Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1895-11-07

in full. This is not only wrong, but
positively dishonest.
We do not know how near the above
figures are correct, but il is likely they
are somewhat overdrawn for the sake
of effect. Presenting, however. that
our debt to foreign creditors amounts
to the sum given in those figures, we
fail to see why any portion OF it should
be repudiated. The people of the Uni
ted States solicited these foreign invest
ments and they were made in good
faith with good money. They have
done much to develope our country,
and therefore we are gamers, rather
than losers, by them. Many of these
investments have been made since the
so-called decentralization of silver, so
we must have received the money in
gold or that which is equivalent to
gold. and to repay it in debased sill
YER dollar would be nothing less than
downright dishonesty.
Such arguments as given in the
above quotation do not appeal to Amer
lean manhood TO give the creditor his
just dues; but they rather tend to
arouse any latent spirit OF cupidity the
debtor may possess and encourage him
in connivIng, by aid of legislation. to
avoid the full payment of the debts for
which he has obligated himself. And
what surprises US most of all is, that
men of high moral standing will open
~ and persistently advocate such
principles of dishouesty.-Potosi Jour
nal.
We give the above article in full for
the reason that it is well written, is a
fair sample of the arguments used by
advocates of the gold standard, and
the editor seems to be sincere. We
are glad to see that he discusses the
moral aspects of the question. Wheth-
er or not we have lost the power to
distinguish between right and wrong
need not now be discussed. A direct
answer to few plain. straightforward
questions might pierce the darkness
that now envelops the mind of the ed
itor of the REGISTER.
We're the bonds issued for the pur-
pose of carrying on the war payable
in any lawful money-silver, gold or
greenback?
Was the law making these bonds
payable in coin alone enacted long
after the war had ceased), by which
the bondholder was enabled to take in
two dollars where he had loaned but
one, right or wrong?
Was the act of 1873, which changed
the money unit from silver to gold,
and destroyed over one-half of the
country's money of final payment. and
which makes the debtor pay two dol
lars where he agreed to pay but one,
right or wrong?
Should the vast national debt, con-
tracted under silver standard of six
teen to one. be paid under gold stand
ard at ratio of thirty-two to one?
Does the editor not know that the
greater part of the five billion of for
eign Indebtedness referred to was con-
tracted before the decentralization of
silver, or is a renewal of old debts
contracted prior to that time? In 9TH
err words. if the editor should borrow
one hundred dollars in 1895, would it
be right to compel him to pay in 1896
one hundred and fifty dollars, with in
terest upon that sum? Ought not the
creditor to be compelled to take the
same kind of dollar he loaned? Is not
a dollar more valuable in this country
at the present time than it was in
1890? Was it not more valuable in
1890 than in 1880, and was it not of
greater value in 1880 than In 1878?
If the gold dollar constantly appre-
ciates in value, is it honest to compel
the debtor to pay the foreign or. other
creditor with these dollarse Accord
ing to the Journals standard of morals.
it is eminently just for the creditor to
demand two dollars where he loaned
but one, but it is the most fragrant dis
honesty for the debtor to refuse to pay
more than he agreed to.
The morality of the gold standard
advocates reminds US of an incident in
the practice of Ben Butterworth when
he was plain lawyer Butterworth, hus-
Ting for practice in Cincinnati. A
client of his who had been fleeced by a
gambler in some skin game that was
about as square as the gold brick
scheme, brought suit for the recovery
of his money. The gambler, who was
man of property, called at Ben's Of
fee to settle, rather than stand trial,
and lectured the attorney upon the
moral turpitude OF the proceedings of
his client in a manner he will not
likely forget. He saw no harm in
swindling the man out of his money,
but it was most atrocious thing that
his victim should attempt to reclaim
any part of it.
That the destruction of one-half of
the money of a country should appre-
ciate the value of the half remaining,