The original loan of the United States government to the Central and Western Pacific railroads amounted to $27,855,680. The bonds which were issued to the companies were United States currency bonds, bearing 6 per cent interest, payable semiannually and maturing at the end of thirty years. They fell due therefore between 1895 and 1899. Some question has been raised as to whether these bonds were to be regarded as a loan or as a donation to the corporations which received them. Setting aside the fact that a loan at a critical moment may be almost as serviceable to the recipient as a gift, the evidence shows that the unquestionable purpose of Congress in 1862 and 1864 was that principal and interest of the bonds should be met by the railroads for the benefit of which they were issued. It follows that this bond issue constituted an advance to the Central and Western Pacific railroads, not a gift; a loan, not a donation. It was the contention of Mr. Huntington, indeed, that the very name “subsidy” was a misnomer. He said: The Central Pacific never got a subsidy; they got the loan of a small subsidy. The government loaned money at six per cent and they expected and did receive direct benefits from the time the road was built. It was not a subsidy in any way.... A subsidy as I believe is where you give ... For instance if you will build a railroad I will give you $10,000 as a subsidy; as to being a loan of money it is no such thing. It is only a business negotiation.[516] We must therefore recognize that the government advances to the Central Pacific did not constitute a subsidy in the ordinary meaning of that term. At the same time it should be observed that the Pacific railroads occupied a peculiarly advantageous position in respect to the loans which the government made to them. As will presently appear, although interest on this loan was charged, the companies were not obliged to pay a cent of this interest until the maturity of the bonds. This unusual concession was declared by the Supreme Court to be the necessary result of the absence of a precise stipulation to the contrary in the Acts of 1862 and 1864. The court said: It is one thing to be required to pay principal and interest when the bonds have reached maturity, and a wholly different thing to be required to pay the interest every six months, and the principal at the end of thirty years. The obligations are so different, that they cannot both grow out of the words employed, and it is necessary to superadd other words in order to include the payment of semiannual interest as it falls due.[517] Payment of Simple Interest at Maturity