The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-06-20

we waive. In the discussion OF 90 exciting a
topic extreme or violent men often mistake
argument against them for abuse OF them,
and the passions engendered by controversy
ignore all considerations OF courtesy, and
sometimes, unfortunately, Of decency In de-
bate.
But there is no excuse for our country
friends confounding positions which are en-
tirely antagonistic, and then fiereely assailing
both as the views Of papers engaged In q
league Of infamy against the best interests OF
the State. This Is the voluble gibberish OF ig-
norance and malice, and has no kinship with
that fierceness Of honest fnvectlve which ID
sometimes the characteristic OF warm, earnest
and patriotic controversy. -
The following points OF difference between
the DEMOCRAT and the Times are SO marked,
and In the course Of the discussion OF the set
Element OF the debt have been SO aggressive
ly set forth, that we are astonished that
they have not been observed by every intel
ligent man In the State. We trust that here
after they will be-:
1. The Times holds that the body OF the
debt should be paid dollar for dollar; that the
Z per cent interest and the 81. mills interest
tax constitute 8 sacred and binding contract,
which must be enforced to the bitter end.
The DEMOCRAT, on the other hand, while
holding that the best interests OF the State
require that the face of the debt shall be I'M
touched, insists that the rate OF interest shall
be reduced to so low d figure that 1t will
afford large relief to our people, and that the
whole rate Of State taxation shall be limited
to- six mills.
Q. The Times has insultingly asserted and
consistently maintained that the bond
holders can, and should, In case Of
adverse action on the part OF the
State, 90 into the Federal courts, and
through those tribunals enforce the principal
Of their claim, the collection Of the five and q
half mill tax and the payment Of the 7 per
cent interest. In contradistinction to this
obnoxious, not to say most scandalous
proposition, the DEMOCRAT holds that
the State cannot be In n manner
reached through the Federal courts. Theset-
Element Of the debt is absolutely within her
control, and she is restrained by no considera-
tions but those Of public policy and that high
and sacred sense Of perfect justice and honor
which, as we have said before, Is the crown
ing glory Of sovereignty, and which cannot
BE- ignored without bringing disgrace p
the State or nation, and probably invoking
the Inconvenience OF wal.
8. The Times has denounced the discussion
Of q settlement Of the debt by delegates OF
the people as disgraceful and ~insolent. and
there has been no term Of opprobrium 1t has
not heaped upon those OF our fellow.citizens
who have ventured to hold that any sort OF
readjustment Of the debt is necessary. The
DEMOCRAT fully recognizes the right of a
bankrupt and ~long-suffering people to discuss
with the public creditor the settlement Of the
debt; 1t has defended the patriotism Of the
Convention; aided 1t In forcing the public
creditors to listening to terms Of settlement.
while at the same time 1t has done It's best to
deter that body from taking precipitate or
unwise action In the premises.
4. The Times has advised the bondholders
to treat the Convention with contempt as q
body Of Infamous robbers; to pay no heed to
the invitation to meet the public debt COM
mittee In consultation, and to rely on the
courts to protect their claims against the
State. The DEMOCRAT day after day plead
with the bondholders and urged them to meet
the Convention or its committee in consulta-
ton and endeavor to reach some common
ground Of settlement.
We could easily mention other points of
difference between the DEMOCRAT and the
Times, but these are sufficient to show there
Is no sympathy between the two journals and
no harmony In their views. Throughout this
whole discussion the DEMOCRAT, though 1t
has opposed any wild and reckless plan Of
Il -hn1oonln v.avTHfnfinn hoe 1rAtDnLlor -.
maintained the cause Of the people against
the bondholder, while the Times has seen
nothing, argued for nothing, contended for
nothing but the face Of the debt, the five and
a half mill interest tax and the seven per cent
interest. Ithas been the advocate Of the bond
holders, and 1t has urged their case against
the people with the mercilessness and ferocity
of a Shylock.
And now what is the difference between the
DEMOCRAT and those country journals which
are assailing us In the most Ssenseless and
violent utterances The DEMOCRAT main
tains that the Wh0le rate of State taxation must
be limited to sir mills. The extreme element
auhich Is attacking the debt IN the Conven-
ton cypress themselves IN favor Of a
limitation to fue mills and man
Of them would they assert, cordially support
q limitation of taxation to one-half mill. The
widest difference, theref ore, between the
DEMOCRAT and the EXTREMIST men in the Con-
vention does not involve more than one mill,
OF. perhaps. a half mill Of taxation. The
DEMOCRAT insists that the limitation should
be six mills, because we believe It will
be Infinitely cheaper for the people to