The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-08-31
TIE BOIL WORM AND NATIONAL Fl
NANCEs,

found "An Open Letter 10 the Editor of the
Dallas HERALD" from General B. j. Cham
bers, Greenback candidate for the vicep resi-
dency. This letter was brought to our office
on yesterday by an esteemed citizen and en-
dorsed, publish with what criticism desired,
or if decided to be returned to Mr." We
have on previous occasions stated that our
columns were always open for any proper
subject.for discussion, properly presented, and
that we would never ba found hesitating to
discuss any question with any one
when on a matter of public interest
and offered in the right way. We
repeat the challenge to the country
at large. General Chambers takes us to task
for rendering our sympathy to the farmer,
because of his losses, actual and prosp ective,
by the ravages of the boil worm. He bids us
to ""ipe our weeping eyes" of the Crocodile
tear" that in them lies, and commends us to
rather weep in sympathy for 'the grinding
taxation that compels us to pay Sl00,0O0,0OQ
VI 6OlN libClOsl w nun -tulNSN ullN
national banks that eat up our crops year
after year at amuch more fearful rate than
the boil worms, which only come once in
several years." What would the general
have us to do with these bondhoilers? Does
he not know that by the act of congress,
February, 1862, these bonds were made non
taxable, and that decision of the supreme
court in 1868 and at other times decided
the act constitutional, and that
the contract was declared not only legal
one, but patriotic and noble one? The orr
gin Of the greenback and the history of the
bond are familiar to us all. They we're issued
as war measures and sprang into existence
under the excuse of necessity and draped
with the plea of self preservation. And con-
gress, according to the supreme court, is the
judge of such necessity and its urgency. But
yet the Democracy dare the very last that
General Weaver or any other Greenbacker
should censure or lecture for the existence OF
this non.taxable quality Of these government
bonds. From 1861 to 1870 the Democratic
party was powerless in the national councils
to determine or effect any measures that
were submitted or desired by
the all.powerful Radical regime. 1t was
not until 1876 that the Democrats
secured control of only one-half of only one
branch of the government, viz: the lower
house. Feeble as they were in the earlier
time, they strove, with heroic devotion to
principle, to turn the tide of wrong doing,
though all in vain, and amongst the things
they sought to avert was the passage of that
same bill Of 1862 to issue interest bearing
bonds. When it was pending Mr.. Holman,
Democrat. moved. this amendment: THAT
nothing in this act shall impair The rights of
the states to tax the bonds and other oblga-
tons issued under this act" Now General
Chambers must surely remember that every
Democrat in the house of representatives
voted for this amendment, with eight Re-
publicans, while seventy-seven voted against
it. Again in 1870, when the act funding
greenback bonds into coin bonds was up, the
Democrats in the senate and in the house
voted unanimously against it. Again
when in 1868 the supplemental national
bank act was up, every Democrat, without
exception, in the senate and in the house
voted against it. And this has been the
course which has governed the party through.
out its career since the war begun until now.
lfthey have been unable to accomplish any
thing of great moment in the financial line in
the interests of the people at large farmers,
merchants, mechanics or others, it is no fault
of theirs. But what they will do may be
known by what they have done. They are
seeking to get into power this fall, but the
Greenback element in its opposition is actu-
ally essaying to keep them out, and to have
thus retained to continue their depredations,
the very parties who's acts, despite the Dem
Gratis, General Chambers to-day thus censures.
Again, it is quite probable that none of the
original bonds are in the hands of the origi-
nal holders. They are to-day doing service
in numberess instances, in the shape of secur-
ity for the very persons the candidate for the
vice'presidency seems SO eager to have cared
for. They are collateral security for the
funds of the widow and the orphan, in the
banks, savings banks, etc. But indeed are
nat these bonds virtually taxed? This case
has been putt A man loans his money for
ten per cent, ne pays not over three, let us
assume for all taxes, so it nets him seven.
But the bond.holder gets only four, so he is
taxed six per cent. Suppose con-
stitutionsl amendment were adopted
allowing tho taxation of government
bonds in the future, then it would have to
pay eight per cent. interest on the bonds.
Now what would be the use of paying eight
per cent. and taxing back four, ins,e'd of
paying only four in the start? Isn't there
trace of inconsistency in the Greenbacker
advocating the taxation of bonds? The
argument that General Chambers prefers
he