The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1898-02-06
New York F'ir8t NQft Daniels Gr6at 8p88Ch
In Support of the Teller ResouonAn Exhaustive and I'm
ansWerabIe Argument.

The following is the full text of the
speech delivered last week in the Senate
by Hon. John w. Daniel, of Virginia,
on the Teller resolution. 1t is a clear,
able and exhaustive discussion of the
question. No man can be said to be
able to give Il correct opinion of the
merits Of the controversy without a
knowledge of the facts and history so
clearly and forcibly presented by Sen
ator Daniel He said
Mr.. Daniel Mr.. President, I believe
in the integrity of contracts. The Con-
stitution of the United States believes
in them. 1t says:
mo State shall pass any law impair
ing the obligation of contracts"
The Federal Government is under no
such constitutional restriction. Within
it's sphere of delegated powers it is SOY
ereign its will is force, and it's force is
law.
But the freedom of sovereignty impos-
es it's own HOTTEST obligations: NOblessC
oblige. No man cam hold this Govern
ment to criminal or civil accountability
if it should impair the obligation of its
own contracts. EFFICIENCY, indeed, may
demand that it shall do it. But if it does
it without such exigency, it is cast down
in the respect of them-its mainstay. 1t
is under the moral Jaw. That law is as
certain in its sanctions and in its re-
venges as the law of gravitatiOn.
A contract is not One-sided. 1t is at
least two-sided. 1t takes two to make a
IN - Al
rests upon the two that made it with
equal pressure, just as the keystone rests
upon the two columns that support the
arch.
A promise to pay is q contract. 1t i'm
plies a payer, a payee, and a thing to
be had. If the thing be specifically
named, it is that thing and no other
thing which the payer agree to pay and
the payee agrees to receive. That equal
agreement uniting upon the identical
thing is that which constitutes the obli-
cation of the contract.
These resolutions, MIR. President. do
net 20 beyond these elementary princi-
pdes of law. They simply and clearly
apply them. The thing which the United
States agreed to pay is identified be-
yond dispute in these resolutions. The
thing which the payee agreed and obi
gated himself to receive is also identified
in these resolutions. That thing is Il
dollar, is now a coin dollar of the United
States, is a standard dollar of 41212
grains or Il gold dollar of 25A grains.
That dollar is defined by statute law
Of The United States PASSED in pursU-
ance of the Constitution, and we have
sworn to support the Constitution and
these laws. but not some sentiment of
honor which may be as various as the
men who utter
We have never. Mr.. President, by any
law given the creditor the option to
select the dollar to be paid him. 1t
W10j,ld he unnatural and absurd to do so.
The United States has agreed to pro-
vide Il dollar. 1t may tax to pay debts,
but it can not tax the people two dol
lars to ruy one dollar. If the creditor
coming to he paid could fix the kind of
dollar 10 be paid him we would have to
keep each kind Of coin dollar in stock
and ON hand; that is, two dollars in or
der to he ready to pay one debt. We
would have to double taxes. by levying
both kinds OF dollars in order to be
ready to pay over one.
All the contract calls for is a coin dol
lar but we have the rig to get that
coin dollar in any honest way that we
may. 1t is none of the creditors bust
ness how we get He is not the keeper
of our consciences. We may tax for it;
we may coin for it, we may borrow il.
1t is only lhis business to receive it and
give us quittance therefor and that he
has solemnly obliged Tmself to do.
There is a reason of policy, as there is
u reason of principle, why we should
never accord the creditor the privilege
of picking the kind of dollar to be paid
him. He would always pick the one that
was for the nonce of the dearest i'll me,
talic composition. He would look be-
yond the immediate present value of
the dollar to the composition thereof,
and would throw an anchor to wind
ward in speculative calculation,
uy thus picking that dollar which has
some greater prospective increment in it
he would increase the demand for that
which was already the most in Demand
and thus increase the Disparity which
we should seek to heal That system is
at war with our own plans and our de
clared policy to mainta | parity. 1t
check-mateS the design of the principle
of parity.
If we do not let the creditor know
what dollar he will get he will pro-
claim that one dollar is us good as anoth-
err dollar. If we pay sometimes the
cheaper and sometimes the dearer, or
pay them both indifferently, without
looking at their composition, burt only
looking to the legal fact that they are
dollars, then the parity between them
will be increased by the example of the
Government and by placing the pressure
of demand i'm the balance where 1T IL
most needed
The present system was designed to
destroy the parity of the metals, and
not to create parity. Its effect has been
in distinct consonance with it's design.
The dollars, indeed, have been kept at
parity But the one of (which the met
al is the mere valuable IS the one al
ways picked by the creditor; the other
one is always avoided. Thus the ten
dency upward Of the one of dearer met
al is always REINFORCED, and the tenden-
cy downward of the metal that makes
the other is always REINFORCED like.
wise.
We are reminded, Mr.. President, by
the fathers of the Republic that Il FIRE