¹ W. A. Scott, The Repudiation of State Debts, p. 63, but see also W. L. Fleming, Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama, p. 580 ff. During 1868 and 1869 bond issues to the amount of nearly $28,000,000 were authorized in North Carolina, but not all of this amount was issued. From the $13,313,000 which was outstanding at the end of the carpetbag régime, the State had received little or no benefit. Interest was not paid upon this sum or upon the previous issues, and the total debt increased rapidly. Unsuccessful attempts to compromise with the creditors were made in 1874 and 1875, but not until 1879 was the matter settled. The Reconstruction bonds were repudiated outright, and the legitimate debt of the State was funded at from fifteen to forty cents on the dollar. No provision was made for the unpaid interest. This compromise did not include the pre-war bonds issued to aid the North Carolina Railroad. This corporation was a going concern, and as the result of a suit the stock had been sequestrated. A compromise with the holders of these bonds was made at eighty per cent of par and interest. As a result of this wholesale repudiation the debt of the State was so reduced that it could be carried. In all over $22,000,000 besides other millions of accrued interest were repudiated. ¹ ¹ J. G. de R. Hamilton, Reconstruction in North Carolina, pp. 448-449, 659-661. Not all of the creditors of the State accepted the compromise at once, but the offer was left open and, as the years went on and the State showed no signs of a change of intention, the bondholders gradually recognized the inevitable. In 1893, nearly fifteen years after this offer had been made, more than $1,000,000 of the old bonds were still outstanding. In 1901, a New York firm presented to the State of South Dakota ten of the class which had been made convertible at twenty-five cents on the dollar. That State brought suit in the Supreme Court of the United States and collected the amount sued for. ² No progress has been made in collecting the special tax bonds issued during Reconstruction though some New York bond houses hope against hope, and the Council of the Corporation of Foreign Bondholders in its annual reports plaintively regrets the perversity of this and other Southern States. ² South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U. S. Rep., p. 286