Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-02-04
GOLD AND SILVER.
THE REL sI.4ND4RD or r.lLUE.

acknowledgment Reasons for Favorine
i Remonetization.--The Act of Demoneti-
cation Subject to Repeal or Amendment
The Obligations of the Government
Pledged Payment in Coin, not Gold.
| New YoRK, Feb. 2.-Hon. Thomas A. Hen
bricks has telegraphed the Herald reply to
August Belmont's letter, published in the
same journal January 3Oth. Mr.. Hendricks
says the purpose of his (Belmont's) letter
was to show that the views attributed to me
on the silver question are inconsistent with
opinions heretofore expressed, and that
therefore | cannot be correctly reported.
The report in the Cincinnati Commercial
was correct. very much desire to be con
sidered consistent. Upon this question I
think have been consistent. Mr.. Belmont
quotes me as holding that since the act of
March, 1869, the bonded debt has been paid
in gold as contradistinguis from paper or
silver. In that he is not correct. The bill
to strengthen the peoples credit was pend
ing IN the Senate in February, 1869. Imade
an argument against the section which
pledged the
FAITH OF THE GOVERNMENT
to payment of the bonds in coin. opposed
it because thought the contract showed the
payment of the principal of the twenty-five
bonds to be made in treasury notes. Mr..
Belmont take one sentence to show that 7
held that the effect of the measure would be
to pay in gold. Had Mr.. Belmont read more
careful ~ he would have seen and read the
section containing these words. s.,That the
faith of the United States is solemnly pledp-
ed to the payment in coin, or it's equivalent .
and that then said, ssIt will cause the re-
moyal of doubts and make the law to read
that the debt shall be paid in coin. That is
the effect of this section Upon that con-
struction made my argument on the sec
ton, not as controversy whether payment
should be in silver as against gold. but
whether it might be in paper as against
coin. It was not questioned in that debate
THAT SILVER WAS COIN
and that the debt would be payable in silver.
Whether that section passed or did not pass,
the section substantially as 1 read it in the
Senate became law nineteen days after
wards. Its force and effect did not become
a question of political controversy in Indiana
in 1872, but it did enter into the discussion
OF 1874. In the Democratic convention of
that year resolution was adopted declaring
the 5-2O bonds payable in greenbacks. /
presided over that convention, and as could
not give that resolution my support, took
occasion at the first public meeting which
addressed, to say so, and to give my reasons.
thought then, and believe now, that after
the faith OF the nation was pledged to pay
ment. in coin we
COULD NOT PAY IN TREASURY NOTES,
that the purchaser of bonds after that date
,o1xi
that we are bound by it. That was nv ar
gument before the people. Neither nv hear
ers nor thought of the question whether
payment could be made in silver. It was
not then doubted. It was not then known
to myself, and supposed not to one Of the
audience, that the silver dollars had been
discarded. Mr.. Belmont refers to that adj
dress and to the use of the word coin, as
committing NE to the payment of the debt
IN gold and n0Vin silver. The only cues
ton then discussed was the right to pay in
greenbacks. The right to pay in silver was.
not then questioned or considered in Indi-
ana. In the address which made as Presi-
dent OF the Convention two months before
any OPINIONS upon currency were somewhat
fully expressed. I then said; "We cannot
too strongly express the imporportance Of
the policy that shall restore
UNIFORMITY OF VALUE
to all the money of the country, SO that it
shall be always readily convexted. That gold
and silver are the real standard of value is a
cherished Democratic sentiment not now or
hereafter to be Abandoned I certainly
could not have used that language in the
campaign of 1874 had I known that silver
was no longer money. A more important
question made by Mr.. Belmont is that the
argument which excluded the payment Of the
public debt in treasury notes under the act
of March, 1869, applies with greater force
under the act Of 1873, which excludes the
silver dollar from coinage think that is
not correct. The act Of 1869 was to remove
any doubt to
SETTLE CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS
of the laws under which the public obliga-
tons were contracted, and to pledge the
faith of the United States to the payment of
such obligations in coin. After full consid-
Grafton it became law. It was soon fol-
lowed by the act to authorize the refundinp
of the national debt. That law provided
that the $1,50O,0O0,OOO of bonds which it
authorized should be redeemable in coin of
the present standard value. The act of
1859 was solemn pledge of my country
made by competent authority. 1 felt it was
SO binding indeed that it conld not be re-
pealed to the prejudice of those to whom it
was given. Was the act of 1873 of such a
class and character? To whom does it make
solemn pledge that the
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS
10 coin money and to regulate the value
thereof shall never again be exercised until
the public debt shall have been fully paid ?
Why and wherein is the coinage act of 1873
more sacred and irrepealable than the coin
age act If 1884 which it modified? Does the
power to coin money and regulate its value
belong to the class of power that once ex-
erclsed became exhaustive? If that were SO
the power had been exhausted before the
passage of the act of 1873. Or is it the
right of the public OF private creditor, either
to say to Congress, you shall not exercise the
constitutional power of coming money and
regulating the value thereof because by
changing the standard you may change the
value of investments? We have not recoe.
nized such a rule. There would be force Il
such claim under the act of 1870
which provides for the payment 81
bonds in coin of the present standard
value. The act Of 1873 contains no pledge
nor contract. It is legislation under {
CONTINUING POWER OF CONGRESS
and subject to repeal or amendment like an,
other law passed under the same power. i
is not, therefore, in my Judgment, a question
OF public faith but one of expedience only
Being such, it seems to me the part of wis
dom to have some regard to the condition O
financial issues that exist in the country
and to the disturbed state of the publ.
mind that peryades a large portion of tht
country. Any change in coinage is always {
delicate and important work, and should b&