CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



181 



In the Senate, on December 14th, Mr. Cat- 

 tell, of New Jersey, offered the following reso- 

 lution : 



Eesolved, That the Senate receive with profound 

 regret the proposition of the President in his annual 

 message, to repudiate a portion of the national obliga- 

 tions, and regard this and all forms of repudiation as 

 a national crime. National honor requires the pay- 

 ment of the public debt in the utmost good faith to 

 all creditors at home and abroad, not only according 

 to the letter, but the spirit of the laws under which it 

 was created. 



Mr. Cattell: "Mr. President, it seems to me 

 that the extraordinary proposition contained 

 in the President's annual message, favoring the 

 repudiation of the public debt, should not go 

 to the country without a prompt and decided 

 expression by the Senate of their unqualified 

 disapprobation. And it is with this view I 

 offer the resolution just read. 



"Lest the full scope and meaning of this 

 passage in the message may have escaped the 

 attention of some Senators, I beg to read it 

 again in your hearing : 



It may be assumed that the holders of our securi- 

 ties have already received upon their bonds a larger 

 amount than their original investment, measured by 

 a gold standard. Upon this statement of facts it 

 would seem but just and equitable that the six per 

 cent, interest now paid by the Government should 

 be applied to the reduction of the principal in semi- 

 annual installments, which, in sixteen years and eight 

 months would liquidate the entire national debt. 

 Six per cent, in gold would at present rates be equal 

 to nine per cent, hi currency, and equivalent to the 

 payment of the debt one and a half times in a frac- 

 tion less than seventeen years. This, in connection 

 with all the other advantages derived from their in- 

 vestment, would afford to the public creditors a fair 

 and liberal compensation for the use of their capital, 

 and with this the^ should be satisfied. _ The lessons 

 of the past admonish the lender that it is not well to 

 be over-anxious in exacting from the borrower rigid 

 compliance with the letter of the bond. 



" Mr. President, here is a simple, plain prop- 

 osition, emanating from the President of the 

 United States in his message to Congress, and 

 advocated as just and equitable, to pay to the 

 public creditor simply the interest provided 

 for by law and stipulated in the bond for a 

 given number of years, and at the expiration 

 of that period to repudiate the entire principal 

 of the debt. It passes belief that a proposi- 

 tion so monstrous as this, so disgraceful, in my 

 opinion, to the nation, so damaging to its credit 

 at home and abroad, should emanate from the 

 Chief Executive of this Government, whose 

 duty it is to guard the honor and faith of the 

 nation rather than to tarnish the one and to 

 break the other. No man in the United States, 

 so far as my knowledge extends, has been 

 found hitherto bold enough to advocate open, 

 undisguised, and unqualified repudiation. So 

 indefensible a proposition as this has been 

 reserved for Andrew Johnson, as a fitting cli- 

 max to the wickedness and folly of his admin- 

 istration. I move, sir, that this resolution be 

 referred to the Committee on Finance." 



Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, said: "I am en- 

 tirely in favor of the resolution, except that I 



should wish it to state a little more specifically, 

 so that there should not be any double con- 

 struction put upon it, what it means. That res- 

 olution is in the substantial, and for aught I 

 know in the literal, language of the Chicago 

 platform ; and there are certain good men in 

 the country claiming to be Republicans, claim- 

 ing to be in favor of national honesty, and 

 probably being so, who have maintained that 

 the letter and the spirit of the obligation 

 merely require us to pay in something else, 

 and not in money. There are a good many 

 such people who maintain that proposition. 

 Therefore, in the face of such a message as we 

 have received, to merely reassert an equivocal 

 proposition would amount to nothing at all. 

 Let us, then, send the resolution to the Com- 

 mittee on Finance, who may report it to-mor- 

 row, as I hope, in such language that it will 

 mean, beyond equivocation or misconstruction, 

 that we intend to pay the public funded debt 

 of the United States in real money, in coin, or 

 that we do not one or the other. Let us get 

 rid of the equivoque which certain adroit per- 

 sons maintain is found in the Chicago plat- 

 form." 



Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, said: "I under- 

 stand this proposition is the platform of a 

 political* party of last year. I should like to 

 have the opportunity to present, when this is 

 considered, as an amendment to it or substitute 

 for it, the proposition of another political party 



S'esented to the people in the last contest. 

 y own opinion is that that platform presents 

 the real doctrine in regard to our public debt 

 more correctly, and presents it as it was claim- 

 ed by very many persons during the last con- 

 test, that this resolution should be so construed 

 as to agree with the New York platform. 



" If the Senator from New Jersey wishes to 

 rebuke the President of the United States, it 

 is not becoming that the rebuke shall be con- 

 tained in equivocal language. If the Presi- 

 dent be wrong and the Senate intends to state 

 what is the right, it ought to state it. This 

 does not. This assumes that between the let- 

 ter of the law and the spirit of the law under 

 which the debt was contracted there is a differ- 

 ence. What is that difference? Is the letter 

 of the law that the debt shall be paid in the 

 lawful money of the United States, but is the 

 spirit of the law, according to the judgment of 

 the Senator from New Jersey, according to the 

 judgment of the Senator from Vermont, that 

 'it shall be paid in gold ? Now, we are not deal- 

 ing with this question with a view to a political 

 result, I presume ; and, if the Senate makes a 

 declaration on this question at all, it ought to 

 be done frankly and fully, especially if it is to 

 be regarded as a rebuke to the Chief Magistrate 

 of the country. He has declared his views 

 upon it, in which I do not concur ; but if he is 

 to be rebuked, let him be rebuked plainly. If 

 it is the business of the Senate to pass resolu- 

 tions intended to be those of censure, let them 

 declare the true doctrine as the doctrine in- 



