The daily gazette., 1878-01-25

ing issues of the banks are payable in
ono kind of coin and the bank-notes in
another, where will be found the Eldon
or Kent to adjust the jarring equities
which such an inharmonious system must
create? ..
There cannot be the least doubt that
the words "coin OF the standard value of
the United States" in 1870 mean gold or
silver money, ~ then authorized by law.
Indeed, this Is not seriously doubted by
anybody but 10 Is chained that the act of
1873, establishing the single gold standard
has In some mysterious way put 1t beyond
the power of Congress to restore to our
coinage the silver dollar of former years.
Those creditors whose rights are fixed by
the act Of 1870 cannot look beyond that
law for the measure OF what Is due them
by the Government. tss. a,
That act was never repealed or modi-
hed by that Of 1873, and the effort made
by Congress to establish single standard
could not take away from the people the
right secured to them to pay their debts
either In gold or silver. The position
now taken Is that the act Of 1870, which
is not repealable, because itis q acontract,) J
act Of 1873, which 1t IL clearly within our
power to alter, IL irrepealable. A con-
tract can only be changed by consent Of
both parties TO 1t, and inasmuch as Il was
thought wise to stipulate In the law Of
1870 the precise number Of grains of gold
or silver which should discharge all Obli-
cations created under Its authority, that
provision of the act must remain intact
until its abrogated by all the parties to
the contract.
Those who undertook the work Of ban
ishing our silver coinage did not do It Of
fectually. While they put into the new
code that provision OF the law of 1873
which limits the legal tender power Of
the silver dollar to $5, they forgot to
emit from their compilation the act of
August y, 1846, ,ohich makes all our import
dues payable IN gold and siiUer. There 1t
stands to-day In section 3473 of the Re-
vised Statutes, under which all importers
hapeue right to pay duties at the custom
house n either gold or siiver coin. This law
of 1916 was on the statute-book when all
our great loans were taken. Our custom
dues were specially pledged as fund to
pay the coin interest of our debt, and 1t
II from that source that gold has been OBJ
tanned for the purpose. Here then was
notice to the whole world of the most
public character that that revenue fnnd
which the bond creditors had particular
ly in view, and which they succeeded in
getting mortgage on, was. by the posi-
tive provision of existing law. payable
IN kOh Gnu sitNCl tOihs CtttAOiA ov'AS
Revised Statutes, which Is taken from
the act of 1862, provides that "the coin
paid for duties on imported goods shall
be set apart as a special fund" for the
payment of interest on our bonds and
the purchase or payment of per cent.
per annum of our who'd debt, 70 be set
apart as sinking fund.
Can any one say that the coin which
was receivable for custom dues in 1862,
when this pledge was made to the credi-
tors, is not the coin meant by the con-
tract? What would be rule II the case
was one between individuals? Suppose
A has an estate from which he derives
income in gold and dlver-and some set
Elements were made in this way In the
olden time--and suppose he pledges this
income to secure the payment of o loan,
could any court hold that the kind Of
money receivable under the settlement
would not discharge the debt? And
this provision of the law furnishes very
| strong illustration of the rights Of the
Government respecting the coinage, not
| withstanding the law of July IA, 1870
Can't it be claimed then, that the act OF
1862 pledging the duties on imports to
our creditors makes 1t obligatory upon
Congress to maintain the same rates OF
imports that existed at that time? Is not
, the obligation of the Government to the
people respecting tariff legislation higher
and superior to that which 1t owes to In
diyidunls?