Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1878-02-27

too heavy for the worlds relative
value, l5l TO |. If silver remonone-
tized retaxes its normal attitude as
halt Of the worlds currency, instead
of increasing It's weight, our duty will
be to reduce ii so far as our out-stand-
ing contracts will permit us to do So
But it is argued that the fight OF the
silver dollar during the war and since,
because of its undervalue as compared
with gold, practically caused gold to
be used, and that such use in equity
compels us TO repay in gold.
Tho first answer TO this IL, that the
creditor who gave MS his gold Tor onr
bonds prior to 1873 accepted our offer
to subscribe, and took his option TO
pay in the cheaper mctal-gold. lie
had the right to pay in either metal,
but practically five-sixths paid in
Treasury notes. Assume that he paid
in coin, he paid, of course, in the
cheaper metal--gold Our bonds were
sold as well in Germany and France
as in England. In the two former,
silver was one of the standards OF
value, and during all of the years,
from 1862 to 1870, our silver dollar
stood in the market in London at from
1924 TO l04t in gold. As matter of
course they did not pay IN that kind
Of coin they paid in the cheaper kind
OF metal, They had AN option in pay
ment, and in return for their money
We gave theman obligation payable in
coin, thus expressly reserving to the
Government the same option they had
just EXERCISED Ii silver occupied the
same attitude now that it did then,
might We not still exercise our option
and pay in goldY Did the purchaser
pay u higher price by reason of his
hope TO pc repaid in goldY Maniiestly
not, for IT was lower than silver.
An equity cannot arise II il must
base itself upon the violation of an ex-
press provision in contract unambig-
uous in Its terms, and plainly written
on tho contract, and the act of 1869
emphatlcilly declares payment may be
made in gold and silver
But il is said that the act OF 1873
making gold the unit OF value and de-
monetzing silver estops us and in equi.
ty and good faith the contracpis chang
ed as to those who paid gold for their
bonds since 1873, and the case is put /;
the Senator from Vermont the senior
Senator, | believe, puts the case OF one
going to the Treasury and buying bis
bond and paying in gold coin. The
answer to any such alleged estoppel is .
First The act Of 1870, under which
the bond issues, gives no authority to
any one 10 bind the Governmnet to pay
in one metal or to deprive It of its OPP
tion TO pay in either, but in plain terms
cnacts precisely the reverse.
Second. When the buyer came 10
look ut the contract, whether il was In
1871 or 1875, II plainly expressed upon
its face the option OF the Government
TO pay in either metal OF the standard
value of July H. 1870. No estoppel
can arise upon such state of facts
The buyer had full notice that our OPP
tion was reversed.
Third. On July IA, 1870, the silver
dollar OF 4l2l grains, nine-tenths fine,
was the unit Of value Of the money con.
tracts of the Government.
Fourth. If this doctrine be sound,
what becomes of our sovereign power
given by the Constitution "to regulate
the value" of our coins? Does IL not
repeal the Constitution and deny our
sovereignty
Can it be that any chancellor, that
any court of equity on the face Of the
earth, can cause an estoppel to arise on
such state OF facts, the contract being
unambiguous, express, and distinct, the
law on which the contract is made be-
ing equally advantageous and distinct ?
Yet on the face of the bonds, when the
man comes to pay his money he pays
In gold aud he has full notice that the
opton OF the Government was reserv-
ed. Neither equity nor the legal doe
trDe OF estoppel can bind in any such
case us this.
Mr. Randolph. AT that point it seems
TO me TO be pertinent to ask whether
the option OF the Government did or
did not cease in February, 1878. and
whether the act OF the demonetzation
Of silver or the dropping Of the silver
dollar from the list of the coins OF the
Government did not practically surren-
A IL ~ 4 /.