Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1878-01-05
THE SILVER QUESTION.
VI. The Right and wrong of 1t

VI. The Right and Wrong of L..
We are arriving at the close of a
series of papers on the use and dis
use of silver as money. If ehave
been successful in establishing our
own conviction in the minds of our
readers, we have made out the
position that the decentralization of
that metal was an illjudged meas
ure, adopted without the concur
renee of the american people or
even of any considerable number of
American legislators, that its adOp-
ton has been disastrous to us, and
that further adhesion to it would be
utterly ruinous. But we are met by
directors with the question "would
reconciliation be just?" And those
whoask this question hurry to antic-
ipate our answer by deciding it
promptly and eagerly in the mega
tive.
w q etNhiAon ANAaf-t Jul OPAA
CATION to answer that question and
to answer it completely with a
thorough consideration of all the
demurrers propounded. If the adj
hesiOn to the single gold standard
could in any way be shown to be
even more injurious TO the people
than we have made it to be, still we
should adhere to the principle that
a great nation can afford anything
rather than to act unjustly, and
should infiexibly oppose any propO-
sal calculated to wrong the public
creditor. Should the nation through
its agents be found to have made a
bad bargain, we should still say let
us carry out our stipulatiOns at
whatever sacrifice. We should in
sist upon the same rule for the cred
itOr, however, as that to which we
bind ourselves, as debtors. If they
have made a bad bargain, we refuse
them the right to recede from it.
One other preliminary is essential
before we enter upon our argument.
An act passed by the legislature,
known to be legally repealable at a
future session of that Legislature, is
no contract with any one unless that
act authorizes an executive officer
to make contract with either
States or individuals, and unless
such contract is made in due form
by the officer so designated. This
position is so self-evident, at least
apparently so, that we should have
thought it unnecessary and even
frivolous to stateit, if we had nOtseen
many an argument grounded on the
assumption that whereas the coin
age of silver, except in certain spe-
cific forms, was forbidden in 1873,
and value as legal tender was for
mally withdrawn from it in 1874, a
contract of some sort was thereby
made with the public creditor in
view of which he would be defraud-
ed if ever silver should thereafter
be rendered him in payment of his
claims. Successive acts of Congress
in reference to our present national
debt will clearly illustrate this dis
tinctiOn. From the first year of the
war to 1869 the national debt was
payable in the same currency as
that in which it was contracted, viz,
in the national paper. Greenbacks
were loaned and greenbacks were
payable in liquidation. In 1869 a
declaratory act of Congress was
passed which affirmed that the debt
was payable in coin alone. Still no
new contract was made with the
public creditor; so long as that act
was in force Congress could not aU-
thorize settlement with him except
in coin, but any future Congress
could reScind that declaration with
out breach of contract. But, July
Il, 1870, the Secretary of the Treas
ury was authorized to issue bonds
payable in coin only which any
bOndholder might receive in eX-
change for those he held. This was
the celebrated Communication of 80
bonds into 1910 bonds, it was in
our judgment wrong perpetrated
upon the taxpayers in favor of the
bOndhOlders, but, as soon as the new
bonds were issued and received in
exchange for the old bonds, it be-
came a contract, irreversible except
with the consent of the holder. 1t
was an unjust contract, we repeat,
but it was made by the peoples au-
thorized agents, the Senators and
Representatives in Congress and the
designated executive officer, and we
must abide by it. But now in
1871 comes the silver question.
BY acts passed in those years, silver
ceased to be a legal tender for any
debts private or public; but this
made no new contract with the ma
tional creditor, it was simply legis-
lation which could be repealed by
the same authority which had en-
acted it. No new bonds were issued
in which gold coin was the stipula-
ted mode of payment instead of
coin generally as before, and if Mr..
Sherman has since issued such he
has violated the very laws under
which he was acting; consequently,
though, so long as those acts are in
force the bondholder is payable in
gold only, still, should they be re-
pealed, as we earnestly hope they
will be shortly, he can only claim
payment on the terms of the Origi-
nal contract; and that is payment in
gold or silver at the option of the
nation which is his debtor. Thus
much to sweep away preliminary
miscOnceptiOn. We have now to