The Milan exchange. (Milan, Gibson County, Tenn.) 1874-1978, 1878-02-14
OUR NATIONAL FINANCES.
Ex-Governor Hendricks Further Define
His Position on the Silver Question.

/ OOh NAIlUNAL EINANCES.
Ex-Governor Hendricks Further Defines
HIS fosition on the Silver Question.
NEW YORK, February 2.-Hon. Thomas
4 A. Hendricks has telegraphed the Herald a
reply TO August Belmont's letter, published
In the same journal Of January 80. Mr.. Hem
I bricks says:
I The purpose of his (Belmont's) letter was
TO show that the views attributed to me on
I the silver question are inconsistent with
! opinions heretofore expressed, and, there
( fore, that can not be correctly reported.
/ The report in the Cincinnati Commercial
was correct. very much desire to be con-
sidered consistent, but / would rather be
certain am right than consistent upon this
/ question. think / have been consistent.
Mr.. Belmont quotes me rs holding that since
the act OF March IS, 1869, the bonded debt
must be PAID in gold as cOntradistinguished
/ from paper or silver. In that he is not cor
rect. The Dill to strengthen the peoples
credit was pending in the Senate in Febru-
4 airy, 1868. made speech against the see
/ ton which pledged the faith of the Govern
ment 10 the payment of the bonds in coin;
/ opposed 1t because | thought the contract
allowed the payment of the principal of the
| hYe-tWenty bonds TO be made in Treasury
notes. Mr.. Belmont takes one sentence to
show that | held that the effect of the meas
ure would be te pay in gold. Had Mr.. Bel
mont read more carefully he would have
seen / read the section containing these
words: That the faith of the United States
is pledged TO the payment in coin or its
equivalent" and that | then said it 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 that construction
| made my argument against the section,
not as in controversy whether the payment
should be in silver rs against gold, but
whether il might be in paper as against coin.
1t was not questioned in that debate that sill
yer was coin and thatthe debt would be pay
able in silver whether that section passed or
did not pass. The section, substantially, as
read itin the Senate, became law 10 days
afterwards. Its force and effect did not be-
come question of political controversy in
Indiana in 1872, but it did enter into the
discussion of 1874. In the Democratic Con-
ventiOn of that year Il resolution was passed |
declaring $40 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 give my /
reasons. / thought then as | believe now /
that after the faith of the Nation was pledged |
to the payment in coin we could not pay in /
Treasury notes; that purchasers Of 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 | thought OF the question .
whether payment could be made in silver;
it was not then doubted. 1t was not then
known to myself, and | suppose not to one
of the audience, that the silver dollar had
been discarded.
Mr.. Belmont refers to that address and to
the use of the word gold" in it instead of
the word "coin" as committing me to the
payment of the debt in gold, not in silver.
The only question then discussed was the
,~Tsrl zlaaal- -i1r1.A 70,
pay in silver was not then questioned or
considered in Indiana. In the address
which made as President Of the COnven-
ton, two months before, my opinions upon
the currency were somewhat fully express
ed. then said: GIVE can not too strongly
express the importance of the policy that
shall restore uniformity of value to all the
money of the country, so that it shall be al
ways and readily converted. That gold and
silver are the real standard of value is cher
ished Democratic sentiment, not now nor
hereafter to be abandoned. l certainly
could not have used that language in the
campaign Of 1874 and known that silver was
no longer money.
The more important question made by
Mr. Belmont is that the argument. which
excludes payment Of the public debt in
treasury notes under the actOf March, 1869,
applies with greater force under the act of
1873, which excludes the silver dollar from
act OF 1869 was to remove any doubt to settle
conflicting interpretations Of 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 an act to authorize the
of the national debt. That law
provided that 81 800, 10000 of bonds which
it authorized should be redeemable in coin
of present standard value. Because the act ;
of 1869 was a solemn pledge Of my country, /
made by competent authority, / felt it was
binding, so binding indeed that it could not
be repeated to the prejudice of those TO
whom it was given, like the act Of 1873.
Why and wherein is the coinage act of 1873
more sacred and irrepeaable than the
coinage ACT of 1884, which it modified !:
Does the power to coin money and reg
ulate the value thereof belong to a class
Of powers that, once exercised, be- ]
power had been exhausted before the pass
age Of the act of 1878, or is it the right OF the
public or private creditor either to say to
Congress "You shall not exercise the con-
stitutiOnal power of coming money and reg ]
ulating the value thereof because by chang {
ing the standard you may change the value I
of investments?' We have not recognized
such rule. There would be force in such
claim under the act of 1870, which provides
for the payment of bonds in coin of present [
standard value. The act Of 1873 contains no
pledge nor contract; it is legislation under ;
the continuing power Of Congress and sub
ject to repeal or amendment like any other
law passed under the same power. 1t Is {
not, therefore, in my Judgment, a question
Of public faith, but one of eXpediency only; !
being such, it seems to me the part of wis
dom to have some regard TO the condition Of
financial distress that exists in the country
and to the disturbed state Of the public
mind that peryades a large portion of the
ANY change in coinage is always
Il delicate and important work, and should
be made only after the most careful consid-
GRAFTON of all the interests Of the country.
Shall silver money be restored? l have d;
thought so. The pledge of 1863 OF payment ,
in coin, and the assurance in the act of 1870
Of payment in coin at the then standard
value, would seem to authorize, almost to
require it. A compliance with the contract {
can not be a breach of public faith. our {
is large producer Of silver. The
quality of money is important to It's value.
| think that when restored silver will ap-
prOach and perhaps reach gold in value; but
should experience prove that il must remain
below gold because Of its greater prOdUc
ton. Congress has ample powers to pro-
vide against any evils likely to follow.
Gold Not Mentioned in the Resumption
Act.
LChicago Tribune
The act Of Congress providing for the re-