The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1878-02-21
HENDRICKS TO BELMONT.


Herald Of the 3Oth ult. The PURPOSE
of his letter was to show that tn
views attributed to me on the silve
question are inconsistent with opinions
heretofore expressed, and therefore
that l cannot be correctly reported
The report in the Cincinnati Com
mercial was correct. 1 do not know
how it appears in Eastern papers.
very much desire to be considered
consistent. but l would rather bt
certain am right than consistent
upon this question, think | have
been consistent.
Mr.. Belmont quotes me as holding
that since the act of March 18, 1869
the bonded debt must be paid in gOl(
as contradistinguished from paper OF
silver. In that he is not correct
The bill to strengthen the peoples
credit was pending in the Senate II
February, 1859. made an argument
against the section which pledged the
government to the payment of bonds
in coin. l opposed it because
thought the contract allowed the pay
ment of the prencipal of the five
twenty bonds to be made in Treasury
notes. Mr.. Belmont takes one sen
tence to show that l held that the
effect Of the measure would be to pay
in gold, as follows:
SIN opposing the passage Of the act
in the Senate, February q, 1869, he
had described the issue then joined as
THE question whether the holders of
the bonds have an equitable claim
upon us now, while the difference
between paper and gold is SO great as
it is to declare that the bonds shall be
payable in gold.
Had Mr.. Belmont read more care
fully he would have seen that read
the section containing these words:
.:That the faith of the United States
is solemnly pledged to the payment in
coin or it's equivalent and then l
said.
cit will cause the removal of doubts
and make the law to read that the debt
shall be paid in coin. That is the
effect of this section.
Upon this construction l made my
argument against the section, not as
in controversy whether the pay.
ment should be in silver rs against
gold, but whether it might be in
paper against coin. 1t was not ques-
toned 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 l read it in the
Senate, became IA law nineteen days
afterward.
It's force and effect did not become
a question of political controversy in
this state in 1872. when l was elected
Governor, us Mr.. Belmont seems to
suppose, but it did enter into the
discussion of 1874. In the Democratic
convention of that year resolution
was passed declaring the five-twenty
bonds payable in greenbacks. l pre-
sided over the convention, and, as l
could not give the resolution my
support, took occasion at the first
public meeting which addressed in
this city to say so and to give my
reasons. | thought then rs | believe
now, that after the faith OF the nation
was pledged to payment in coin we
could not pay in treasury notes; that
the purchaser of the bonds after that
date took them relying on that pledge
and that we are bound by it. That was
my argument before the people.
Neither my hearers nor l thought of
the question whether the payment
could be made in silver. 1t was not
then doubted. 1t was not then known
to myself. and | suppose not one of
the audience, that the silver dollar
had been "discarded,' Mr.. Belmont
refers to that address, aud to the use
of the word gold" in it instead of the
word COIN. Us committing me to
payment of the debt in gold and not
in silver. The only question then
discussed was the right to pay in
greenbacks. The right to pay in
silver was not then questioned or
considered in this State. In the adj
dress which l made as President Of
the convention, two months before
my opinions upon the currency were
somewhat fully expressed. l then
said
1--WE cannot too fully express the
Importance of the policy that shall
restore uniformity of value to all the
money of the country, so that it shall
always and readily be converted.
That gold and silver are the real
standard of value is n cherished DEM
ocratic sentiment not now nor here
after to be abandoned"
certainly could not have used that
Language in the campaign of 1874 bad
then known that silver was no longer
money.
Having disposed of the question of
my consistency. come to the much
more important question made by
Mr.. Belmont. which is that the argu-
ment which excludes payment of the
public debt in treasury-notes under
the act OF March Is, 1860, applies with
greater force under the act of 1873.
which excludes the silver dollar from
coinage. l think that is not correct.
The act of 1869 was to remove any
doubt-to settle conflicting interpreta-
lions of the laws under which public
obligations were contracted, and to
pledge the faith of the United States
to the payment of such obligations in
coin. After full consideration it
became law. 1t was soon followed
by the act to authorize the refunding
of the national debt. That law pro-
vided that the 81 SOC. 900 900 Of bonds
which it authorised should be redeem
able in coin Of the present standard
value. Because the act Of 1859 was
~o0~v~>u ,.loASvn - - =,