Newspaper Page Text
brought them into existence, is something
which this lawyer cannot understand.
I believe it to be another instance
where the judges, in their eagerness to
serve the corporatitons, have simply ov
erlooked the law.
If this question is ever presented in the
right way to the Supreme Court of the
United States, I have no doubt whatever
of what the decision will be.
* * H
Mayson Tor Congress.
Elsewhere will be found the platform of
Hon. Jas. L. Mayson, candidate for Con
gress against the mal-odorous Lon Liv
ingston.
Mayson is precisely the. kind of man
that Livingston would be, if Livingston
were the reverse of what he is.
Mayson is clean in his manner of life,
as in his public record. He is not a liar.
He is not corrupt. He is not a hypocrite.
He is a gentleman. He does possess tal
ent and patriotism. He would, if elected,
be a credit to the Atlanta district and to
the state of Georgia.
He would possess some real influence
in Congress, and would not make a com
plete fall-down on such a matter as the
Sub-Treasury proposition, as Lon Living
ston did.
Mayson would be a real and constant
friend of the farmers of his district, in
stead of a just-before-the-election friend,
as Lon Livingston is.
He would give to the city of Atlanta
a square deal in all things, and for every
body, instead of being a mere tool of a few
patronage-mongers and the Southern
Railroad —as Lon Livingston has ever
been.
Georgians of the Atlanta District!
Don’t submit longer to the national dis
grace of being represented by such a man
as Livingston.
Rouse yourselves and elect a respecta
ble gentleman to represent you !
H M
Washington Post and Greenbacks.
When the Jeffersonian went to Wash
ington to urge the Administration to is
sue treasury notes, the Washington Post,
as other papers did, very naturally began
to express its disapproval of such a prop
osition.
We say very naturally, for it is well
known that the Post is committed to the
Gold Standard, the Gold Reserve, the
Gold bonds, and the various other varia
tions of the gold brick system which the
modern money-changer has passed off on
a credulous public.
The Post pitched into the Jeffersonian
in the good old way, reminding us of the
depreciation of the Greenbacks during
the war and the French Assignat.
While still in Washington, the Jefferso
nian sent a brief letter to the Post remind
ing it that the first treasury notes issued
in 1861, $50,000,000 did not depreciate,
and that the Greenbacks did not go below
par until the Exception Clause impaired
their usefulness as money.
THE JEFFERSONIAN.
When the Government declared that
the treasury notes should not do certain
things, as money, which coin could do,
the notes were not so useful as coin and,
therefore, not so valuable.
This seems simple, but the Post came
back at the Jeffersonian, in a leading edi
torial of some length—we print it else
where—and roundly challenged the cor
rectness of our statement of fact.
The Post will not allow that we are
right even in the amount of the first issue
of notes, under the Act of July 17. 1861.
The Post says that the amount was $60,-
000,000, instead of $50,000,000.
But the Jeffersonian, while quoting
from memory, got the figures down right.
The act of July 17, 1861, limits the first
issue to $50,000,000. It was by a separate
act, passed Feb. 12, 1862, that Congress
authorized an aditional $10,000,000.
Even if we had made a slip in stating
the amount, the error was immaterial to
the discussion, but since the Post appear
ed to wish to prove that we were talking
at random, we think it worth while to
prove that we were stating the facts cor
rectly.
(See “Laws Relating to Loans and Cur
rency.” Pages 131 to 135. Act of July 17,
1861, authorizes $50,000,000 treasury
notes. Act of Feb. 12, 1862, authorizes
$10,000,000 additional.)
The Post makes the point that the first
issue of notes were never known as Green
backs, and that they stood on a different
footing altogether. Inasmuch as the first
issue of the demand notes were soon
merged in the $150,000,000 of Greenbacks
issued under act of Feb. 22, 1862, only the
later issue ($10,000,000) of the demand
notes are supposed to have been left in
circulation.
By this act, of Feb. 26, 1862, Green
backs were made “lawful money”; and
therefore the demand notes, outstanding,
and the Greenbacks would seem to have
been of equal dignity, for each was but a
“promise to pay.”
The only difference between them, in
law, so far as we can see, was that the
demand notes had not been maimed by
backs had.
an Exception Clause, while the Green-
On the face of the Greenback, as on
that of the demand note, was the promise
of the Government “to pay.” Pay what?
Lawful money to the amount named in
the note. After Congress had made
Greenbacks “lawful money,” there was
never a day when the holder of a demand
note could not have been paid with Green
backs.
Absolutely the only difference in law
between the demand note and the Green
back was that the demand was given, by
law, the power to do everything that gold
was given, by law, the power tn do.
This power, originally given to the
Greenback, was afterwards taken away.
As long as the Greenback could do all
that coin could do, it was at par with
coin. After Congress took away a portion
of its power as money, its usefulness was
lessened, and its value depreciated.
You might have two mules or horses
each of which were able to do as much
as the other, and were equals in every
other way. As long as this equality ex
isted, the horses would be equally valua
ble.
But suppose the law could and did lim
it the use of one of these animals to
certain things, while the use of the other
continued to be unlimited—wouldn’t that
difference in the power to use the animals
make a difference in their value? Certain
ly, it would.
I'he Post says that the demand notes
remained equal to coin because the hold
er of the paper dollar could always have
gone and got a coin dollar for it. The
act of Congress certainly does not say
so. The words of the act simply pledges
the faith of the Government “to pay on
demand.” Any court on earth would con
strue this to mean, “pay in lawful money.”
After the Greenbacks were made lawful
money by the act of Feb. 25, 1862, they
were legal tender for demand notes, and
for every other debt or due, save those
mentioned in the Exception Clause—viz.
interest on the public debt, and custom
house dues. The bonds themselves were
payable in Greenbacks, until the subse
quent act of March 18, 1869. known as the
Credit Strengthening Act. Then, and then
only, were they payable in nothing but
coin.
To the piratical scheme of the money
changers but one more step was needed,
and that was taken when they forced the
Government to say that ’‘Coin” meant
gold only, at the option of the holder.
The Post declares that the purpose of
the Exception Clause was to enhance the
value of the bonds. Why, then, was not
the principal as well as the interest of the
bonds made payable in coin ? Why make
the interest payable in one kind of mon
ey and the interest in another?
The reason was that the money chang
ers meant to buy up the bonds with de
preciated paper and then collect the in
terest in coin—after which they would
force the Government to pay the princi
pal, also, in coin.
There can be no doubt whatever that
this was. all along, the scheme of thQ
long-headed Shylocks who engineered
their plan through Congress over the pas
sionate protests of such men as Thaddeus
Stevens —who understood the true mean
ing of the plot.
The Post speaks of the “enormous
hole” into which the Greenbacks could
have been poured as legal tender in pay
ment of the Income Tax, Internal Reve
nue tax. etc.
The amount of the Income Tax for
1866 was only $72,000,000, and that was
the highest amount for any year, as we
remember. The manufacturers’ tax, and
other special taxes, ran into large sums,
but these were all repealed immediately
(Continued on Page Twelve.)
PAGE NINE