The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1878-02-06
HENDRrcK's REPLY TO BELMONT
Silver Should be Remonetised.

In former issue of THE ARGUS there
was given the report of an interview be-
tween a correspondent Of the Cincinnati
Commercial and Gov. Hendricks in which
the latter placed himself fairly and
suuarely upon the side of Reconciliation
of Silver.
Thereupon Mr.. August Belmont, at one
time Chairman of the National Demo
cratic Committee, and now as always
very ardent goldite, Sought to place Gov.
Hendricks in an equivocalor inconsistent
position, by an open letter pretending that
his reputed views as given by the COR
respondent were so entirely at variance
with his former expressions and views
that he must have been incorrectly re-
ported or misunderstood. The reply Of
Gov. Hendricks to Mr.. Belmont, pub
lished below, not only fully sustains the
correctness of the correspondents report,
but also shows clearly that his present
position on the national finances is entirely
consistent with his views as formerly ex-
pressed, and that Mr.. Belmont's stab at
his political reputation under the pretence
of friendly solicitude has failed Of its
object,
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind, Feb. l, 1878.
To THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD:
avail myself of your proffered courtesy
to reply briefly by telegraph to Mr.. Bel,
mont's letter, which appeared in the
Herald of the 30th ult. The purpose OF
his letter was to show that the views attri-
buted to me on the silver question are
inconsistent with opinions heretofore ex-
pressed, and, therefore, that cannot be
correctly reported. The report in the
Cincinnati Commercial was correct. do
not know how it appears in Eastern pa
pers. l very much desire to be considered
consistent, but would rather be certain i
am right than consistent upon this ques-
ton. think have been consistent
REVERENCE TO THE RECORD.
Mr.. Belmont quotes me as holding that
since the act of March Is, 1862 the bonded
debt must be paid in gold as contradis-
guished from paper or silver. In that he
is not correct, The bill to strengthen the
peoples credit was pending in the senate
in February, 1869. l made an argument
against the section which pledged the
faith of the government to the payment OF
the bonds 10 coin, l opposed it because
l thought the contract allowed the payment
OF the principal of the fve-twenty bonds
to be made in treasury notes, Mr.. Bel
mont takes one sentence to show that L
held that the effect of the measure would
no IN nav in cold as folloWs.--
In opposing the passage Of the act in the senate,
February %, 1899 he had described the issue then
Joined az "the question whether the holders OF the
bonds ha I've an equitable claim upon us now, while
the difference between paper and gold is so great
Il 70 declare that the bonds shall be payable
Had Mr.. Belmont read more carefulIv
he would have seen that read the section
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 70 read that the dsbl shall be paid in coin
That lie the effect Of this section.
Upon that construction made my argu.
ment against the section, not as in a con-
troversy whether the payment should bG
IN silver as against gold, but whether i
might be In paper as against coin. 1t wal
not questioned in that debate that silye
was coin, and that the debt would be pay
able in silver whether that section passe
or did not pass. The section substantially
as l read it in the senate, became a la,
nineteen days afterward.
IN THE STATE CANVASS.
It's force and effect did not become
question of political controversy in til
state in l872,when | was elected governor
as Mr.. Belmont seems to suppose, but
did enter into the discussion of 1874. I
the democratic convention of that year
resolution was passed declaring the five
twenty bonds payable in greenbacks.
presided over that convention, and, as
could not give that resolution my supper
l took occasion at the first public meetiu
which addressed in this city to say so an
to give my reasons, l thought then, as
believe now, that after the faith of II
nation was pledged to payment in coin "
could not pay in treasury notes; that tt
purchasers of the bonds after that da
took them relying upon that pledge, an
that we are bound by it, That was n
argument before the people Neither n
hearers nor thought of the questiC
whether payment could be made in silve
ltwas not then doubted. 1t was not the
known to myself, and | suppose not to OF
IN the audience, that the silver dollar bs
been discarded" Mr.. Belmont refers
that address and to the use of the VOL
gold IN II instead of the word coin"
committing me TO payment Of the debt
gold and not IN silver. The only uuestit
then discussed was the right to pay
greenbacks. The right to pay in silly
was not then questioned or considered
this state. In the address which [ MAJ
as president Of the convention. ty
months before, my opinions upon the Gu
rency were somewhat fully expressed.
then said
We cannot too strongly express the II
portance OF the policy that shall resto
uniformity Of value to all the money of n
country, so that it shall be ALWAYS n,
readily converted. That cold and silv,
are the real standard of value is n che
ished democratic sentiment not now M
hereafter to be abandoned.
l certainly could not have used III
language III the campaign of 1874 had
then known that silver was no long
money.
THE EXCLUSION OF SILVER.
Having disposed Of the question of n
consistency, come to the much mo
important question made by Mr.. Belmor
which Is that the argument which o
cludes payment Of the public debt
treasury notes under the act of March l
1867 applies with greater force under 1
act ct 1873 which excludes the silver d
lar from coinage. l think that is not C,
rect: The act of 1869 was to remove a
doubt, to settle conflicting interpretatic
OF the laws under which public obhgatio
were contracted and to pledge the faith