Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-09-17
WHAT rs REDEMPTION (?

Much is said and many words wasted
through the Republican press about the
folly of substituting greenback legal tenders
for national bank notes. 1t is argued that
the issue of additional greenbacks would
have the effect of depreciating their value
of making them irredeemable and compare
lively worthless. The St. Paul organ grinder
for the national bank monopoly declares
that the greenback is not as good as the
national bank note, and endeavors to prove
it's astounding proposition thus:
What is a greenback? 1t is simply an evil
dence of debt. 1t represents no actual capital.
There is nothing behind it but the credit of
the government; that is to say, it's value de-
ponds first on the ability, and second, on the
willingness of the government to pay its debts.
If it issue more of these promises to pay than
it can redeem-above all, if it issues them with
the understanding that they not to be paid
at all or not for an indefinite period, they sink
to the character of repudiated obligations; they
have not only capital behind them, but no
credit. If their issue is confined, as now,
within the ability of the government to redeem
and with that declared purpose, they are in the
sense of exchange value as good as national
bank notes. But if issued, as proposed, be-
yond the limit of intended or probable redemp-
ton, they are good for nothing.
This is fair sample of the fallacies pro-
mulgated by the national bank champions.
It is true there is nothing behind the green
back but the credit of the government; but
what more is behind the national bank note ?
That is the obligation of private individuals
practically worthless, as experience with
State banks has demonstrated-back by
bonds of the government which rest up
on the credit of the government, the value
of which depends upon the ability and
willingness of the government to pay its
debts"
But if issued as proposed, would
the greenbacks be redeemable or as
sumo the character of repudiated
obligations? That depends upon what is
called redemption. An obligation of an in
dividual is redeemed when it is exchanged
for something of value to the holder; a
greenback will be redeemed by the govern
ment when it is received by it in payment of
the obligations of the holder. An Individual
who owes the government thousand dol
lars can pay that debt in greenbacks, and by
receiving those greenbacks as an equivalent
for the debt the government redeems them
just as fully as if it paid their face value in
another form of currency-gold or silver,
Redemption as understood and taught by the
Republican press is the veriest humbug on
the face of the earth. Every time a green
back is received by the government in pay
ment of the obligations of it's citizens, it is
redeemed absolutely. It is to give the green
back this value-facility of redemp-
ton at the will of the holder-that the
Democrats are now striving.
The plea that the security of the green
back-the credit of the government in
sufficient, is absurd The credit of the gov
eminent is esteemed ample security for the
payment of the bonds issued under authority
of law. 1t is SO highly esteemed by capital
lists that every issue of bonds commands
a premium in the money markets of both
this country and Europe. To say that the
credit of the government is not good enough