The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1878-01-02

Ihey might by that law have been naid /,
paper, gold or silver; but the interest wa
WAe payable in coin. Why specify that m
interest was to be paid in coin? Does not tn
aisIueht necessarily follow that the prin
coin? ma
again, If Senator'S will turn to the YER
statute authorizing the issuance of thes
bonds az u >. Statutes at Large. 345) the,
VIII nno the same act authorized the issu
ahce OF $l9O,OO0,O00 of legal tenders an,
provided that the bonds might be paid fol-
Ia THESE very legal tenders or any Others
heretofore or hereafter issued, and furthe
provided that said notes or legal tenders al
We now term them, shall be "a legal ten
Ger IN payment of all debts, public and pri
Vate, within the United States, except du
ties on imports and interest as Aforesaid"
And yet. in the face of all this, we arr
told that the purchasers believed that thes'
ponds were aud are TO be paid in gold
| How preposterOus the proposition!
Again, Congress seems to have been mos
! aoundantly cautious, for in every bond eVel
issued the law authorizing its issuance il
specially referred to in the following Ian.
guage: This debt is authorized by act o
Congress approved" after which follows
the date; so that any one wishing to pur-
chase was, in the very bond he was propo-
sing to purchase, referred to the law How
could anybody be misled? Nobody was
| misled. The Government was as particu-
lar and cautious as the agent who, acting
under power of attorney, should, in the
| conveyance he made as such agent, insert
in tOtidem UeT6ts his power OF attorney.
In the bonds known as the per cent
/ bonds is found the following language: to
| be paid ''in coin of the standard value OF the
| United States on said July II, 1870, with
! interest in such coin" Neither the law
| nor the bond says F,gold coin," but of the
standard Vdlue of the United States on said
| July IA, 1870" Here the Government and
the purchasers stipulated for coin OF a Ger
tain STANDARD Uatue. Yet, We are told by the
/ Executive in his message:
''To require the public creditors to take in
| repayment any dollar of less commercial
value would be regarded by them as re-
pudiatiOn of the full obligation assumed
The Government did not and aoouEd not
! bind tSe5 to pay IN coin Of certain or Ghy
commercial Udlue. The creditors, the pur-
chasers of the bonds, the other contracting
| party, 1o0uld not and did not bind themselves
to receive in payment coin of a q certain or
any commercial value. The contract was for
i certain standard UdLue. | have no doubt
the law was thus framed, the bond thus
| drawn, the contract thus made at the in
stance of the creditors. What right have
they now to complain, much less to cali it
! reputation
On the 18th ofJuly. 1870, under the act
| OF which date these per cent. bonds are
| issued, the silver dollar contained 1925
grains of standard value land was the legal
| equivalent of the gold dollar, which then
contained, as it does now, 25.S grains of
| standard gold"
The bill TO renonetize silver, as it passed
| the House provides for the silver dollar to
contain 41219 grains of standard value. Ii
| this bill should become law, as L hope ii
will, the bOndholders can be paid in either
gold or silver of the standard value of July
! IA, 1870. That is tie contract
In other words, the parties contracted for
so many grains Of sitUer or gold. We pro-
! pose to carry out the contract, both in letter
and spirit, and give them the pound of
! fesh," but not a drop of blood" drawn
| from the teeming millions now crying for
| bread. Neither of the contracting parties
would agree to give or receive gold or sill
| yer at its commercial value so emphatically
insisted upon in the message OF the EXecu-
| tive, for that was uncertain and depended
upon contingencies; but the standard value
was fixed and certain. Let US test this ::
| Suppose to-day A should contract to de-
| liver to Is thousand bushels of wheat at
! the expiration of five years. At the time
| OF the contract the commercial value of
| wheat is 81 80 per bushel, but at the date Of
| the performance of the contract the COM
mercial value of wheat is only fifty cents
| per bushel. Wo1ld it be reputation,
| would it be wrong in morals, for the seller
| TO insist Oh the terms of his contract simply
| because the commercial value had changed?
To my mind the Two cases are exactly par
allel. There is no reputation about it or
any Semblance of it.
But, to set this whole matter in a palmer
lightif possible, let us refer for moment
to the well-known resolution of March Is,
1869, ito strengthen the public credit,
which is contained in section 3693 OF the
Revised Statutes. 1t reads thus:
The faith of the United States is solemnly
| pledged TO the payment in coin or its equiv
| alent of all the Obligations of the United
States not bearing interest, known as
/ United States notes, and OF all the interest
! bearing obligations of the United States,
| except in cases where the law authorizing
| the issue of any such obligation has ex-
| pressly provided that the same may be paid
/ in lawful money or other currency than
/ gold and Sjlrer."
Can any thing be clearer? Does it any
where appear in this resolution, intended to
strengthen our credit, that the bonds were
to be paid in gold? No, indeed; but the
word ''silver' is expressly used, going to
show conclusively to my mind that Con-
| gress intended at the time to say to all the
world that they reserved TO themselves the
right to pay in either coin. II Congress
had intended to pay the bonds in gold, why
not say so? Why use the now tletested
| word silver at all -?
Let us go one step further. The next
section, 1854, reads as follows:
"The coin paid for duties on imported
goods shall be set apart as a special fund
and shall be applied as follows:
First. To the payment in coin of the in
terest on the bonds and notes of the United
States"
But it is urged that gold is the standard
of value throughout Europe aud that we
must be governed accordingly. 1t Is not
so in France; in that country gold, silver,
and the notes of the bank of France are all
legal tenders and we are told in the ex-
haustive and very able report of Senator
Jones of Nevada, of the monetary commits
sion, that
sGermany, where the earliest and largest
purchases OF these bonds were made, did
not recognize gold as money until Decem-
Der, 1871, aud now has quite as much gold
as silver in its circulation"
That country which to-day holds more of
our bonds than any other foreign country
| at the time they were issued did not recog-
niZe gold at all, but silver. All other ma
| tions legislate for the benefit and general
good OF their own citizens, but we are asked
to shape our legislation for the dement, OF
| foreign countries.
was surprised the other day when my
friend from Connecticut Mr. Eatonl asked
the Senator from Ohio Mr.. Matthew'S how
much land silver would buy in England.
| In the name of history what question! L
thought that over hundred years ago we
| had declared ourselves to be free and indie
pendent of England and that we had COM
| mercial policy of our own. That question
would have been very pertinent over q hum
dred years ago, but it is not so now. PreI-
ty soon after the discovery of the gold fields
of California, Germany believed 1t TO be her
interest to demonetize gold, and did de-
mOneze II in 1867, together with Austria,
| Then silver was her only standard. After
ward she remonetized it and in 1871 de-
monetized silver. Are we to be governed
and controlled by any such changing,
shifting policy, or shall zoe haze an American
poiicgf
But it is urged that, if we remonetize sill
yer, it, being the cheaper, will drive gold
out of the country. Suppose it does; If, as
| is predicted by the enemies of this bill, sill
yer will flood the country, and we pay all
our debts with silver, both public and pri-
vate, if this bill should become law, where
/ is the injury to the nation or the citizens
thereof! But il is not true that gold would
be driven out. Why does it not have that
effect in Franeeg Why did it not have that
| frOo, rho fonndaFinn nf ha GOyarn-