The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1876-08-05

back.tender act of 1862, was in 1853,
when the subsidiary silver coins were
overvalued about 81 per cent. for the
purpose Of preventing their ex-
| be unjust to make an over
valued or token coinage full IegaLten-
der, it was granted that this coinage
should not be legal-Iender tor more than
! 50 In any one payment. Nothing was
said about the legal-tender quality of
either gold coins or silver dollars.
Legaltender legislation was left to the
States, where it belonged under the
Constitution, which did not give power
10 Congress to make anything legal
iten0er."
! How such statements could be wS;a,11
by any man who must have read the law
alluded to, is inconceivable, unless upon
the presumption OF complete misunder-
standing. The act of 1892 in explicit
terms not only fixes the weight and hne-
ness of our gold and silver coinage,
making the silver dollar the unit OF
value, but also makes the coinage thus
ordained legal-tenders for all sums.
| The Times is also mistaken in saying
that the act Of 1858 relating to our trac'
tional silver coins is the first and only
| legal-tender legislation prior to the
greenback act OF 1862. The act of 1868
changed nothing contained in the acts Of
| 1892 or 1884. 1t merely declared the
cheapened silver coins thereafter to be
issued legal-tender to the limit of five
dollars, because of their debased rate OF
Ipurity. That was all.
The Times Furthermore affirms the fol
lowing as truthful statements, which
can not be sustained against the record
GAN coin contracts meant gold, for tht
simple and sufficient reason that golC
was the only coin, except the toker
pieces, in use. This was the case from
1884 down to 1873. In the Mint Act o
LnaL year no provision was made tOl
coiuing the silver dollar, because it was
still more valuable than the gold dollar,
ana consequently would not circulate in
company with gold. There was no use
in ordering the coinage Of piece which
would certainly be exported in obedi
ence to u well.known economic law. Gold
|
all coin contracts"
| We deny that "gold was the only
standard" We deny that "alI coin con.
tracts meant gold" The former is as to
a matter of fact, the latter is as to a
matter OF law. Regarding the matter of
fact, we nave already stated the provis.
ions Of the law of 1892, which stood till
the act OF 1873. AS matter of fact
then, gold was not the only standard
but silver was the unit of value, and {
legal tender tor any amounts in common
with gold.
AS regards the matter of law, we hole
that call coin contracts" meant coin,
and not gold coin only. When silver
was just as much coin as gold was, by
what authority can any one decide thai
! when "coin" is mentioned, it meant only
gold? We maintain, that in all "coir
contracts" the legal tenders Of eithel
silver coin or gold coin, at the option Of
the payer, is the medium of payment.
| The Times goes on TO say that "silver
was nominally legal-tender under State
laws, but they were never rendered, fol
the reason that being underYalued, they
would not circulate" Now, we affirm
that il was not under, !. e., by virtue of
State laws, but by virtue OF the Con-
stitution that silver was a legal tender
under State laws. The States couldn't
help themselves. They are expressly
prohibited from making anything but
gold and silver q legal tender i'll pay.
ment of debTs.
! We seldom nave met an article in any
journal claiming intelligence and re-
spectability, wherein the truth was SC
parsimoniously, and Misrepresentation
so lavishly employed.