Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-02-03

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Act of Demoneti-
cation Subject to Repeal or Amendment
The Obligations of the Government
Pledged Payment in Coin, not Gold.
New YoRK, Feb. ..-Hon Thomas A. Hen
bricks has telegraphed the Herald a reply to
August Belmont's letter.. published in the
same journal January Both. Mr.. Hendricks
says the purpose of his (Belmont's) letter
was to show that the views attributed to me
on the silver question are inconsistent with
opinions heretofore expressed, and that
therefore l cannot be correctly reported.
The report in the Cincinnati Commercial
was correct. I very much desire to be con-
sidered consistent. Upon this question
think have been consistent. Nh. Belmont
quotes me as holding that since the act of
March, 1869, the bonded debt has been paid
in gold as contradistinguished from paper or
silver In that he is not correct. The bill
to strengthen the peoples credit was pend
ing in the Senate in February, 1869. made
an argument against the section which
pledged the
FAITH OF THE GOVERNMENT
to payment of the bonds in coin. Iopposed
it because thought the contract showed the
payment of the principal of the twenty five
bonds to be made in treasury notes. Mr..
Belmont take one sentence to show that
held that the effect of the measure would be
to pay in gold. Had Mr.. Belmont read more
careful ly he would have seen and read the
section containing these words. ''That the
faith of the United States is solemnly pledg-
ed to the payment in coin, or its equivalent
and that l then said SIT will cause the re-
moval of doubts and mako the law to read
that the debt shall be paid in coin. That is
the effect of this section. Upon that con
ton, not as controversy whether payment
should be in silver as against 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 read it in the
Senate became a law nineteen days after
wards. Its force and effect did not become
a question of political controversy in Indiana
in 1872, but it did enter into the discussion
of 1874. In the Democratic convention Of
that year resolution was adopted declaring
the 500 bonds payable in greenbacks. ]
presided over that convention, and as could
not give that resolution my support, 1 took
occasion at the first public meeting which
addressed, to say SO, and to give my reasons
I thought then, and believe now, that after
the faith of the nation was pledged to pay
ment in coin we
COULD NOT PAY IN TREASURY NOTES,
that the purchaser of bonds after that date
took them, relying upon that pledge and
that we are bound by it. That was my ar.
gument before the people. Neither my hear
ers nor I thought of the question whether
payment could be made in silver. It was
not then doubted. It was not then known
audience, that the silver dollars had beer
discarded. Mr.. Belmont refers to that ad
dress and to the use of the word coin, Al
committing me to the payment of the deb
in gold and not in silver. The only ques
ton then discussed was the right to pay il
greenbacks. The right to pay in silver wa
not then questioned or considered in Indi
} ana. In the address which I made as Presi
dent of the Convention two months befor
any opinions upon currency were somewha
, fully expressed. I then said; '.We canno
too strongly express the imporportance Q
: the policy that shall restore
} UNIFORMITY OF VALUE.
to all the money Of the country, so that
shall be always readily converted. That gol
and silver are the real standard of value is
cherished Democratic sentiment, not now q
hereafter to be Abandoned I certainl
could not have used that language in til
campaign of 1874 had known that silve
was no longer money. more importan
question made by Mr.. Belmont is that til
argument which excluded the payment of th
public debt in treasury notes under the az
of March, 1869, applies with greater fore
under the act of 1878, which excludes til
silver dollar from coinage. I think that j
, not correct. The act of 1869 was to remoy
: any doubt to
SETTLE CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS
: of the laws under which the public obligs
! tons were contracted, and to pledge til
: faith of the United States to the payment {
h such obligations in coin. After full consid
Grafton 1t became law. It was soon fo
lowed by the act to authorize the refundin
: OF the national debt. That law provide
r that the $1,5OO,OOO,OOO of bonds which
e authorized should be redeemable in coin {
/ the present standard value. The act Z
: 1869 was solemn pledge of my countr
e made by competent authority. 1 felt it wa
|
pealed to the prejudice of those to whom
was given. Was the act of 1873 of such
: class and character? To whom does it max
e solemn pledge that the
. CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS
n 10 coin money and to regulate the valu
thereof shall never again be exercised unit
the public debt shall have been fully paid
Why and wherein is the coinage act of 1877
more sacred and irrepealable than the coi1
g age act if 1884 which it modified? Does Ii
9 power to coin money and regulate its valu
f belong to the class of power that once 9,
n ercised became exhaustive? If that were s
: the power had been exhausted before IL
q passage of the act of 1873. Or is it Ii
3 right of the public or private creditor, eithe
0 to say to Congress, you shall not exercise Il
$ constitutional power of coming money an
d regulating the value thereof because
r changing the standard you may change IL
3 value of investments? We have not reco,
nized such rule. There would be force
such a claim under the act of 1877
d which provides for the payment
Re bonds in coin of the present standa1
value. The act of 1873 contains no pied,
nor contract. 1t is legislation under