State Contention—Interconvertible Notes. 223 
shall pay your debts;” let it add moral*force to this mandate by 
scrupulously setting the example. 
In support of his proposition concerning the government taking 
our money on call, Mr. Allis advances, among others, the follow¬ 
ing arguments: Comparing the two forms of government indebt¬ 
edness, that is, gold bonds and greenbacks, he says: u They are 
equal in obligation and security, but we find there is a difference 
in their value of twenty cents on the dollar, and why? It is not 
from the quantity, because their combined amount is in any case 
the same. It is clearly on account of their quality. Now, suppose 
the government should all at once treat the greenback debtor the 
same as the bond debtor, what would be the effects? It would not 
lower the value of the bond, because its value is fixed by its quality 
alone. There can be no escape from the fact that it would at once 
raise the value of the greenback to the equal of the bond. We 
have here an absolute surety that conversion into an interest-bear¬ 
ing bond would bring up the greenback to the value of the bond.” 
This somewhat confused statement is quoted at length that it may 
not be garbled. 
We mav concede the absolute suretv that free conversion into 
any bond would bring the greenback up to the value of the bond 
into which they could be converted; and the surety is equally abso¬ 
lute that conversion into a bond bearing 3.65 per cent interest, 
would not bring them up to the value of one bearing interest at 
six per cent., with which comparison was made at the outset. The 
government can, with justice, treat the bond debtor and the green¬ 
back debtor alike in just one way, and that is by leaving the status 
of the bond debtor unchanged and bringing the greenbacks up to 
that standard—which can only be done by making the greenback, 
as the bond is, an obligation definite as to time and payable in 
gold. Equality obtained by any other process, however disguised, 
would debase the bond, and just so far as it did so would be repudi¬ 
ation pure and simple. 
Again, as another proof of the magic power of interconvertibil¬ 
ity, we are cited to the two kinds of currency afloat, “ greenbacks,” 
and “ national bank-notes.” In the hands of the people they are of 
equal value, because interconvertible, the one into the other—but 
“ we are told with much impressiveness,” in the hands of a few 
they are not of equal value; in the hands of the national banks,' 
