The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1867-09-12
A CASE IN POINT.

The Cleveland (Ohio) Plaindealer pub
fishes the following account of a case al
most precisely similar to the one which
cave rise TO the decision of Judge Shars-
wood. which the Radical papers of Penn
sylvania are all assailing, but which they
dare not publish in full
"In July, 1861, poor man in this city,
having on hand four hundred dollars in gold,
which he desired to deposit in some safe
place for short time, handed it to friend
for that purpose. The gentleman to whom
it was given placed it in a banking house
in this city, and received a certificate of de-
post, of which the following is true copy:
$500 HENRY WICK & Co, Bankers. !
Cleveland, July 5, 1861. !
"'Thomas Mcmahon, Esq, has deposited
with us Four Hundred Dollars CoIN to the
credit of himself, payable to his order here
on in Ike funds in four months with interest
.''No. $50. f. d. CHILDs. Teller.
endorsed THOMAS McMAHoN.'
"When this certificate wac presented for
payment the holder of it was informed that
he could not get gold for it, because Congress
had passed a law that "greenbacks" should
be legal tender. The holder Of the paper,
thinking this was rather sharp practice on
the part of the bank. on the 18th of Novem-
Der, 1862. brought his suit in the Court of
Common Pleas of Cuyahoga county, to en-
force the contract. The defendants in their
answer admitted receiving the gold, and set
up the law of Congress in defense. a ten
der in Court Of four hundred dollars in green
backs was made. The case was tried by
the Court Judge Foote, now a candidate
for re election as Judge of that Court, pre-
siding, held that, although there was a con-
tract to return gold, yet the law of Congress,
passed since the making Of the contract, had
declared greeubacks to be legal teuder, and
the plaintiff mi st receive that kind of money
IN return for his gold. a judgment was
rendered against the dofondantS for four
hundred dollars and interest, and as the
amount had been rendered to the plaintiff,
he had to pay the costs"
Here was an express contract to return
coin as deposited. 1t would seem to be
more binding, if possible, than a promise
TO pay any ordinary debt in specie. Yet
a Radical Court decided against the right
of the poor man to enforce the contract.
For attempting to protect the right of
creditor in a similar case Judge Sharswood
Is being bitterly assailed Yet the very
same newspapers which attack his deci-
sion insist that both the interest and the
principal of the Government bonds must
all be paid in coin. Here is a specimen
of radical consistency. They forget the
old saying that it is ''a poor rule which
won't work both ways" If 4 poor man
Is bound to take grecnbacks from a bank
when the express contract is that he is to
receive gold again for the gold he deposit
ed, why should bondholders be entitled to
be paid gold coin for the greenback paper
they loaned the Government in many
cases their bonds did not cost them more
than fifty cents to the dollar in gold value.
Is there to be one kind of currency for the
rich and another for the poor-gold for
those who pay no taxes, and deprecated
ragged shinplasters for those whose daily
toll furnishes all the revenue of the nation.
If Judge Sharswood's opinion was wrong
IN law, or false in principle, then the
sooner the rule laid down by the majority
t94- tef tthe Court Of which ne was a member
is applied to bondhol1ers, the better for
the country. Ifhis decision was right, and
the principles laid down by him are sus-
tanned, then all contracts made to pay
coin can and must be enforced. Radical
law and Radical logic are alike lame on
this question. on.-LancaSteT HltelLgenceF.