Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-10-19
THE GREESBAcK ouEsrYoN.


legal and moral obligation, that in this case
the latter is the only one which can be re-
cognized. In equity the United States are
bound to pay the principal of these bonds
in coin. To pay them in anything less
valuable, except upon the free consent OF
the holder, is therefore reputation.
This is fallacious In the first place,
there was no assurances, solemn or
otherwise, in the various acts authorizing
the issuance of a large proportion of
United States bonds that the payment
Of their interest should be in coin On
the contrary, it was asserted on the floor
Of the House of Representatives by the
Chairman of the Ways and Means Com
mittee, who is the second, if not virtually
the first, financial officer of the govern
ment, that such was not the construction
Of the Law creating the fve>twenties, and
he challenged members in debate to con-
tradict his assertion on the authority Of
the Secretary of the Treasury. 1t was
not done This was three years ago.
Regarding the obligation of the gov
eminent under the contract created by
the law between itself and bond,holders,
there has recently been reproduced a
letter from Mr. Fessenden, while at the
head Of the Treasury Department The
cases are nearly analogous. That officer
refused to receive the seven-thirties
issued July 18th, 1861, for duties and
when his attention was called TO the fact,
that the law of that date re-enacted the
provisions of the Treasury note act of
1857, which issues were expressly de-
clared to be receivable for duties, he re-
piled as follows
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, August 80,
l864.-SIR: / have to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of August 10. in
which you argue that the Treasury notes
issued under the act Of July II, 1861, are
receivable for duties on imports, basing
your claim upon the fact that the tenth
section of that act e-enacts the provisions
of the act of December 8, 1857, 'so far as
the same can or may be applied to the pro-
visions of this act and not inconsistent
Herewith"
cannot agree with you in the opinion
that this constitutes an emphatic and I'M
equivocaP provision authorizing the re-
ceipt of these notes in payment of customs
duties, the notes issued under the act of
1897 having been so received. Judging
from the uniform language of acts of a
similar nature, the Department is justified
IN supposing that this important provision,
If meant to be enacted, '0ould hare been
stated an express 'OOrds and not left TO be IN
terred from reference 10 a former ldg
understand the section which you quote
as intended to revise those portions of the
act Of 1857, which provide for matters of
detail, as for the issue anG cancellation of
the notes, etc.
However this may be, the provision of
the 9Th section of the act of February %,
1862, is emphatic and conclusive upon the
subject. II is in the following words, viz
"And be il further enacted That all duties
on imports shall be paid in coin or in notes
payable on demand, heretofore authorized
to be issued and by law receivable in pay.
ment of public dues" etc, etc.
Very respectfully,
W. p. FEssEEDEN,
Secretary of the Treasury.
Observe the rule of decision here laid
down, viz that nothing but express and
direct language can bind the government
1t must be unequivocally nominated in
the bond that custom dues are payable
in certain way, and that nothing is to
be left to implication
Now this rule applied to what are
called the gold-bearing interest bonds,
relieves the government from its alleged
obligation to pay them in coin. Indeed,
the legal tender act which was passed
only seven months after the first issue of
bonds, making the currency notes mo ney,
and lawful medium of the exchange of
values, placed all the financial obliga-
tons Of the government on that footing,
except those in regard to which there
were express coin stipulations This is
the inevitable implication, and it is the |
just one. 1t is the point for which the
advocates of greenback liquidation con-
tend, and it does not involve reputation,
and is not unfair to the bondholder To |
be be sure it reduces his anticipated in
come, but not more than that of the non
bondholder, who finds his greenback dollar
worthy only seventy cents, and fuctu.
ating in value every day.
1t will not do for the organs of monopo-
lists to descant too freely upon moral OBJ
legations and the equities involved in this
question The government by law, nor
its officials by strained constructions of
laws, have no moral right to make one
rule of payment for one class of citizens
and one for another; nor to hold as in~
violable and sanctifed one set Of finan-
cial pledges, while it is in daily violation
Of another And the equity stands on
still more slender basis for one hundred
Of its citizens suffer by the deprecated
which it compels them to use,
while but one would have his bank ac-
count diminished by being paid in the
same kind of money