The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1868-10-08
ThOS. Ewing. ST., for Seymour
and Blair.
HIS OPINION ON THE BOND QUESTION.

HIS OPINION ON THE BOND QUESTION.
Thomas Ewing, Sr., of Ohio, has issued
an address TO the unpledged voters of the
United States, in which, after a careful re-
view of the political situation, he says:
Until recently had intended to support
General Grant for the Presidency, and would
do it still, in the hope that the Democracy
will obtain majority in the House Of Re
presentatives, AMI thus hold a restraining
power, but facts which l have shown about
render it impossible. Bad men, with more
intellect and more force of character than
himself, have possession of him and if he
be elected President will probably continue
to rule him, and the country with him and
some of the worst existing abuses cannot be
corrected against Executive opposition.
In looking over the whole ground most
carefully, and weighing consequences well,
l have come to the conclusion that it were
better that the Democracy prevail in the
coming election and thus divide for the
present the Legislative, while we restore the
Executive and Judicial powers. No evil
can ensue. We shall have season of re-
pose aud time for reflection before called on
again to act. There is profound philosophy
in the old Scotch proverb:
THE showers fall soft when the wind is still :"
l have already shown it will give us a
season for inquiry and reflection, and the
same conservative power which can now
give success to either party can at the end of
two years do the same thing, and place the
Government in the hands Of those who may
be then found most worthy to control it,
So far neither party has vcntured to COM
NIT itself on the disposition of the public
debt. My mind has long been made up as
to the principle which should govern US in
its adjustment. Iti this So far as our
contracts are distinct and explicit, we must
abide by them, no matter how unequal or
onerous. AS for example, where we have
promised to pay the interest or the debt, or
both, in gold, national faith requires and we
must SO pay ii; but where the contract is
not explicit, but requires construction, we
must deal with creditors and the people pre-
csely as an enlightened court of equity
would deal with debtor and creditor under
like conditions. For example: The credit
or borrows forty cents, or deprecated bank
paper worth forty cents, which the public
calls a dollar, and promises to pay interest,
six per cent. on its nominal or fifteen per
cent. on its actual value in gold. The
promises to pay the gold interest being ex-
pl:cit, the nation who owes the debt should
pay it, for there is no usury law operating
on contracts with sovereigns but where
distinction is taken in the contract between
the debt and the interest-the interest only
made payable in gold-equity would require
that the debt should be paid in that which
is equal in value to the fund received.
Sovereigns have not always meted out
this even-handed justice. The coin of nations
has been sometimes debased after a loan
made, so that one pound of silver and one
pound of copper would be made to pay what
was two pounds of silver when the loan was
made. This was a gross wrong. 1t is
equally wrong. on the other side, to take
the name for the thing, and pay an ounce of
silver to the lender for four-tenLhs of an
ounce borrowed, because each in its turn was
called dollar. Equity, if called into action
would suffer neither one DOR the other, but
require the payment from sovereign or snb-
ject of the amount borrowed, regardless of
name. This should be the rule of payment.
If currency were borrowed which was worth
forty cents on the dollar, currency or bonds
of equivalent value should be paid.
Such are my views of the duties of those
who represent bondholders and people, and
who are alike the agents of both. The
committees of Congress who have charge of
the subject should examine each class of cases
carefully, and do justice to each. 1t matters
not by whom the bonds are held, whether
large capitalists or widows and orphans ;
each and all are entitled to equity no more
no less. If you give them less. you wrong
them; if you give them more, you wrong
the people, who are the debtor.