Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1878-11-16
OUR CONFESSION OF FAITH.


cratic party on the Greenback ques-
ton, and some of our antagonists
openly charge that, either our
opinions are not those of our party,
or, if they are, the party is insincere
i'm its avOwals. Now our readers
havean unquestioned right to know
what our opinions are, and we pro-
pose in this paper to take the clear
ext method practicable of defining
them, with which view we have
thought il best to throw our ideas
into the form Of dialogue, as that
form enables us to discuss things
freely exactly as we have discussed
them with friends interested in
knowing our opinions. The follow
ing dialogue, then, may be consid-
cred as held between an interviewer
of extreme greenback views and
the editor. OF course no such con-
versatiOn has actually taken place
with any one person.
interviewer. How are you on
greenbacks?
Editor. Haven't got enough Of
them by good deal.
Int. You are nOn-eOmmittal l
hardly expected straightforward
answer from you.
Ed. | have nothing to conceal,
but you must make your questions
more explicit before l can give You
much satisfaction.
! Int. Well, then, do you agree
with the leaders of the Democratic
party in their views on the currency?
Ed. Which leaders? No one
can agree with all of them.
| Int. Well, say Thurman, Ewing
and VOORHEES,.
/ Ed. And Bayard why do you
omit him?
Int. Bayard is not Democrat on
the greenback question. A man
would not be a good Democrat who
agreed with him.
/ Ed. Would he be better Demo-
( crat who should agree with Wen
dell Holmes or Kelley of Pennsyl-
vania, two bitter Radicals, or say
Ben. Butler at once?
! Int. Even Radical may be
right on one question.
/ Ed. Yes, and a Democrat may
be wrong on several but let's get
/ to business. | do not pin my faith
on any one of the men you have
/ spoken of. Perhaps Thurman would
/ be nearest my standard, but the
( Democratic party is older than any
of them let as discuss measures
/ rather than men.
Int. To come to the point, then.
Are you in favor of repeating the
resumption bill?
Ed. The resumption bill will not
be repealed before the LIST of Janu-
airy let the Democratic party do
what it will; it has not the power to
do it, especially since the Northern
| Democrats have learned the lessons
of the November elections. The
wiser plan would now be to let the
authors of resumption carry it out
and take the responsibility of its
( consequences
Int. Do you think it will sue
coed?
Ed. | don't think great many
greenbacks will be presented for
payment in gold, and if once the
Treasury begins to redeem them in
silver their holders will prefer to
keep them.
Int. You are getting rather non
committal again. Do you think
1 the nation will be benefited by re-
sumption or injured?
Ed. think that if enough green
backs can be kept aflOat at par for
| the business of the country we shall
have Il very good currency. think
that there are more than enough at
present for the cOuntry's business in
its present depressed state. How it
might be if liberal fiscal policy
should stimulate commerce to
greater activity, l can't tell.
Int. | thought editors knew
everything.
/ Ed. l have noticed that the less
people know on these matters the
more confidently they predict re-
suits. Acknowledging myself to
1 fall very far short of editorial ON
niscience, / have read and thought
enough on these subjects to be very
sparing of prophecy.
Int. | see l shall not get much
out of you on the head of resump-
ton. Do you think the national
debt ought to be paid in greenbacks?
/ Ed. As things are now it would
| be Il breach of contract. The war
debt was originally payable in that
currency for which it was incurred,
but when the $40 bonds were con-
verted into l0-4O's a new contract
was made by which these latter
bonds are payable in "coin or its
equivalent
( Int. You think, then. that the
nation ought to be ruined in order
to fulfill an unjust contract; or per-
haps, as you are dealing in para
doxes, you think the nation would
not be benefited by paying its debt
in a cheaper currency. Do you re-
serve your opinion on this question
also?
Ed. l have no objection to ans
wering as many questions as you
may put, but / would rather you
would put one at Il time. You have
virtually asked three, but l will try
to meet them all. First, then, no
nation can afford to break its con-
tracts, however unwisely they have
been made. Next, surprising for
argument the contract could be set
aside, you virtually put two more
questions, viz: Would it ruin the
nation to pay its debt in coin? And