Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1878-02-09
GOV. HENDRICKS.
His Complete and Satisfactory Re
ply to the Belmont Letter.

NEW YORK, Feb. 2.--Hon. Thorn
as A. Hendricks has telegraphed
the Herald a reply to August Bel
mont's letter, published in the same
journal, Jan. go. Mr.. Hendricks
says ." The purpose of his (Bel-
mont's) letter was to show that the
views attributed to me on the silver
question are inconsistent with the
opinions heretofore expressed, and,
therefore, that 1 cannot be correctly
reported. The report in the Gin
cinnatti Commercial was correct.
/ very much desire to be considered
consistent, but l would rather be
certain that / am right than consis-
tent. Upon this question, / think
/ have been consistent. Mr.. Bel
mont quotes me as holding that
since the act of March Is, 1869, the
bonded debt must be paid in gold
as contradistinguished from paper
or silver. On that, he is not correct.
The bill to strengthen the peoples
credit was pending in the Senate in
February, 1869. / made an argu-
.ment against the section which
pledged the faith of the Government
to the payment of the bonds in coin.
/ opposed it because 1 thought the
contract allowed the payment of
the principal of the five-twenty
bonds to be made in Treasury notes.
Mr.. Belmont takes one sentence to
show that I held that the effect of
the measure would be to pay in
gold. Had Mr.. Belmont read care
fully, he would have seen that /
said the section contained these
words, "that the faith of the United
States is solemnly pledged TO the
payment in coin, or its equivalent"
and that 1 then said: sit will cause
the removal of doubts, and make
the law read that the debtor shall
be paid i'm coin. That is the effect
of this section" Upon that con-
structiOn / made my argument
against the section not as in contro-
versy, whether the payment shni..IIG
be in silver as against gold but
whether il might be in paper as
against coin. TWAS 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
afterwards. Its force and effect did
not becomes question of political
controversy in Indiana in 1872, but
it did enter into the discussion of
1874, In the Democratic COnVen-
tiOn of that year, a resolution was
passed, declaring the $50 bonds
payable in greenbacks. l presided
over that convention, and as | could
not give that resolution nysupport,
l took occasion at the first public
meeting which | addressed in In
dianapolis, to- say so and to give
reasons. ] thought then, as / be-
lieve 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 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 hearers nor / thought of the
question whether payment could be
made in silver. 1t was not then
doubted. 1t was not then known
TO myself, and suppose not to one
of my audience, that the silver dol
lar had been discarded. Mr.. Bel
mont refers to that address, and to
the use of the word tgold" in it, in
stead of the word "coin," commit
ting me to the 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 Orconsidered in Indiana,
In the address which made as
president of the convention, two
months before, my opinions upon
the currency were somewhat fully
expressed. then said: 1--WE cans
not too strongly express the impOr-
lance of the policy that shall restore
uniformity of value to all the mon
ey of the country, so that it shall
be always and readily converted.
That gold and silver are the real
standard Of value. is a cherished
Democratic Sentiment, not now nor
hereafter to be abandoned. i GER
tainly could not have used that
language in the campaign of 1874,
and know that silver was no longer
money. The more important ques-
ton made by Mr.. Belmont is that
the argument which excludes. the
of the public debt in
Treasury notes under the act of
March, 1869, applies with greater
force under the act of 1873 which |
excludes the silver dollar from the |
coinage. / think that is not correct. |
The act of 1869 was to remove any |
doubt, to settle the conflicting ia.
terpretatiOns of the law under which I
the public obligations were contract
ed, and to pledge the faith of the
United States to the payment Of |
such obligations in COIN. After full |
it.became law. 1T
was soon followed by the act to aus
tn orize the rebuilding of the nation
altlebt. That law provided that ST.
SOC, 600, 900 of bonds which it author
ized. should be redeemable in coin
Of the present standard value. Be
cause the act of 1869 was solemn
pledge of my country, made by I
authority, felt, it was i
indeed, that it could not
be repealed to the prejudice of those
5o-whom it WAS given, Is. the act r
Of 1873 Ofsuch class. and character?
To whom does it make a solemn
pledge thatfhe constitutional power
If Congress to coin money and to 4
'egulate the value thereof, shall
lever again be exercised until the
public debt shall have been fully
)afd. Why and wherein is thef
:oinage act Of 1873 more sacred and
than the coinage act of
S34, which it modified ? Does thei
,oWer e. coin money and regulate
he value thereof belong to a class
4 powers, that, once Exercised be- /.
oalaess eKhaustedH Ifsf1at were so
he power had been exhausted be-
ore the passagesaf thef act OF sI873
)r is it the right of the public or
lrfvate creditor either to say to II
Congress- You shall not exercise
he constitutional power of coming
money and regulating the value
hereof, because by changing the
tandard you may change the value
f investments" We have not
ecugnized such a rule. There would
e force in such a claim under the :
ct Of 1870, which provided fer the