The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1870-04-15

trrom the Oregon City Entcrprisc.)

CT the national debt proposed by tho Noinocratic
party. This equitable adjustment means just
this II means to investigate and ascertain just
how much is due the bondholdcr for his principal
land interest aud then pay that amount and No |
more. But II, for instance, u bondholdcr has
paid four hundred dollars In coin for thousand
dollars In grccnbacks, and with these grecnbncks
has purchased n thousand dollar bond, and now
claims under the sanction Of tho Republican party.
that the thousand dollars and the interest thereon
should DO paid in coin. pny him back his four
hundred dollars In coin, together with lawful In
terest thereon, but no more.
We very much dislike to disagee in
any respect with co-worker in the
Democratic ranks. Between Demo-
Gratis there should be no controversy,
yet essential differences demand dis
cussion. The Enterprise is either
wholly wrong or else we are, and the
difference between us is so palpable
and vital that we cannot consent to
ignore it. The Enterprise wants to
pay the bondholder just what the
bondholder paid for the greenbacks
with which he paid for his bonds. Go
farther. Ascertain if the $400, you
propose to pay him, was the result Of
lucky speculation, and if SO pay him
not the s400-but just no much as
the legal rate of interest would amount
to upon the capital invested in the en-
terprise that produced the $400. Thus
it may be seen that there is no limit TO
the preposterous deductions that may
be made from such proposition. The
Enterprise says 'pay him back with
interest the gold with which he bought
the greenbacks with which he bought
the bond" We say, why not pay him
back with interest the greenbacks with
which he bought the bond? Wha:
business have we to inquire when and
how he became possessed OF the green
backs? Suppose an individual pur-
chased $4,000 in greenbacks at 40 cts.
and with 81 900 bought bond, re-
tanning the remainder of the first
transaction in his keeping, would there
not be just as much-rather, just as
little-fairness in compelling him to
surrender his remaining 81, 900 in
greenbacks upon the payment of 500
in coin as there would be in compel
ling the surrender of the bond upon
the payment of the same sum? Ma,
you not with equal propr ETY. compe
him to relinquish his 81 900 in lega
tenders by paying him the 800 tha
he gavo for them?
Since greenbacks have advanced
from 40 to 80 cents, is the governmen
to rob holders of five-ninths OF them
Or, suppose in the meantime, tn
bond has passed into the hands OF SOM
: innocent purchaser for consideration
equal to its face; is the possessor to b
. subject to confscation? or will you e
back to the original purchaser an
force him TO "disgorge!" And if SC
. please edify US with statement c
: your proposed modus ep prnadis
To further illustrate the absurdit
: of such proposition, the law crea
:, ing the bonds authorized the Secrets
ry of the Treasury TO issue bonds j
- payment 'for materials or supplies,
- which should have been ordered by til
o appropriate department or Office. No
- what should we say Of n propositio
:, to provide for ascertaining what bohd
=. were issued for such materials {
g supplies" and for the payment, in n
denption of these bonds, of "other mi
q terials and supplies in kind and quar-
. tity ?" It is not the business of Il
;. Government of the United States
=. inquire who bought greenbacks, or
h. what figure, or for what purpose.
70 an individual was fortunate enough
lie buy for s4O0 quantity of legal tel
a ders, which, subsequently invested
o- bonds, became worth 81 600, cover
m ment has no more right to depri
~ him of the benefits of his transactic
C., than if that transaction had been
a. dry goods or real estate. The tran
action between the Government al
Of the purchaser of bonds was o perfee
a. ly fair one upon both sides, and the
ia is no law and no equity that will
IT. this day attempt to violate or eva
- the terms of the contract. We ms
o. that if the illogical and unreasonil
as rule laid down in the paragraph gu
# ted is to be adopted, that it be carri
mt to its fullestlength. We shall then n
N only ask where and how the bondhol
M er got the greenbacks with which
nd bought the bond, but when and h'
to he got the gold with which he boug
in the greenbacks.
vn A government that would thus sp'
m ulate in the depreciation of its own C,
ne rency is not likely to inspire
,st world with much confidence. A e
ernment that woull thus defraud
creditors and dishonor itself wor
ne inevitably survive the respect of he
90 orable men and yet not survive abe
TT q few generations. The Democra