The Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Ohio) 1863-1886, 1865-09-28
DIALOGUE.
CALLING THINGS BY THEIR RIGHT
NAMES.
,tRsported for the Ohio State Journal

|
l.,l stRspOfted ior the Ohio State Journall
ScESE---Ldrycrs OGce--Present
Judge T.--Bnter Mr.. B., greasy me.
chdaic, evidently Just on his ray home
from an Iron Foundry or Machine shop.
after a hard day: ,eork. ,1
Mr.. B.-Good evening, Judge. /
called to get your opinion on some
things which perplex me, both in law
and politics.
Judge T.-Good evening, Mr.. B.
Shall be happy to serve you and as
we have heretofore been of the same
political party, | shall take pleasure in
convcrsing with you on that subject
after the legal matter is disposed Of.
! Mr.. B.-Glad to hearTt, Judge. Nv
first business is to state my law point
for consideration. The short OF it is. /
lent a little money to friend who
promised, in writing, to pay me eight
per cent. interest, which. you know, is
just about enough to pay taxes and
leave me six per cent. for the use OF
my money. Now the fellow declares
that he will not pay me more than six
per cent. Now, 1 ask, can | compel
him to comply with his contract?'
Judge. TT am sorry to say, that
by our statute law, you cannot. The
lao permits ScOandrels who borrow
money at any rate of interest above
six per cent, to repudiate their prom
ises in this respect, and there is no le.
gal remedy.
Mr.. B.-Well, Judge, is there any
principle of Justice, equity or good
morals, to Justify man in such repu-
diation? ,-... ....t.
Judge T.-No. / am clearly of
the opinion that there is none.
Mr.. B.-Well, Judge, so 1 think, too.
But lot me ask, can a government, of
right, do, in its might, towards one of
its subjects, what it would be wrong
for one man TO do towards another?
Judge T.-Iooks little confused. J
Why, certainly y there can not be one
rule ofright for individuals, and anoth.
er for the government A contract
openly and fairly made is a contract,
and, unless fraud is shown, is bindir g
in law and equity. '''-'. IL
Mr. B!-So thought, Judge. But
pardon me. L have here the resola-
tions of the late Democratic conven.
tion. If l am not mistaken, you as.
sisted in drawing them up, and sup
ported them by yonr vote Now, as /
read the 18th resolution, and as un.
derstand the whole tenor of the pro-
ceedings OF that convention, it is pro-
posed to REPUDIATE so much of the
contract between the Government and
those who have loaned their money to
it, as excmpts their bonds from State
taxation. Is not this a proposed d.
rect violation offs written contract? Is
it anything but an attempt to with
hold, by force Of expost facto laws, a
part of the interest promised? I.4
Judge T.-No; not exactly. We
say 1T is a fraud of the Gen eral Govern
mont towards the States, to attempt to
do this, 1t exempls the rich mans
thousands from taxation, while it tax.
cs you and me to make up the def
cheney. .pouoa
Mr. B. But stop little. Judge.
Did not our Government need money,
and had they not a right to say how
much compensation or interest they
would pay. and how it should be paid?
Judge T.. Certainly. ra .f9s"a
Mr.. B. Well, they said, We will
give you six per cent. in gold, and this
shall be clear income to you. No State
shall tax the bond We give you; 80
you know just how much your money
will bring you in. Had the United
States not the clear right to contract
thus, instead of saying we will give
you ten or fifteen per cent. interest for
your money? ni r-1D'it f..
Judge T.--Yes, they had the right;
but the States have the right to say
that we will tax your bonds, at our
pleasure, Notwithstanding, for we new
or gave up that right. ny..oga .rsa
Mr.. B.--How is this? Two rights
directly opposite2 Is this law, Judge?
l don't understand how that can be
recociled with loyalty or justice. Let
me ask how you would enforce the
right of the State to levy and collect
this tax? 3 G. ''','4 N'4 lA :. "
Judge T.--By State laws and courts
to be sure. I ''''. &. ''''- i'
Mr.. B.--But, Judge, suppose the ag-
grieved party should appcalto a Uni
ted States Court, and they should say,
you have no right to tramplc on a law
Of the United States, constitutionally
enacted; what then. a'..- ~. s.
Judge r.--Why, then We would call
on the posse, TO enforce the decree Of
our own Courts. We believe in State
Rights. G
Mr.. B.-So, then, you arc in favor Of
notification after all, are your (See
4th resolution Of this platform.)
Judge T.-No. Don't we say in tho
4th resolution, we are not? r''.
Mr., B.-Yes, l know you say 80, but
| can not see how it is possible for a
State to oppose the execution Of the
United States laws, except by force,
when the two Courts disagree. Nut
Elification is tho only resort. For my
part, l think that Rump Democracy
which met here the other day, is far
moro consistent; for they, with you,
declared for the resolutions Of '98, and
honestly said that they meant seces-
sion and Modification, while you say
yon don't mean either, BY adopting
thaaa raanlntinnR. lR this hnncat.