Year: 1868

prospect, will be disposed to think that in


the last Of evils from which we pray ev-


cry Sunday morning to be delivered there


should be included ''an action for breach


of promise Of marriage"





The Issue In q Nutshell.


The efforts Of the bondholder's press to


evade the financial issues af the campaign


are sometimes absurd, sometimes amusing 9,


but always characteristic of praty that is


afraid of its own doctrine


These attempts to dodge the question


take variety Of forms; but they all come


down to the same thing,-an evasion of the
square issue between the two political par


ties, one of which proposes to pay the hold


ers of United States bonds in United States


money, according to the letter and spirit


of the contract; and the other in COM


modify which will cost the people $3.50,
600, 900 more than the whole debt to obtain.
This is the issue of the campaign on the
debt question, stated in simple and plain


words. There is nothing about it that
every man Of ordinary intelligence may not
easily and fully understand. All the wordy


vaporing in the bondqolders' press about


money and dollars, and paying one pro-


mise with another promise, and so on, is
the sheerest twaddle, intending to confuse
and mislead persons who entertain the


mistaken idea that there is something in
financial philosophy very deep and abstruse


and beyond the comprehension of common


mortals. Men whe entertain such ideas


are persons who never succeed in business


or any thing else; because they can never


hry,n ~ co1,,oc 20 IL


fundamental truth that business success is
simply to do correctly the arithmetical
process Of simple addition.


"Nobody pretends that debt is paid by
renewingit," say the bondholders. Nobody


but the bondholders propose to renew the
debt. The democracy propose to pay it
" as rapidly as practicable" and thus get
rid of paying $50, 100000 year for in
terest. The bondholders, on the opposite,
propose that it shall be extended over a
fair period of time, TO wit: forty years.
aud thus make the people pay forty times
$3.50, 900, 900 for interest (trhree times the
total amount of the debit, and then pay
the debt besides, in gold! This is a plain
statement, which every man can understand
of the two propositions before the country.


But, say the bondholders, "You cannot
say that an interest-bearing note is paid by
the substitution of a note bearing no inter
est, and payable at no time" It depends,
of course, entirely on the terms of the
contract whether you can or cannot say it.
1t the contract reads that the interest bear
ing note is payable in money, the presump-
ton of common sense is, that, when you
give the money and take up the note, the
note is paid. Greenbacks are money.
There is no other lawful money in the
United States, save for two particular
purposes, neither of which is the payment
of public or private debts.


If the interest-bearing note called for
the payment of aspecificd number ofwheel-
barrows, instead of a specified number of
dollars. then there would be reason in de-
that it should be paid in wheel
barrows,l regardless of their price, instead
of in meney. The majority Of people know
or suppose they know whata wheel barrow
is. But suppose the law under which the
bearing note calling for ayment in
was made had described that
a lawful wheelba,row should be a vehicle
with three wheels, made of India-rubber,
would there be reason, orjustice, or requity,
or common sense in a demand by the
holder of the interest bearing note for pay
ment in wheelbarrows made of gold?


The holder of the interest bearing note
is not the authority to describe the kind
Of wheelbarrows he shall receive in pay
ment. Right here is an important fact
that the bondholders' press is very careful
not to mention. The bondholders are not
the money. making power. The money
was made before the bonds were made.
The bondholders knew what ii was they
helped to make it; they accepted it as it
was made ; they lent it to the people as
money. and received bonds calling for the
payment of money. If the bargain was
foolish one, they were party to it. They
agreed to it, and promised to abide by
and uphold it in good faith. They cannot
now assume the right to repudiate it. They
have no power, or authority, or right to
define what the money is or ought to be in
which they will accept payment. To as
sumo right to cheat the people. To as
sumo that payment ought to be postponed
until they can persuade the government
to provide such new kind of money as
would like, is equally an assumption that
to bondholders belongs the right to repu-
diate their bargain and to swindle the
people who trust to their faith ami hon
esty.


In strict equity and morality, it would
be wrong gainst the people 20 introduce
a more valuable kind of money until after
the bonds are paid. The people enabled
the bondholders to realize profits by pay
ing their debts with unusual ease in green
backs. Have not the people an equal
rights to profit by the bargain, now that it
has come to the payment Of their own
debts? Was it not fair understanding
and agreement all around? To resume
specie payments before the bonds are paid
would be to deprive the people Of advan-
tages which the bondh olders have already
gained. 1t is only just and fair, and ac-
cording to the contract, that the people
shall say to the bondholders "You have
had your profits. They have been enor-
nous. You have grown immensely rich
by carrying out your side of the bargain.
All we demand now is, that you will stick
to the bargain, and bear you- equal and
just share Of the burden, while we fulfill
our part of the contract"


But practically, in carrying out the
democratic plan Of payment, the value Of
greenbacks will appreciate as the public