The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1867-11-26
RepudiatIOB.

The Argus. which has accepted very UNIV IL
lngly the awkward burden OF fehdletoh pol
lev of pational reputation, undertakes now
to mask its position by oraeular utterances
and ipeonsequential questions The following
string of currency conundru ms, propounded
to the Press with very wise air, may serve to
illustrate these ingenious tactics
Was the enactment of the legal tie nder act
by which debts contracted in gold CURRENCY
were made payable in greenbacks at an esti-
mated average depreciation of some thirty per
cent.-was this reputation by Congress to
that extent? ..
Was the act OF the legislature of Pennsylva-
ma paying the interest of the public debt OF
that State in greenbacks instead of gold, the
currency in which the debt was contracted, re-
quotation by that legislature to the extent Vi
the depreciation of greenbacks?
was similar act passed by the leS.siasu \,
OF New York paying the interest on tiie ueoo
OF that State in deprecated, paper currency
instead of gold, Reputation ny tnas ieg's sE
ture to the extent of the depreciation Oh 'iie
substituted currency?
We do not propose to be di verified from the
main question by any casua talk about New
York or Pennsylvania. At another time if it
should De necessary, we are quite willing to
discuss the financial policy of those States; but
it is plainly necessary to consider first the aci
ton of Congress, of which the legislation OF
New York and Pennsylvania was con Sc
quence.
Was the enactment of the Legal-Tender act
then, Reputation?
Most certainly not. Reputation is the re-
fusal on the part OF government to pay its
debts The United States by the terms of the
Legal-Tender act expressly provided for the
payment of interest ha nuIlic oh n Unl1
Greerbacks are not legal-tender for interest
on the public debt. The Republican party in
sists also that they are not legal-tender for the
principal of the debt. The Democratic party
pretends that the principal is payable in green
backs, and for that pretence we can find no
better name than Reputation.
There was, it is perfectly evident, no stain
of Reputation upon the Legal-Tender act
but suppose there had been! Would repudia-
ton in 1862 justify reputation in 1868? Is
that the conclusion which the Argus would
reach? Were there not reasons in 1862 which
might palliate SO disgraceful transaction,
and which no longer exist? Secretary Cobb,
ofGeorgia, a Democratic Secretary, had just
left the Treasury bankrupt. He had supplied
his daily wants by selling Treasury notes al
loan of ten millions, and the bidders for three
millions had chosen to forfeit their initial de-
posit rather than to take and pay for theil
bonds. Such was the credit of the United
States at the close of the last Democratic adj
ministration which marked also the beginning
of a Democratic rebellion. If under such cir
cumstances the United States government had
refused to pay its debts, there would have beer
some color of excuse for the refusal. 1t would
have appeared to be case of bankruptcy.
Such a refusal now would be inexcusable-
sheer swindling-and the politicians who adj
vocate it will learn next year what the Ameri
can people think of them.
We have answered the Argns, according to
its request, frankly and unequivocally" We
confess to no little establishment at the ques
ton, but we are nevertheless prepared to say
now or at any time, that the enactment of thu
Legal-Tender act was not "repudiation,'I no.
burglary, nor arson, nor so far as we are in
formed, malfeasance of any kind.