The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1878-02-07
HENDRICKS HAND.
He Shows it Plainly on The Silver
Question in an Open Letter
to August Belmont.
And Gives the Latter Gentleman His
Views Upon the Subject
in General.
The Resumption Act of 1873 not at
all Sacred nor Irrepealable.
And Neither Does He Think That
the RECOMMENDATION of Silver
WodId be . National Ca
lamity,
But on the Contrary National BIes-
sing, Tending to Alleviate the
Present Financial Distress.

New York, February 2.-Hon. Thorn
as A. Hendricks has telegraphed the 'Her-
aid" reply to August Belmonts letter
published in the same Journal on 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
my opinions heretofore expressed, and
therefore that cannot be correctly report
ed. The report in the Cincinnati Com
merciaP' was correct. j very much desire
to be considered consistent, but / would
rather be certain that am right than con-
sistent upon this question. l have been
consistent. Mr.. Belmont quotes me asholding
that since the act Of March 18th, 1869, the
bonded debt
MUST BE PAID IN GOLD
as contradistinguished 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 in coin. i opposed it
because l thought the contract allowed
THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL
of the $40 bonds. to be made in treasury
notes. Mr.. Belmont takes one sentence to
show that held that the effect of the meas
ure would be to pay in gold. Had Mr.. Bel
mont Tread more carefully he would have
seen that read the section containing these
words, shat the faith OF the United States
is solemnly pledged to payment in coin or
its equivalent" and that ltheu said 1T will
cause the removal Of doubts and make the
law to read that
THE DEBT SHALL BE PAID IN COIN"
That is the effect of this section upon
that construction. l made my argument
against the ST ction, not as in controversy as
to whether payment should be in silver as
against gold, but whether it might be in
paper as against coin. 1t was net question
ed in that debate, that silver was coin and
that the debt would be payable in silver; or
whether that section passed or did not pass
substantially as l read it in the Senate,
which became a law nineteen days after
wards.
ITS FORCE AND EFFECT
did not bound question of political con-
troversy in Indiana in 1872, but it did enter
into the discussion of 1874 in the Demo-
cratic Convention Of that year. A resolu-
ton was passed declaring $40 bonds pay
able in greeenbacks. presided over that
convention, and as 1 could not give that
resolution my support l took an occasion at
the first public meeting which ! addressed
to say so and 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 purchaser of bonds
after that date took them on that pledge,
and that We are bound by it. That was
my argument before the people. Neither
my hearers nor thought OF questions
whether payment could be made in silver.
1t was not then doubted. 1t was not then
known 10 myself. ard s''ppOse not to any
one of the audience, that the silver dollar
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 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 10
pay in silver was not then questioned or
considered in Indians. In an address
which | made as president OF the conven-
ton two months before, my opinions upon
the currency were somewhat fully express
ed. | then said: 1--WE cannot too strongly
express the importance OF the policy that
shall restore the uniformity of valne to
all
THE MONEY OF THE COUNTRY,
so that it shall be always anil readily con-
verted; that gold and silver are the real |
standards of value is the cherished Demo- |!
cratic sentiment, not now nor hereafter to |
be abandoned" certainly could not have
used that language in the campaign OF 1874,
and known that silver was no longer mon
ey. A more important question made by
MIR. Belmont is that the argument which
excludes
THE PAYMENT OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
n treasury notes under the act of March,
1869, applies with greater force under the
,ct Of 1873, which excludes the silver dol
ar from coinage. That is not correct
The act of 1869 was to remove any doubt
o settle the conflicting interpretations of
he laws under which public obligations
we're contracted and to pledge the faith OF
he United States to
THE PAYMENT OF SUCH OBLIGATIONS
n coin. After full consideration it became
! law. 1t was soon followed by the act to
the refundipg Of the national
ebt. That law provided that the 81 800,
100 900 of bonds which it authorized should
e redeemable in a coin of the present stand
I'd of value because the act of 1869 was
he solemn pledge of my country made by
ompetent authority. / felt it was bind
ng, so binding indeed that it could not be
epealed, to the prejudice of those to whom
was given.
Why and wherein is
THE COINAGE ACT OF 1873 S
lore sacred and irrepealable than the COIN
&c act of 1884, which it modified? Does !.
ne power to coin money and regulate the )
alue thereof belong to a class of powers 9
nat once exercised became exhaustive? If ,
!, tho x,oxax as boon or b ,lsted L