Newspaper Page Text
Tl-XEJ ADVOCATJH TO MS. n. A. niGGIN?. I wish to ask your attention to a few considerations suggested by your article which appears in another col umn of this paper. You v say yon do not consider the "oft mooted exception clause in the United States note at all a question of import ince to-day." I trnst I shall be able to show yon that it is of the utmost importance. It is important, because by study ing the history of its incorporation into the legal-tender act we discover the beginning of the great conspiracy by which the few have amassed im mense fortunes at the expense of the many the beginning of the con spiracy by which five-eights of the entire wealth of the nation has been concentrated in the hands of 31,000 people, leaving but three-eights un equally distributed between the bal ance of our 65,000,000, of population How was this done As stated in our former article, we need not stop to discuss in this connection, whether the greenback depreciated or gold ap preciated. In comparison with gold we know the greenback depreciated. The important facts for us to recog nize at this point are that $1 in gold would buy more than $1 in green backs or their equivalent m com modities, and that this difference was the result of legislation designed es pecially to effect that result. These legislative enactments being pro vided, the holders of gold bought greenbacks at the prevailing discount, and converted those greenbacks into government bonds dollar for dollar. This was the first steal. And mark you, these bonds were not sold j;o get money with which to carry on the war, as is the pretense; they were sold to retire the money of the people and enable the bullion brokers to speculate upon their gold at the ex pense of the people. These bonds when issued were pay able in legal money of the United States, which then included gold, sil ver and greenbacks. Subsequent legis lation, in further execution of the conspiracy, made them payable in gold. Now this question is of the utmost importance to day because of another consideration. Up to 1873, silver was a legal tender, and available for the payment of the national debt. The remonetization of silver is one of the important questions now at issue be fore the American people. One of the chief arguments of the opponents of this measure is that it would create a money in which government bonds might be paid, that is less valuable than that in which they are payable at present "It would impair the ob ligation of contracts." Those who use this argument for get, or would have us forget, how those bonds were purchased at from fifty to sixty cents on the dollar. They would have us forget that this great unnecessary debt created at such a sacrifice and originally pay able in the same kind of money which the bond purchaser paid to the gov ernment, was afterward made pay able in coin, and then, by the de monetization of silver, in gold alone. They would have us forget this im pairment of the obligations of a con tract with the people, by the pay ment of a money more valuable than was contracted to be paid and by which they have been robbed of un told millions. Ye?, sir, these steps in the great conspiracy of which the exception clause in the legal-tender act was the first, are important to-day superla tively so. You say you "do not care much for the opinions or assertions of men, ex cept as evidences of fact." That is precisely the purpose for which I in troduced the testimony quoted in my former article. I made those quota tions as evidence of the fact that the depreciation of the greenback or the premium on gold, whichever way you choose to regard it, was not only en tirely unnecessary but that it was the result of legislation enacted pur posely to enable the bullion brokers to carry out just the kind of specula tions in which they actually engaged. This exception clause was engrafted upon the legal-tender act by the American house of lords at the dicta tion of the gold brokers who went up to Washington for the purpose, and the men by whose votes this legisla tion was enacted have amassed for tunes by the very methods which, as legislators, they provided for. This is established by their own testimony. That the soldier was subject to greater loss in consequence of the depreciation of the currency in which he was paid as compared with gold, than were the producers of commodi ties', will appear from consideration of well recognized economic truths. In a fair and unobstructed market the prices of commodities are regu lated by the law of supply and de mand, and by the volume of money in circulation. The producer of com modities and the dealer in all forms of property during the period under consideration enjoyed the benefits of inflated prices brought about by what is generally termed an inflated cur rency. Labor, in the ordinary pur suits of life, shared in this inflation of wagec, while the soldier who exposed his life for the, protection and salva tion of all, received a fixed salary es tablished upon a coin basis and paid in paper currency, depreciated (as compared with gold) by act of con gress. You say you "did .not affirm the necessity of payment in gold of either interest or principal of any bonds or other form of indebtedness, except those given for foreign purchases or owned in foreign countries." Do you not know as a matter of fact that no bonds were given for foreign pur chases, and that none were owned in foreign countries until after the close of the war? None of them should ever have been owned in foreign countries. In f act there never should have been any bonds at all. Every dollar of them is a clean steal. Fur ther, only the interest was payable in coin by the terms of the original con tract The principal was made pay able in coin by subsequent legislation by the impairment of the original - contract with the people, if you please, and afterwards by the demonetization of silver, it was made payable in gold alone. You doubt the propriety of repeal ing the acts by which this debt was made payable in gold, lest it disturb United States securities held abroad, and create a flurry among the money mongers. It would undoubtedly create some excitement among this class of people, as it would vastly re duce the profits of their busines;but really do you not think they have had their way in the business about long enough ? If the people, for a quarter of a century, have been pay ing them more than they originally contracted to pay, is there any wroDg in now returning to the terms of the original contract? Is it not about time for the people to have their innings? You say, "a man who is in debt cannot resolve, with perfect honor, not to pay that debt in fall accordance with its conditions." How about the honor of the departure from the original conditions in the interest of the bondholder by providing for pay ment in a money more valuable than that stipulated in the contract? Hav ing done this, and continued to do it for a quarter of a century, is there any dishonor in now returning to the original contract? You think I hardly treated you fairly upon the question of the stand ing of gold as a world's money. I cer tainly intended no unfairness, and anything that has that appearance is surely unintentional. I have re garded you as the fairest Republican writer with whom I have come in contact, and my purpose has been to be equally as fair as yourself. If I have misrepresented you I have mis understood you. My position is that there is no such thing as a world's money, and that money when used in interna tional trade serves the same purpose, and no other, that it serves in domes tic trade. It is simply a step in the exchange of commodities. I am unable to see how you can make any distinction in the laws of exchange, whether domestic or international. Money serves precisely the same pur pose in each. It is an absolutely use less material, except as it can be ex changed for that which is capable of administering to some of the wants of mankind ; and, in international, as in domestio trade, the exchange is not complete until the money has served this purpose. Gold is not a final payment anywhere or under any circumstances. You say: "What the Englishman might finally do with the gold, whether he would ignomini ously starve to death in the attempt to eat it or not, I do not care; he was and is willing to take it in full and final release of all obligation from us, not because it was our money or his, but because it had a value in his mind." To this I reply, what the American might finally do with the gold, whether he would ignominiously starve to death in the attempt to eat it, I don't care; he was and is willing to take it in full and final release of all obligation from us, not because it was our money or his, but because it had a value in his mind in short, be cause he knows he can exchange it for that which he needs. This is true in the one case as in the other. As between debtor and creditor all obligation in either case is discharged by the payment of money. The money is simply a certificate of the obligation of society, which takes the place of the former obligation of the individual, and, as before stated, the exchange in either case is incomplete until the money is parted with. But it is claimed that only metallic money can be used in international exchanges. This is an assumption entirely without proof, and contrary to present experience or the testimony of past history. We are agreed upon the general principles of money and we need not discuss that part of your letter. I would be glad to believe in the hon esty of those who were responsible for the legislation we have been con sidering, but the evidence is too over whelmingly against them. The one man who was the acknowledged leader in this legislation stands con victed of dishonesty by his own testi mony. Others have been more dis creet in their declarations of more re cent date, but their discussion of the several acts at the time of their passage shows that they were not ig norant of the character or conse quences of those acts, and I cannot be sufficiently charitable to believe them honest, when I remember how they have amassed fortunes under the pro visions of the very laws which their votes and influence placed upon the statute books. There undoubtedly are honest men, as the world regards honesty, who have taken advantage of the condi tions which our laws have established. I do not refer to these. When I speak of the conspirators who are responsible for the prevailing condi tions in this country, I refer to those legislators whose votes placed the in famous laws we have been discussing, upon the statute books. They did not do this ignorantly or through mistaken ideas of a wise public policy. They knew very well what they were doing, and have never failed to take advantage of their knowledge of the ef fect of their legislative acts,and turn it to their personal profit. The traitors to our country were not all south of Macon and Dixon's line. Those who have shaped our legislation are re sponsible for vastly greater crimes against the American people than those who take up arms against the country. While the latter have been sorely punished, the former have grown wealthy as a reward of their treason. S. McLallin. ATTENTION, CLfcBKS OF DISTRICT COURTS. We would like the name of every clerk of the several district courts of the state and registers of deeds who have been elected by the People's party. Will those gentlemen be kind enough to accommodate us? And will reform papers be kind enough to republish our request for this information?