plogees to suffer simply because they have
done work for it on credit. The latter course
is Just, and if this is not adopted, lie


every one who holds warrants keep them a


his own peril, and trust to chance for relief


The State, afterits employees have suffered
| should not drive them involuntarily into
state of Bankruptcy. Let it remain option
{ airy with individuals whether they will bond
r but do not force many into such a course t
their utter ruin.