The original act of repudiation by the State of Georgia has been repeated each six months since that period to the present date, by the refusal of the State to recognize and pay the coupons on said bonds as they matured. This alone repeats the repudiation of that State twice each year for the past ten years at least, and therefore is a continuance of the repudiation from the time of the original vile act up to the present date; besides which, the bonds repudiated had twenty years to run. The maturity of said bonds does not expire until 1890. The repudiation should be considered, therefore, as continuous during the entire period, from the date of the issue of said bonds until 1890, five years hence. If it is to be accepted that the test of a State’s credit is to be able to show a record free from fresh repudiation for a period of ten years, and that repudiation is not a continuous repudiation until such obligations are fully settled and provided for, what is to prevent a State from negotiating a fabulously large amount of bonds, and thereby place an amount sufficiently large in her treasury to admit of bridging over for the required ten years, and, after making such ample provision, then pass an act, as heretofore, repudiating the bonds issued, and keep repeating it each decade? Supposing the same rule held good with a bank robber—and there is, as far as integrity goes, really no great difference between the two, only one seeks protection in Canada and the other behind her sovereign rights, which is her Canada refuge. The robber breaks into a savings bank, guts it of several millions of dollars, flees to Canada, and there lives in affluence for ten years. How silly it would appear if, after ten years, provided he could show a record free from thieving during that time, he had the legal right then to come back, and thereby be entitled to a clean record as an honest man, and in consequence be accorded a high credit. The position of the State of Georgia in assuming such a role, in coming here at this time to ask our savings banks to aid her in such a nefarious business, simply lacks a parallel for audacity. The management of savings banks must be conducted so as to inspire confidence with the depositors and with the entire community also. It is necessary, especially at panic periods, for full confidence to be felt in the investments of such institutions. If the prohibition is removed, as is now sought to be, and savings banks be permitted to invest in Georgia securities, and one of them should buy $500,000 of the bonds, I venture the prediction that such an investment will sooner or later form the basis of a rumor which will cause a panic among its depositors and break that institution. This would result in a most serious disaster to probably thousands of poor people