The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1878-02-07
REFERENCE TO THE RECORD.


ing in the Senate in February, 1869.
nude an argument against the section
which pledged the faith of the govern
ment to the payment Of the bonds in
coin. opposed it because | thought the
contract allowed the payment of the prln-
cipal of the five-twenty bonds to be made
in Treasury notes. Mr.. Belmont takes
one sentence to show that held that the
effect of the measure would be to pay in
gold as follows;
In opposing the passage of the act in the Senate,
February u, 1869 he had described the issue then
Joined as "The question whether the holders OF
the bonds have au equitable claim upon US now,
while the difference between paper and gold Is SO
great as II is to declare that the bonds shall be
payable in gold"
Had Mr.. Belmont read more carefully
he would have seen that | read the sec
ton containing these words, That the
faith of the United States is solemnly
pledged to the payment in coin or its
equivalent" and that then said
1t will cause the removal of doubts and make
the law to read that the debt will be paid in coin.
That is the effect of this section.
Upon that construction l made my ar.
gument against the section, not as in con-
troversy whether the payment should be
ia silver as in gold, but whether it might
be in paper as against coin. 1t was not
questioned 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 law
nineteen days afterward.
IN THE STATE CANVASS.
It's force and effect did not become a
question of political controversy in this
State in 1872, when l was elected Cover
nor, as 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 green
backs. presided over the Convention,
and, as could not give that resolution
my support, l took occasion at the first
public meeting which | addressed in this
city to say 80 and to give my reasons.
thought then, as believe now, that after
the faith of the nation was pledged to
payment in coin we could not pay in
Treasury notes: that the purchasers of
the bonds after that date took them rely |
ing upon that pledge, and that we are
bound by it. That was my argument be. |
fore the people. Neither my hearers nor |
| thought of the question whether pay
ment could be made in silver. 1t was
not then doubted. 1t was not then
known to myself, and l suppose not to
one of the audience, that the silver dol
lar 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 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 address
which l made as President of the Con-
vention, two months before, my opinions |
upon the currency were somewhat fully |
expressed. then said:
We cannot too strongly express the importance |
of the policy that shall restore uniformity Of value
to all the money Of the country, so that 1t shall be
always and readily converted. That gold and |
silver are the real standard OF value is cherished
abandoned.
l certainly could not have used that |
language in the campaign of 1874 had l
then known that silver was no longer |
money.
THE EXCLUSION OF SILVER.
Having disposed of the question of my
consistency, come to the more impor-
tant question made by Mr.. Belmont, which |
is that the argument which excludes pay
ment of the public debt in Treasury notes
under act of March IS, 1860, applies with |
greater force under the act of 1873, which |
excludes the silver dollar from coinage. |
| think that it is not correct. The act of
1869 was to remove any doubt, to settle
conflicting interpretations of the laws
under which public obligations were con-
tracted and to pledge the faith of the |
United States to the payment of such OBJ
legation in coin. After full consideration
it became law. 1t was soon followed |
by the act to authorize the refunding of
the national debt. The law provided |
that the ST. 800 100000 of bonds which it
authorized should be redeemable in a |
coin of the present standard value. Be-
cause the act of 1879 was the solemn |
pledge of my country, made by compe-
tent authority, I felt that it was binding,
so binding, indeed, that it could not be
to the prejudice ofthose to whom
it was given.
THE COINAGE ACT OF 1873.
Is the act of 1873 of such class and
character? To whom does it make a
solemn pledge, that the constitutional
pow er of Congress or to coin money and
to regulate the value thereof shallnever
again be exercised until the public debt
shall have been fully paid2 Why aud
wherein is the Coinage act of 1873 more
sacred and irrepealable than the Coinage |
acs of 1884 which it modified2 Does the |
power to coin money and regulate the |
value thereof belong to the class OF pow
ers that once exercised become exhaus-
tive If that were so the power had |
been exhausted before the passage OF the |
act of 1873 or is it the right Of the public |
or private creditor, either, to say to Con- |
gress you shall not exercise the constltu- |
tional power of coming money and regu-
lating the value thereof, because by |
changing the standard you may change
the value 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
the bonds ''in coin of the present stan
dard value" the act Of 1873 contains no
pledge nor contract. 1t is legislation un.
der a continuing power of Congress, and
subject to repeal or amendment like any
other law passed under the same power
1t is not, therefore, in my Judgment,
question OF public faith, but one of expe-
diency only. Being such, it seems to me
the part of wisdom to have some regard
70 tba condition of financial distress that