Port Tobacco Times, And Charles County Advertiser

Sinking Fund and Bounty Loan

We are glad to know that our esteemed contemporary, the Port Tobacco Times, is not opposed to our constitutional sinking fund policy. It concurs with us in thinking that the system is good. By concurring with our friend in respect to the sinking fund policy as established by the Constitution and as to the wholesome provisions prescribed by it in relation to it, we can with candor, submit to its consideration the impressive fact that these provisions and all loan laws passed in pursuance of them have been no more regarded by the Treasury Department, for long years past, than if they were but laws of the Medes and Persians and not our own State laws; and instead of paying off in money, the debt in fifteen years and getting rid of it as literally required by them to do, it has been the bad practice of paying off by creating another Loan Debt, and thus perverting the whole system of debt paying so wisely established and making in fact, the debt perpetual. Upon the contrary, the system was, for long years past, not only deliberately disregarded but open boast of it made to the Legislature, and all kind of arguments used to condemn it and weaken faith in the system. And we further impress that it is only recently that the Treasury Department is beginning to carry into execution the provisions of the system; and we trust that again returning to this after so many years, we may rigidly continue to adhere in the future to what is solemnly enjoined by our fundamental laws and so wisely instituted by good men before us.

At one time, in the general discussion between us on this and kindred questions, we were impressed that our contemporary was opposed to the system, and we are gratified in now finding it otherwise. The only question in difference between us now is in the Defense Loan, or rather Bounty Loan, as it should be called; whether within the constitutional requirements in respect to the obligations to levy a tax for the payment of the interest and principal of the debt, or whether the levy depends entirely upon the statute creating the loan and therefore liable to repeal. Whilst there is, in fact, a substantial difference between the two, and in radical times might be a most important one, as involving obligations and provisions which, under the Constitution, could not be affected by legislative action, whilst in the other thorough good faith to promises made should protect against change

We stand by our contemporary's desire to the faithful execution of the law under which the loan was made whenever required to maintain the substance of what was promised.

The complaint of our contemporary is directed to the provision of the law creating the loan which confined the Treasury Department to making its investments in the sinking fund in our State securities and which at times can only be had at large prices. We concur in this view. Efforts were made at the session of 1880 to have this changed so as to give to the Treasury Department, in its discretion, the power to invest sinking fund assets in other sound securities, but they failed. In the act of 1882 creating a loan for the redemption of the loan of 1833, provision is made to invest in United States, Baltimore city and in our own State securities. To that extent, therefore, the objection is removed, and we trust that at the coming session this may be extended to all our sinking fund securities.

We think a temperate discussion of questions of State policies and measures, showing wherever there are wrongs and excesses, whether so in fact, or when, upon examination, they may turn out to be imaginary, does good. And these expressions and examinations and exposures, to do good at all, should be had before the red-hot turmoil of political contests come on, and especially before the meeting of the Legislature, in order that public opinion, as it becomes fixed upon at any one of them may be formulated for legislative action.

In this spirit we have pursued all these matters, and in no other, and whilst in some of our expositions we may be regarded as extreme--at times unjust to individuals having charge or control of matters--still we beg to say it is not to arraign any one for the sake of arraignment only or to make any kind of personal issue, but to point out reasons for all that we propose.

And we think that the temperate controversy we have with our contemporary upon this subject will do no harm, but if anything good, in directing public attention to our sinking fund policy and the general character of our loan and debt paying policy.—Hagerstown Mail.