Year: 1868

Government had called on its citizens fo1
money to supply its wants, and has re.
ceived it, and has passed law declaring
that the bonds given for that money shall
not be taxed, then the Government ha.
the right to turn around and pass another
law taxing those bonds? Is not that ir
the nature of an er post tacto law? I dc
not know that quite understood the gen
tlcman. If [ did not, I should like to dc
so.


Mr.. STONE. In answer to the question
of the gentleman. [ would say that I deny
utterly the right Of one Congress to pro.
hibit all succeeding Congresses from i'm.
posing tax, either upon Governmen,
bonds or any other species Of property.


Mr.. BURLE1GH. The gentleman does
not quite understand me-


Mr.. STONE. I think I understand the
gentleman perfectly.


Mr.. BURLEIGu. I will state what
mean.


Mr.. STONE. I think I understand the
gentleman perfectly. Every citizen OF
foreigner, or whoever he may be, who ad.
vances his money to the Government, is
presumed to know, and does know-for
men who make these advances of money
understand the workings and the authori-
ty of the Government as we'll as, and per-
haps better, than any other class of men
in the world-they know that the power
of the Government to tax is inherent and
inalienable. And they @ke the loan al
ways subject to the inherent right of tax
alton possessed by the Government.


Mr.. BURLE1GH. Let me interrupt the
gentleman again for a moment.


Mr.. STONE. Very we'll.


Mr.. BURLE1GH. The Government makes
a contract with me, for instance; it asks
me for my money, and [ give it. The
Government then executes bond to me,
and puts its seal upon it. Now, after
having received my gold, can it tear that
seal from the bond without my consent :?
[ want to know if the Government pos
sesses any such power as that. Fit does.
then have yet to learn it.


Mr.. STONE. I have already answered
the question of the gentleman. I repeat
again, that no government was ever insti-
llsa tatsd a@eng ~sn that did net possess this
supposed that this Congress, or the Par
lament of Great Britain, or the Chamber
of Deputies Of France, or the Diet Of Ger
many, with all their Executives combined.
could strip the Legislative Department of
the Government of this inherent and ina
lienable right. And these men took the
bonds of the United States knowing that
the Government always reserves to itself
that power. But the Government never
did promise not to tax these bonds; they
only declared that the States should not
tax them, will read from the act on that
subject:


'.All stocks, bonds, and other securi-
ties of the United States, held by individ
uals, corporations, or associations within
the United States, shall be exempt from
taxation by or under State authority"


That, I believe, is the utmost extent
to which any of these laws go-that the
bonds shall be free from taxation under
State or municipal authority. Congress
never for a moment attempted even to
make them not taxable by the United
States.


But, Mr.. Chairman, the funding bill is
simply bill to exchange bonds payable in
currency for bonds payable in gold; nothing
more or less. Whether it is wise. when it is
impossible to have full discussion upon so
important measure, to change the cur
rency debt into a gold debt, and thus to
impose a burden upon the people of this
country Of certainly between five hundred
and one thousand million dollars, not
withstanding the lower rate of interest on
the new bonds, must leave the majority
of this House to determine. l myself
deem it both unwise and unjust to the
people that they should be called upon to
perform more than they agreed to do at
the time they incurred the debt; and when
every interest in the country is now so
heavily taxed.


But, Mr.. Chairman, in the few minutes
allotted to me | feel inclined to adopt an
expression used by General Blair in his
late celebrated letter, in which he says
the financial question is subordinate to the
political one This letter of General Blair
seems to have created great deal of in
terest in this House and out Of it. 1t has
been termed revolutionary and warlike.
Now, I agree with and most cordially en-
dorse every word in that letter. 1t is be-
cause l believe it is not revolutionary, that
it is not warlike in the slightest degree,
that do endorse it. 1t is plain state
ment of question that he desires to sub
NIT to the people, and to take their delib-
crate judgment upon it at the ballot box.
IF you can term any question that is sub
mitted to the people at the ballot box, and
upon which their deliberate judgment is
evoked-if you term that war, then what
do you term peace? a


That letter of General Blair's simply
declares that the governments set up in
the ten rebel States were not warranted
by the terms of the Constitution of the
United States, and it proposes to submit
to the deliberate judgment of the people
whether the Executive should or should
not be called upon to undo what the writer
of the letter believes, and what l believe,