Year: 1868

Ends, two years afterwards, that his title
isopen to dispute by the imperfection Of
fhe instrument, his anger justly lights
upon the incapable or dishonest attorney.
lf the public creditors are disappointed, it
viii be in consequence Of the blunder>
ing, ambiguous and knayish legislao
tiOn Of the Republican party. If
congress intended the five- twenty bonds
to be paid in gold, why did not Con-
gress say so2 1t would have been just
rs easy to insert the words Sin coin" In
the fiye-tyenty bonds as in the ten-forty
bonds just as easy to connect those ex~
phcit words with the principal as with
the interest Of the fve-twenties. 1t is
for the Republican party to tell the bond
holders why this was not done-why their
claims are thus exposed to the cross
winds of angry debate-why there is so
much to be explained away and SO much
to be made out by eircuitous inference
before their rights can be established If
any class of laws should be worded with
distinctness and precision, it is laws
creating heavy pecuniary obligations on
the part of the government If the fve-
twenty bonds were meant to be paid in
gold, the law should have explicitly said
SO, in order that the government might
have had the advantage Of that explicit
ness in the sale Of bonds and in the sub
sequent maintenance of its own credit.
The present doubt, controversy and dis
satisfaction, is all caused by the omis~
sion of the Republican party to give to
the bondholders that assurance in the
laws, which a portion Of the party pre-
tend to give them in an electioneering
squabble. 1t is seandalous that this bu-
siness has been so mismanaged as to ocN
casion such controversy, by which the
national reputation suffers and the pubs
lie creditors are kept in a state of uneer-
tainty.


What can the public creditors expect
of the party that passed that statute of
reputation, the legal-teDder act2 In
consequence of it, the debtor part of the
nation has been debauched by the legal-
lied Reputation Of a great part of their
debts. That act has corrupted tie State
governments as well as the people; the
Interest on the State debts contracted
previous to the war being paid in what is
called lawful money. What Republican
viii tell us why the honor of our citi-
zens and the honor Of the States ought
not to be held as sacred as the honor of
the Federal government? We do not
here refer to private and State debts
which were contracted after the legal
tender act was passed, but before it was
passed There is no reputation in pay
ing in greenbacks debts incurred after
the passage Of the law, unless there was
a special stipulation to pay them in coin.
Now, the legal tender act was so
wOrded as to include Federal debts
az well as private debts and State debts,
and hence it was important that
all subsequent laws authorizing loans
should explicitly state that they were pay
able in coin, if payment in coin was in
tended. But the fact is indisputable that
. there is nothing in the loan laws which
exempts the fVe-twenty bonds from the
sweeping language Of the legal tender
law The claim Of the bondholders is
subject to this great drawback and inns
pediment, for which they must thank the
Republican party. 1t is what that party
put into the laws, not what the Democratic
party has put into its platform, which
inyalidates their claim to payment in
coin. If they have been deceived, their
resentment should fall upon the Republi-
can authors of their Disappointment
disappointment in which they will re-
ceive little popular sympathp because
they will suffer no real loss. They will
receive back as much for their bonds as
they paid for them, with enormous Inc
terest for their money while it was out
Of their hands. ...