Rensselaer Republican, Volume 12, Number 49, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 August 1880 — Page 7

SPEECH OF HON. W. W. CURRY, DELIVERED AT WEST LEBANON, IND., AUGUST 10.

Mew ariiaene: Again we ere approaching a fsrtdeottal election, and the people are ealled re*u to coarter tbeecon*equence* which will •a tavolved in tbeir selection. Presidential anrtldate* are nominated by political parties, *M whatever may be their personal characters art opiuivoe. they will be supported and opysaed chiefly because of their party affiliation*, ■ha eandidate* am. therefore responsible •sr tbeir parties, as wall aa the gsrtiea reapooaible for their eandidate*. •_ thia accaaion I address you a* a Republican, and urge you to support the Republican ticket. Oxer acninst us Is the Democratic party, with k* candidate*. also asking your suffrages. Prac vfiteally, you must choose between these two. for “me of them will certainly be successful. Per ysssra past the power* of the government, Nalaual and Stale, have been divided beween 4 m; they have made and administered laws, u J they have histories to which they may appeal. it is possible, therefore, for the people to attain sound, rea«oi.able assurance aa to the st an. cter, purposes, and probable management if these parties, in the event of •access. During the many pear* these garth a have contested with each other for ths rantrel of public affairs, before, during and since •e war. thmebive been many issues between Mem. 8« ine have been Anally settled, while where art still in debuts. It is no longer a queyItasi whether slavery shall oe extended into the I’m ft < rie*.' or whether slavery shall be abolased. or whether suffrage shall be extended to the blacks. Il is no longer a question whether *•; Union shall ba preserved, seceding States seerccd *- d the laws of tbe Nation enforced. It h no longer a question whether National paper money may be issued. or V* >e p.-:j nients resumed. These aud other ptr»ti->n* nnee in debate ar*, qow settled a* far t» tte law is concerned, and every one settled »favor of the Republican party. On every true which has been '-elegated to the pages nf tafiory. the Republican party was right and the iNtuocratie psrty was wrung. Thia is some *n-g, fit ha«t, to plead in its favor, and soiueifi’nr T hiel: »otptig men taking their places in Cites for the first time, may well remember, there wre many qn-"-tious yet open to de-b-te. so m T?y that I shall not even attempt to am h them at this time. I propose to confine Myself »•■<»’ -tlon* of finnuce. income, expenditure. drt.t' and currency, which open a wide Wd fur discussion. GENERAL PRINCIPLES. , The financial issues between tbe parties may to resolved into this general qnestlou: Have Me principled and practices of the Republican party been such as to warrant tbe people eon ■naiug them in power, or do the principles and tract oes of tbe Demociatie party promise wester.public advantages. Let ua first glance 3* some geueral conaideratlous. The history of the Democratic party does not tag-rees us with its fii-ancial wisdom. In the Me days it was unfriendly to tariffs as a mean* M revenue, aud was Inclined to direct taxation; art it was especially opposed to tbe pronative principle, as it fa now. In 1888, in it* fester, al nDtfonn, It demauded “equal taxation as even description of property at its real val«fc“ It wunld have the United States tax houasaand lands, grain and merchandise, cattle and machinery. in order to reach “government Owl* and other public securities.” It would have th* taxes on whisky And tobacco reduced to the eiime rate with that imposed on wheat sad mi’.eliu. Tbe Republican party bar opposed this; and in both Its tariff and internal aavenue laws discriminated against vice and in fetor of bonis industry. In the old days the ■vmoeratic party always opposed National pa rr money. and defended State paper instead, broke duwn tbs United Stales bank, opposed .fibe issue of greenbacks, and now denounces (be National bank system. It flooded the countey with Its Staid bank issues, and looks to a re tarn to that system. In the old days tt was waeb more given to the creation than io the payment of public debts. Wtfln Mr. Buchanan became President there was 520.000.00 U of asi.’ln* in the trcasuiy; when he went our it was empty, sixty millions of dollars of debt* bad been contracted. i.nd the public credit so Unpaired that money could not be borrowed nt fern than 18 per cent. How tbe Republicans have m.tuaged —will be seen hereafter ■nee the war, tn this State, we have ■aid about $6,250,000 of the old Democratic debts, besides $2,000,000 of war loan In 1871 a (femocratic LegtAlalui-e reduced the taxes, foi petit lea I effect, to one-half the sum neorssary to aaee* the expenses, aud laid the foundation for a -wwoebt. In tbe South a great outcry wa* tataed against carp< t-bag extravagance, but ■am ncratic ascendency has brought no pat ■ meats of the Elate debts. On Ibe contrary, thev have been increased, or nave been aenled, ano •pen repudiation is ptop< -d instead of hones asyarent-. In truth, tbe Democratic party ba>a>ver embodied the financial brain* of th> aswßtry. »nd hence has nev.t jren a financial shecesa Experienc •writs us that from the Re . ►.blican psrty. aud not tbe Democratic, iuim th* pewph expect that wise menavetuent of I heii araio-tery iai..;ra on which de}«nds financial tau*j.--rHy.- *

CREATION OF THE DEBT. The public debt of tbe United States is targe, aad to pay the interest on ii •quite* i,l,out one-third of all out ( •rreniHM. it was created under the admin -t nt’inn of the Republican party, audittech -... uni tu-x weight of taxation If iuvulve-, are of -u j- ferrrdtu by our political opponents fcv a:! ’Hgeni pc.-ple know that itsereatio ■as rc -- -ry In ‘ artier to suppress s wheli:o;i fcteied by Demcairaiic Matlighl* ; and organised by abtfMt-an us the D’tuocrx ic party It Is some X*ee» «"il*ee»! hat ’.he ex)a-nihurea of thews) w*re mu.ii larger il.an they ought to k*v< teen. And jm- may be admitted. If the Denstatic I’arty hast not broken down tbe puhii milt every measure of tli snee aurinc bo pr>*<n»-< r»f the « ar. and *i eu eootanta.e rtcctnta:t to the enemy, th. re isuoiloubt we •old Jw- lf<>rrvwed cheaper aud trinmpbe.'. •Miner! Bu’ whatever the cost and burdei. •»»< iie, -ure Deluoctatlc party is criminal!} aMponatiue. One nf the must bumiliati g•:. tM current polities i* to tef the )Ki-don,-.; rebels ef-lbal party investigating ti.e ex•eedltnre* of th, ir victor*, and eumplai:. Xurof lire c->ei -t tbeir *iil>Ju*-ation. It I* about «s unpalatable aa to nee the criminal* of UWv Rave t in v ext. gat mg the courts, to see it they did tec stand too mticb money in the prosecution. COMPARED WITH OTHERS.

B*t we are eutuetime* told tbut under Reput' te*> rule the people of Ue United States are th. ' awl abused, dent-burdened, and rax-rtddeu pew fte-tn the world. If thia were true, human na•tre must be strangely pnrverae. Why is it that ■he toiling million* of the United State* do net seek refuge from these oppression* by flying to ' t»<- happier shores or Europe! Why doe* the line of immigration stream In tv share our burden of woeet The proposition !» too ab*ur>l ror ridicule But look at the fact* The pu Mie'.ebt qf Great Bn tan in 1878 was 5.888.907,98*1 population 34.000.000, equal SI 14 38 per head. The public debt of Frauor. *4.516.817,931; population 37,000,00 >, equal e> >l3B 07 per head The publto debt of the United Stab < 53j'35,786.831; population 45,600.(AX', equal to *45 24 per head. Taiee of •raat Britain amount to *398.810.490. or *ll.- » per head; of France, *.539.(fe>4,41«, or *l4 60 per head; United State*. *254,750.6n8, or *s.<>6 per head. Prance ha* not paid a dollar of her debt »ince lbs German war; on th< contrary, n ha* grown larger every year. In sixty eear* Great Britain ha* reduced her •eiX *308,0*2.745. Io fifteen vear» we have reduced onra *837,104,823. te sixty > vara Great Britain has reduced her , Interest account from *157.909.635 to *142.dMi3.756, or *15,895.879 tn fifteen years we have reduced our* from *150,977,697 to *79,*39.981. or *71,343.716. Any of ear financial oendUion and mauageuH-ut with the other great civilised ludlnn* ■« m> greatly in ear favor that every pntnr-tK- citfxen mu«t re|ric* tn He contemplation Aud that is but a mean partisaaehip which could wish it otherwise or murepiuMnt what h*, i>«eii done. Whde *ie oppuiici t* of the RepuMivra ;>arty hare ■ been rarpD-g and fault-finding, the nation* of to world have regarded our achievements as Ibe wsoat wonderful tn U imau history • QUESTION OF EXTRAVAGANCE. . When out of power the Democratic party U extremely economical. and very pr<4ai>e in It* fraadae* of reSrewehtDeut and- reform. In Its •*. Lvuis placfonj it inaugurated a campaign of ■Wetorru.' and in order to carry it out nominated' • dh* most notorious corruptionist in the country. • denounced “tbe improridbute which, in stwveu yean of peaqp. has taken from the *Mpi* in Federal tAua thirteen times the

whole amawwt es tbe legal tmder Mfias. art aquaa four time* tbeir sum la useless expense.” Thia ie a gtav* charge of wrong-doing, and ** examined The amount of tbe legal-tender nates aa Jaaeery 1, 1878, was $371,827,220. Thirteen times that amount is $4,833,753,860. Now, tbe government reports show tbe following collections, from July 1, 1865, to June 30, 1870: Customs. (2073.550.621; internal revenue, *1.826.185.813; direst taxes. $8,937,331; tot >l. $3.908,712,785. Thia exhibits s Democratic false statement of $824,041,095, ar about 24 per eenL Thia rscUeeanees io regard to statements of facts does not warrant ns in accepting chargee witaout investigation. But it is alleged that four times ths sum of the legal tenders, or $1,487,308,880, was “wasted in -useless expense. 1 ' Let as see wbat became of it. Daring those ele vet years there was paid out— On account public debt $ 500,252.802 On account interest 1.315,344,72* On account pensions. 296,239.801 Discharged soldiers and sailors.. 800.000.000 $2,411,837,331 No Democrat will dare stand up and say that these were useless or wasteful expenses, exeept as the war wa* a useless and wasteful Democrat ie rebellion. But after paying these necessary war expenditares there is left $1,497,875,434 for all other purposes; or only ten millions more than they aay was wasted, Buch shameless disregard of truth is sufficient to condemn any party. This sum divided into eleven years shows an average expenditure from the treasury of $136,170,494, for all departments of the government; or, including the pensions, sn annual average of $163,101,265. And this includes all incressed expenditures growing out of the war, except the debt and interest. But for three term* the Demoeratle party have elected a majority of t{ie House of Representatives. This gives them control of the purse-strings of the Nation, and devolves on them the preparation of ths appropriation bills. Hence they have had the opportunity of economising, and we may examine tbe result. Their speakers and papers have been loud in proclaiming their merits, and in their Cincinnati platform they boldly claim to have saved tbe people $40,000,000 a year. Let ur see. Tbe last Republican Congress passed the appropriations for the year ending June 30. 1876, amounting to $179,166,209. The Democratic House elected in 1874 did not take tbeir seats until December, 1875, and their first bills were for tbe year ending in 1877, and amounted to $154,553,639. Tbeir next hills, for the year ending 1878. amounted to $144,492,149. Here is an apparent saving of $24,612,570 one year, and $34,674.060 the next. But it Is apparent only. It was hqcomplished by refusing to make necessary appropriations ana seriously embarrassing the public service. It left the army without par, and was one of tho causes of tbe Indian outbreak on the frontiers. A number of clerks were discharged in the departments, and some salaries were reduced. But pensioners have been delayed two years and deficiencies have been created. The result is seen in the appropriations of the next three C ears, that for the year ending June 30,1879, eing $174,743,606; that for the year ending last June amounting to $192,86<»,237, and that for the current year amounting to $186,805,058, tbe last two exceeding the last Republican appropriations, one by $13,694,028, and tbe other by $7,638,849. 8o easily are exploded Democratic claims of economy. But there is another side to this claim. Economy tn the departments depends on the good administration of the officers more than on Congress. But there are expenses which that body can control aa it wilt While reducing the salaries of clerks, it did not reduce the pay of members; but it did increase tbe number and cost of its own employee. This economical Democratic Congress baa 481 employes at a cost of *15.747 more than tbe last Republican Congress. In four years they have had thirty-eight investigating committees ransacking every department of tbe governuieut to find something out of wbieh to make poll;leal capital, at a cost of $263,157, the net result of which has been to expose Democratic rascals. TU*lr revenue reform consists in removing tbe tariff on quinine amounting to $32,657, thereby breaking down our manufactory of it, aud turning eight hundred men out of employment, and in reducing the tax on whisky about $2,250,000 a year. But I must give you a specimen of Democratic financiering at home. The Democratic Legislature ol 1871, which reduced the State tax to five cents on tbe SIOO. also fulled to make necessary appropriations, and even to pay Its own bills. Tbe consequence was an insufficient revenue to meet current uxpeiises, which had to lie provided for by the next Legislature. At the session of 1873, it was also decided to pay the old internal improvement bonds, which had never been surrendered under the Butler bill, but had remained practically repudiated. This made it necessary to borrow money to anticipate the revenue, and it was done by tbe State officers to the amount of $910,000. The law Suthorixiug this expressly pledged payment from the proceeds of -current taxes, as was necessary to make it constitutional. But the next Legislature, instead of carrying out this pledge, authorised the loan to be extended. And to this day tbe Democracy, having control of tbeState, have never paid a cent of this debt. Over $680,000 have been appropriated for a new Iniaue Asylum, and $200,000 for a new Statelouse, which by law was pledged to its pay•neut. These buildings were needed, and ought to have been provided for by taxation, but the Democracy bad not tbe moral principle to do its duty. But worse atilt On the flrat day of Lh-ceiiiber last $200,000 of this debt was due. Knd although there, was a balance In the treas■ry ot $674,000. arid has been ever since over rSuO.OOO.it wa* not paid, but was renewed.' for <-n yeaia. Your money is kept in bauk that Democratic officers mar pocket the interest, while you are made to pay the Interest •fi the State debt. If this installment had been •aid aa it ought to have been, it would have -aved the State an interest charge; In t«9i years. >f $100,001., But your loss is their gain. Democratic economy Consists in refusing to*levv t ixes. to make appropriations and to pay debts; not in-n-ddcing expenses aud reaiovlng the bur-:t-na of debt. Democratic economy is of the kind which aares at the spigot white drawing from tbe bung-hole; tt Is content with creatini•■nligations for its opponents to pay, and then crying out atiout their extravagance. LEGISLATION AND LABOR. When other argument* fail them, our Demo•ratlc op i vine nt* are fond of appealing to the shoring mon. They accuse us a* being the party of capitalists and bondholders, and plume themselves on being the poor man’s friend. Au.l on occasion they do not hesitate to repeat the communistic accusation that all modern legislation is in the interests of the rich. And they have specifically demanded that the bonds of the government should be taxed, claiming that their exemption la an outrage on tbe poor. Now, if it is true, as Is implied in such arguments. Gist there is a close relation between Demoer.icy and poverty, I reaiiectfuHy suggest that tinancial wisdom is not likelv to come from that source. But which party is the beat friend of labor inly be Judged from deeds rather •han word*. While the Democracy advocated (be degradation of labor by defending slavery, Republicans enfranchised tbe slave and elevated tbe laborer from a chattel into a man. it was the Republican party which open*a the public lands for free homesteads to all the oeople. while the Democratic party signalised its return to power in the House of Representa*lvee by asking the repeal of tbe homestead act In tbe Southern Staten Modern legislation seeks to guard tiie righto of property in tbe owner, by punishing crimes against i boss . rights, because this is tbe basis of civilisation, and is as essential to labor aa to capital. Bui modern legislation tends to guard tlie ■ fornser from the oppression of tbe latter, father than otherwise. Ail Hen laws, exemption town, stay laws, and valuation laws aid In thia direction, aa well as laws abolishing Imprisonment and titvoluntary service for debt. As to exexempting government bonds from tafcatien. It ’ must be remembered that this is done to enable tbe government to borrow money at cheaper rates, and 'recßUM tbe United States does not tax any other kind of property- The States are not allowed to tax them, because this would be to put tbe credit of the Nation under L>e control of tbe States, and prevent it from, borrowing money in time of war. And tike demand for their taxation is not in the mtorest Of tbe people, bat in assertion of the State sovereignty heresy which brought on us secession and civil war. But tt I* worthy of imtiee ie a party so devoted to tbe interests of the poor that it should so constantly take its can did stes from the rieh. Th* possession of a “barrel of money," nod a willingness to uee it ia seennng nominations and elections, seemed to be the chief requisite, both for Governor and President. Friendliness to tbe poor is tho talk of tbe Democratic party, friendliness to the rich is its practice. It Is time that honest workmen looked at deeds instead of word*. -SPECIE PATMENT*. As a necessary result of the war. its large expenditures. debts, ana paper issues, there was a suspension of specie payments, an inflation or prices, and * general disturbance of healthy business relation*. The immense consumption at th* government stimulated prodaetion; the rapid aecnmnlation of fortunes promoted extravsgance and nourished speculation; and when Ute war ended the snergtee ot the Matie*

SUPPLEMENT.

Were turned totaasaMO Improvements SS aa investment of money. CWee were built, farms improved, railroads extended, art ths era of proftDerity' deemed ueadix. Municipal* SorpSrate; credits w« ported to their extreme Mmlto, art tbe mountain of debts piled fearfully high. This could not alway* last. Tte banking house of Jay Cooke A Co. was crushed under the load of 850,000,000 of Northern Pacific borts, other firms went down with them, art a panic ensued. Financial disaster was widespread, prices fell, fortunes disappeared, business stood still. Years of hard times fallowed, during which accumulated manufactures were consumed, patient economy practiced art debts paid off. Slowly but surely these disasters were repaired, capital brought into profitable employment, labor employed in productive industries, art prosperity restored to tbe community. Throughout all these trying scenes the Republican party safely guided the ship of state. Tbe public debts, the Interest account and the taxes were steadily reduced; tbe public credit was improved and established; the public obligations were faithfully met, coin accumulated in the treasury, aud specie payments triumphantly resumed. It would be too much to say that no mistakes were made, or that no one faltered at the prospect. There were doubts, desertions and blunders; financial heresies grew rank; but in the main the party was right, its management was good, and the results have been successful. Our restored prosperity and sound financial condition are the complete vindication of Republican policy. Throughout all these change* the Democratic party stood as the party of obstruction. It opposed and found fault, rejoiced at disaster and denied prosperity, proposed no measure for good, and combined every faction for hindrance. Not to fight these battles over again, but to recount the success and prove the wisdom and trustworthiness of tbe Republican party, I must recall some of them. FAILURB OF DEMOCRATIC PROPHECIES. When finaficUl disaster followed the panic, instead of attributing it to its true cause, unprofitable improvem ents and reckless indebtedness, the Democracy resolved that it was the result of ah unwise contraction ot the currency. But investigation diselosed tbe fact that tbe panic occurred at a time when thevoliii' c of money was larger than ever before, ana that every preceding panic in thia country had occurred under precisely tbe same circumstances. It was expanded credit, not contracted currency, which induced the panic. But there wan this difference between this and all other panics: that in all others the distress was aggravated by bad money front breaking banks, while in this not a dollar was lost from this cause. We could not keep tbe country from going in debt, but we could and did give it good money. We were told that resumption of specie payments wab impossible, because we could not accumulate tbe necessary coin: that the foreign demand was so much greater than ours that even the most profuse sale of six percent, bonds would not enable us to accumulate a $100,000.000 of coin. But when the time came tbe Secretary of the Treasury found no difficulty in accumulating $140,000,000, and that, too, in exchange for four per cents. A year and a half ba* passed since resumption began, and instead of finding tbe treasury drained of specie, as our political opponents predicted, we find it constantly accumulating. Our volume of pnner money is about 8700,000,000, every dollar as good as gold, because it will command gold whenever the bolder desire*. Our gold and silver supplies have risen from $140,600,000 in 1873, the year of the panic, to $400,000,000 at the last report of the director of the mint. The Democratic, opponents of the resumption act told u* that it must be repealed, because the attempt to force resumption, under its operation, would be ruinous; that it-would require the destruction of all the greenbacks and a large part of the banknotes, because we could not maintain over $250,000,000 of paper; that this would produce an enormous Increase of the bonded debt, involve a terrible shrinkage of price*, and eventuate in universal bankruptcy and ruin. But the act was not repealed, went into effect without creating a ripple of excitement, has not diminished the volume of paper nor increased the public debt, and ha* been followed with improved prices and renewed prosperity. Instead of a contraction, it produced an expansion of the money volume, by releasing coin into the channels of business. And our combined volume of coin aud paper, every dollar of which is worth 100 cents, is greater than tt ever was before. This constant falsification of Democratic prophecies of evil and constan t vindication of the wisdom of Republican management ought to count for something in our choice tor the future. If we have done so well in the past, under circumstances of such great difficulty, and in spite of Democratic opposition, we may certainly lay claim to be trusted for the future. Every prediction of disaster made by them has proven false, ■* every promise of reform has been violated. And now that pros perity has returned *s we predicted, and from the execution of our measures.it is ludicrous to witness their attempts to claim the credit. Tlieir control of Congress has not rcsultea in a single act contributing to the result; but five years of supremacy in tbe House of Representatives is marked by abortive attempts at mischievous interference. Partisan success "has claimed far more of -their attention than public interests, and the only basis of congratulation is, that they have done nothing.

FREE COINAGE OF SILVER. Amongst the favorite topics of Democratic discussion is the silver question. They talk loudly of the outrage perpetrated by the Republicans in abolishing the “dollar of our fathers/’ and demand the free comm of silver a* well as of gold. As to the fact* of the case aud the interests of the people, these they are willing you should be ignorant of. They do not tell you that the coinage of the dollar of the fathers was discontinued in 1806 by a proclamation of Thomas Jefferson; nor that, tn 1873, when it was dropped from the coinage act, it was worth thn-e cents premium over gold; nor that, for thesa'reasoDS, ft was an obsolete coin; nor that it was dropped by the almost unanimous vote of both-parties: yet all these things are true. In>m>-diately after this was done, Germany also having adopted the gold standard, the sudden and wonderful development of our Western silver mines, concurring With a large falling off In the demand for silver in India, caused a great fall in the price of silver, amounting almost to a panic. This decline it was which led the advocates of “cheap money,” that is. of money of little value, to discover the outrage, and demand its restoration. It has been restored to it* legal place as a coin, aud great quantities of it have been manufactured; but it* unpopularity is evinced by the fact that it will not remain in circulation, everybody avoiding it because of its weight, and it returns in constantly increasing quantities for storage in the goverraent vault*. This being the case T* no reason for inoreaaing it* coinage, aud especially none for it* free coinage. As the law now stands the government buys silver on the market, coin* it into dollar*, and put* the profit* ifito the nubile treasury. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1879, this amounted to *2,924.-938-67. Free coinage woulfi take this from the people and give it to the silver king* of Nevada and Colorado. It is better a* It is. GREENBACK AND BANK NOTES. We have now a system of National bank*,with liberty to multiply their number, and to increase their issue of paper money as rapidly a* the want* of business may require. Our bank note* are equal in value to greenback*, because redeemable in them at the pleasure of the holder. Our greenback note* are equal in value to coin, because the coin can be had for them whenever wanted. With a volume of coin and paper, of equal value, amounting to *1,165,- ( 00,000. we surely have money “equal to the want* of trade.” We have had bountiful crops, the balance of trade la largely In our favor, amounting in five years t0*921,179,834; capital 1* being safely invested, labor Is profitably employed, and prosperity is evident on every hand. And yet the Democratic party is not happy. It still cavil* and finds fault. It held Republican administration responsible for the hard time*, but refuses tn accord it any credit for prosperity. It alleges that Providence, and not the Republican party, is to be credited with the Improvement Well, we are ready to admit that the Lord i* on our side, and we advise our opponent* that they had better come over to the Lord's side, for It 1* sure to be the victorions side this falll But our opponents are not satisfied, are sure that they can improve things, and are especially hostile to the National bank*. They assert that the note* of these banks should be withdrawn from circulation and greenbacks issued instead; they assert that greenbacks are cheaper and better currency, and they denounce the outrage of paying these banks a pretQium to issue money for the people, when the government could do It without expense. When we remember the Democratic faculty for blundering, and that oa all settled Issue* of the past they have been wrong, we may well doubt if they are now in the right. And when to this we add that they bitterly opposed the greenback* when they were originally issued, and denounced them a* unconstitutional, we may feel certain that they are wrong. We are glad that they have been converted to the faith of greenbacks, and we admire the seal with which these new eon verts advocate their new doctrine, but we doubt their discretion, and are rare we earn give them tear light If they have a teachaiSe ffispeMton

There are many rtilHi why tt would not be wise to Issue greenbacks in plaoe of bank notae, ftlpreiart was in dire distress, its p*pe» greaay depMiated. art Its need of further toans ta*entive, it soinumly promised that it would not Issue over $400,000.00 of greenbock*, exeept temporarily. A breach of tala can understand that It la national good faith, a scrupulous observance of oar promisee, which has enabled us to steer through the financial breaker*, art reach Ui* haven of prosperity. ▲ second reason is, that aa every greenback is a promise, whose payment may be demanded at any moment, crease of them will laoreas* the responsibility of tbe government to provide for them. More coin must be accumulated in tbe treasury for their redemption, thus keeping it of tbe channel* of trade; or el** there is danger of Inability to pay, a »m----penaion of specie payments, and-aU the di**ster* of an irredeemable paper currency. Of course tbe fiatista, and an who look on specie a* a relict of the dark ages, see no objection in this. But that delusion has run its race, art Che common experience of tbe world warn* us to keep In the path of financial soundness. ▲ third reason against tbi* echeme is, that tt would be to creates new volume of untaxed paper, art thus give an additional advantage to moneyed capital. Bank notes, p* the credits of private parties, are liable to taxation as other property, art are taxed by the United States as well aa by States, counties and cities. Bat greenbacks are United States notes, are not taxable, and cannot be made so without compromising the national credit and authority. This scheme, therefore, la not in the interest* of the people, bat of the so-called “money power, for the taxes lost from bauk paper would bar* to be transferred to other property. ▲ fourth reason is that it would encounter the risk of an adverse decision from the courts, and tbe loss of the greenback currency altogether. It is a well known fact that the power to issue paper money by the United States is not one of th* enumerated powers of the constitution, like that to coin money, but is an Incident to its power to borrow. Greenbacks are government notes in acknowledgment of debt, and bearing promise of payment. But whether these notetf can constitutionally be made a legal tender in the payment of debt* la very doubtful. It is well known that on the first trial of thia question, the United States Supreme Court decided the legal-tender clause of the greenback act to be unconstitutional; and on the second trial it was sustained, on tbe ground that a* the government had the power to borrow money to carry on tbe war. and to issue its promises to pay therefor, it might moke these promises a legal tender aa a means of sustaining Its eredit. But to do this in time of peace, when no need of borrowing exists, is sure to be decided unconstitutional. A fifth reason against this proposition la, that. IT our National bank paper was withdrawn, and the greenback* declared unconstitutional, our whole system of National paper money would be destroyed. This .wouldprove disastrous to every description of business, precipitate a terrific panic in the financial world, and Involve general bankruptcy art ruin. We must then confine ourselves to a currency of gold aud silver, or else we must go back to the old svatern of State bank paper. And here is the real meaning of this proposed change. The Democratic party is now, as it always has been, the State’s rights party. It has always opposed National banks because they were National, and favored State' banka because they were State. Of course, those who prefer the old State bank notes of Democratic days, when the people regularly lost five per cent, of the circulating medium every year from broken banka, and when a broker's office stood on every corner to exchange the depreciated notes, should favor this scheme as a means of reform. But those who prefer a National system of paper, under which bank note* are of equal valae everywhere, and under which the people have never lost a dollar, will oppose she change. A sixth reason against the proposed change is, that greenbacks are not a cheaper currency than bank notes; on the contrary, the proposed change would cost more than would be saved. Putting aside tbe grave constitutional and business difficulties I have named, admitting the change to be practicable, which it is not, still on the narrowest ground of profit and loss it- la not desirable, because it would cost, -more than it would come to. There are, say $330,000,000 of bank notes to be replaced with a like amount of greenbacks. What la the saving! We are told that these green backs will replace a like amount of bonds, and that the government will save the interest on these bond* now paid aa a bonus to the banka, and on which these Issues rest. Of course, if we take greenbacks and go into the market to buy bonds, we must pay the premium. But wo will make no account of thia, nor of any possible depreciation of the new issues. We will concede that greenback* can be issued in place ot tour per cent, bonds, dollar for dollar, to the amount named. The saving of interest by this operation will amouut to $13,200,000 a year. This is the saving; now, what 1s the cost! There is, first, the cost of the manufacture and issue of tbe greenbacks, which we will place aa low as one tenth of one per cent., or $330,000. Then in order to seep these greenbacks good we must be prepared to redeem them: that is, we must add forty per cent- of the amodnt issued to our coin reserves. Where can we get thl* additional $132,000,000 of coin! Only by buying it with bond*, on which we must pay the Interest, amounting to $5,280,000 a year. If we retire tbe National bank notes, of course we shall lose the taxes which are now levied on them. The United States taxes these notes qne per cent., and the iocal and State taxes amount to at least m per cent. This makes $8,250,000. Add these items together and the total foot* up a loss of $13,860,000, as agatuat a gain of $13,200,000. or a net loss of $660,000 per year. And you will see that in this? give every advantage to'the other side, not counting against them a single uncertain element. In short, the proposed change la both unprofitable and impracticable. It is advocated by the fiatista aa a cart of tbeir absurd theory, and by the Democrats tn the interest of their State’s righto heresies. and ought to be rejected by the people as unwise and ruinous. NATIONAL VS. STATE BANKS-

But the Democratic purpose to destroy National banks, in order to re-establish State banks, may be questioned by some, and in it* effect* is so far-reaching that it deserve* special consideration. It is not a mere incident of the discussion, but one of primary importance., Ten years ago the Democratic State convention of Indiana, held January 8,1870, resolved, “That the National bank system, organized in the Interests of the bondholders, ought to be abolished.” Five year* ago, in Ohio, their State convention resolved: "The Extinction of the present National banka and the establishment m tbeir stead of a system of free banks of discount and deposit, under such regulations a* the States may respectively prescribe.” Other Democratic conventions and State Legislatures have passed similar resolutions. The Democratic convention of Louisiana and Legislature of Tennessee demanded the repeal of the act of Congress taxing State bank notes, so as to enable them to reestablish their State bank issues. The destruction or the Matlonal bank system is the deliberate purpose of the Democratic party, and a return to a State bank system is tn* inevitable result. The one cannot be dene without the other. All commercial countries' hhve bankswe have always had them In thia country, and it is impossible to carry on our vast commercial business without them. There are three conclusive reasons why National are better than State banks, and ought to be retained in preference: 1. Because they are safer as banks of deposit. The average deposits of the banka of this country, as returned to the commiMioner of internal revenue, for the year 1879, ware *1,237,573,257. This was divided between National and State banks, snout two-thirds being time deposits in the latter. Now, the safe-keeping and prompt payment of These deposits'!* of vsrt consequence. In sixteen year* of National bank management, through all the vicissitudes of the panic, during wtrich time eighty-one bank* have failed, the total losses to their depositors have been *6.240.18*, a percentage of Teas than one-tenth of one per cent. It is impossible to tell the leases during the same time from State Institutions, because the States have no system by which the facts may be collected and published. Bnt during the last eight years the loeeee in the cities of New York and Brooklyn alone amounted to *4.475.061. During the three years. the losses In the State of Illinois were *6,123,052. During the same three years a partial table, collected by the comptroller of .the currency, show* a failure of 210 State Institutions. and a lose of *82,616,551, five times as much as the entire loss from the National banks from the beginning. And the reason for this Is obvious. The United States exercises a rigid inspection and control, immeDately detects losses or dishonesty, and winds up the bank with the least possible loss. The States do not aud cannot exercise thl* vigilance, and so assets are squandered and losses ensue. 2. Because they are cheaper as batiks of discount and exchange. It is a Well-known fact that State banks exereise a larger discretion in discounting paper than to> the National banks. They take more risk* and charge more interest. The reason is found in the careful government supervision. Bat aside from tbte is a more im portent erasKeratioa. Oar voinmo of eomiMrcial buatneM reaches not lees than thirty thou •and nulUMa of denars per amram. Ninety-fl ve

«v xwm aiuuuu* xs wxenang® least res half of money which «rsve* oar crops to theaeabo trd art to Europe, which dtatrtbutes our £2t£ ti>e er per^t r u*lly rebank aretem then*' free. These banka. mhiJt u doing busineas under the same inspection, kno7 in * standing, and compelled to hOfe' r , e^f s .X* afarnotes, have reduced tbe costa ana ?i n Xz r change to tbe minimum. tbe old State bank system A “ not so. Every Stat* bad tt* regulations, and every bank had t 6 take it* own risk*. Consequently, exchanges were fluctuating aud excessive. Seldom lea* than on* per cent, often they were three. Indeed they sometimes rose to six, and were even aa high as ten. To return to the old State bank system will be to renew thia eonfasioa end to restore this enormous tex on tbe business community. If only one-third of our commerce pays * tribute of one per cent, for exchange, it will amount to $100,000,000 a year, or more than the entire interest on the National debt. And thl* 1* the price we must pay for putting the Demoeratle party in power and allowing It to abolish our National bank system. 3. The third reason why National banka are to be preferred to State banka has already been given, because their notes are so moete better. 1 have pointed out to you the tact that the aebeme proposed would end in the destruction of greenback*, aud * return to State-bank paper. You have but to recall tbe days of Demoeratle wild-cat banking, when the printing press could not furnish Reporter* fast enough to record the changes of value in bank paper, and compare it with our present system to know which u best. Our uniform currency, secured by government bonds, is the best in the world. Under it we have never lost a dollar, and cannot lose even by the failure of the bank. It is the only system in the world wherein tbe note of a broken bank is as good aa that Of a solvent on*. And the reason I* that the United States require* tbe entire capital of the bank to be Invested in bonds, not for the profit of the bank, but for the security of the people. No mismanagement or dishonesty can squander it, and whenever the bank fails to redeem it* notes the government steps in and make* them good. Holding tbe capital of the bauk in its own bands, no possible loss can occur. Art this excellent system we are required to break down, in order to put the State-rights Democracy in power, and return to tho wild-cat banks of other days. It certainly will not be dona.

LET WELL ENOUGH ALONE. In conclusion, I ask you to review the financial situation and ask yourselves seriously If you hod not better let well enough alone U you put the Democratic party in power, what assurance have you for the result! Their candidate for the presidency ie totally without experience in civil life, and his opinions altogether unknown. The party is * conglomerate of all sorts of elements, hard-money mdn and fiatista. inflationists and contractionists. Its platform* are notoriously contradictory, one year and tn one place for specie payments, and another year and another place for the unconditional repeal of resumption. Who can tell what they will do! An internal struggle must take place to determine what shall be the party policy, tbe issue of which the wisest cannot foresee. Change must breed disturbance, and struggle must produce fear of consequences. Business will be deranged, capital will become alarmed, and labor will be thrown out of employment. With Republican success you know exactly what to expect. Ito candidate for the presidency is a statesman of experience whose policy is well settled. Its principles and purposes are written in the law* of the country. Under Its administration the public faith will be maintained, the public obligations will be met, the currency will be abundant and sound, industries will be protected and, prosperity f will continue. If the Democracy had bee® successful, if they had repealed the pubUc credit act, the specie resumption act, tbe National bank act, who can tell in what sea of troubles we would now be submerged ! With a sognd financial policy fully established, gold accumulating in immense quantities, our mine*, mill*- and work-shop* rally employed, our surplus agricultural product* feeding tbe million* of Europe, and prosperity smiling on every side, will you risk the consequences of Democratic supremacy! Tbe financial battle has been fought, the Republican* have been successful, and business prosperity is the result. Common sense bid* you keep in power those who have done so well.

THEN WHAT?

Suppose Gen. Hancock Should be Elected, What Would Follow? New York Tribune. Wbat doe* the South want to do— what could It do—ls it should get control of the government! Some think It could get back vrjt sums of real or pretended losses during the war. Bills already presented make clAims for many hundred millions on Recount of property taken or destroyed by Union forces. Is that all! These claims are enough, if allowed, to bankrupt any government, as has been fully shown, what a Democratic Congress would do with them, baring a President to sign its bills, we know from the names of members who offer such bills. Bnt is that ail! Suppose General Hancock elected; what next! A little bill to increase the number of Judges of the Supreme Court. At present the court i* overloaded with work. Instead of nine Justices, patriotic Democrats will say, let u* have nineteen, so that the work can be divided more conveniently, an<P the Democratic decision of the people maybe respected by the Judiciary. Excuses in abundance will be found, The bill will pass, and a Democratic President will sign it. and ten Bourbon Democrats will be appointed Justices of the Supreme Court. Then what! It is not worth while to dwell upon minor matters. General Sherman can be sued for every rail tojn up on his march ro the sea, General Sheridan for every pig confiscated to feed hungry boys In blue on their marches after a flying foe. But something greater is behind. The following is a sample of documents filed in many counties in the Southern States. It is copied from the official records of Chatham county, Georgia: [Book 2,222, page 203.1 State of Georgia, l Chatham County, j Before me personally came Isaac M. Harsh, a resident of Savannah, Georgia, who, being duly sworn, depcsetb and saith he was tn possession and the lawful owner of the following-named slaves at the time they were emancipated and made free by the United States government, towit: 1 woman, Sarah, age 15..... . 1 1 woman, Ellen, age 35, and four children from Bto 12 age .1.... 5 1 woman, Ann. age 40, and tpur children from 8 to 14 age..................... L..„ 5 1 man, Charles, age about 40 1 1 woman. Ellen, hi* wife, age about 60........ 1 1 woman, Isabella, age about 18 1 1 woman, Rhino, age about 50 1 1 man, Jim, age about 60 1 Total .....16 Isaac M. Marsh. |l.*. | Sworn to and subscribed before I me this July 20,1874. J Levi 8. Hast, Notary Public and ex-of-flcio Justice of th* Peeoe, Chatham county, Georgia. f nr _ ; ' Recorded July 20,1874. Ismc M. Marsh, it seems, has taken the pains to file legal proof, according to the laws of Georgia, that be was in “possession rad the lawful owner** of certain Slaves, to number sixteen, when “they were emancipated rad made free by the United States gtrrernment.” Why has he pot himself to that expense and pains! Of course he never expect* to get any pay for slaves emancipated—so long as there is a BeSbHcan President and Supreme Court. But if ire should ever be a Democratic President and Supreme Court! Then the little Mil of Mr. Marsh, for compensation on account of “property* taken from him by net of the United States government, would undoubtedly be presented. What would a Democratic court have to eay about it* . " Democratic lawyers have constantly claimed that the constitutional amendments adopted when ths Southern States were in duress were not lawfully or constitutionally adopted. There wonid be u* difficulty in finding ten Democratic jurists who would decide, aa Justices es the Supreme Court, that emancipation without payment for slaves set free was nnconstitujlonal. and that no amendment prohibiting payment for slaves set free was ever lawfully adopted. A Democratic Congress would then be asked to appropriate money to par for slave* taken from Mr. Marsh and others. How can a Democrat resist the claim! Mr. Marsh is not alone in filing proof of his Malm. All over the South, other such claim* have been placed on record. The Northern, or loysfl man. Who trie* to search the reeords to ascertain how many such claims there are, will And in four-fifths of the counties of the South local officials, “elected” by fraud and devoted to the Democratic party, who will take rare that there cun be no trae transcript hMder es slaves at the time of emancipation •»>«»* <,ooo,OUOilaveß, vMuewra about *SOO eacK Aa expeadltoro greater thaa tbe entire Na-

tienal debt at tbe United undoubtedly allow. - “** lo P®* re «® pd thei*|Bkrtin - r °*TZpen*ation until tbe Democratic ha* gained control of the government, nertbly they are shrewder than those wbe bewe made haste to file tbeir proof. But no one wbe understands the temper of the South wifi denM. that it i* the deliberate purpose to press these claims to collection, if a favorable court, OeegroM art Executive can once be secured. Bar. haps the people of the Northern Btatae see ready to double the National debt to pay hr staves Mnanctoated by the war. If ae, reey sen rationally rote for tbe election of Gamart Hancock.

STUFFING THE CENSUS.

Atiar4 Charleston, 8. a, Bpecl<M Tbe utterances orßeoator 2 h,tl ® r *rt OOfeX D. Kennedy and publications in *2® w *w a— Courier, showing an increase of 85 pa* wrtrt tbe population of South Carolina, were, art “baaed upon Inaccurate returns of the reartbf tbe enumerators’ work,” nor were they “artti upon returns from counties containing uuwertbiee,” as Superintendent Walker mildly engmart in the dispatch published In tbe Times. ~Thug rest upon tbe official returns of the enmanator*, end tbe alleged tncreaee exist* tn the arteultural districts only. Charleston, ao tar am population is concerned, is actually tbe naflr city in South Carolina. Tt Is the bustnen* camtor, and if any increase really existed in sba State it would show Itself here. In 1870 tikeflahabitantsof Charleston numbered 48.9M.art tbe census just completed, according be fibs New* art Courier's figuring, shows a popMrtrt of 49,999, an increase of 1.4 per naafe It also shows that the whites hacressed 1,256. and a decrease of 213 imiruigWa colored people. This would be* r out the re*aafe edly-expressed belief that the mortality areang the colored people in the South surpasses the ireqnency of birtn*. Outside of tbe limits sff ffba city, where they were no longer under parte surveUlanoe, tbe enumerator* were more resawnate in their search for hitherto undiscovwud humanity. Among the Swamps, farm* art miasmatie islands belonging to Chattauaan county, where it is almost impossible for wbrt people to live during tbe summer, they flaart an increase of 14,000, or nearly 40 per <W» over tbe population in the same places tn IST*. The New* aud Courier admits that several rt tbe other counties will show an increase <ff MB per cent. What better proof does Superintendent Wafer need that enumerators and aupervisor* eoanart ted frauds! He probably does and night an know that South Carolina bh* not benefited fer immigration; that many of the young whtterean have left the State to seek employment d® Northern and Western States, and that aaaav colored people have emigrated to State* wham they are allowed to cqjoy the right* of etttaan•hip. Where, then, does thl* immense ineraaa* come from!

BLANKED BLUE.

Frank Lander* Ha* a Brother-In-Law MX flicted With Candor. Sigourney (Iowa) Newk. Indiana Is conceded to be one of the ptrert State*, and it* election in October, if in faverrt the Republicans, may well be taken to have Madded that General Garfield will be dor mcaM President. Desiring to know how the Deaaa» racy felt in relation to that State, we eent « News reporter to Interview “Cy” Vickery- <fe is one of the “deep snow” men of Keokuk eemnty, having eome io this country in an eartyMar from “way back vander.” He is "well heeMr* having large lauded Interests in Warren, tewmahip, and a comfortable, cosy residence in Mm west part of Sigourney. Cy takes the wart easy, is something of a sport, and in the last ure elections rather got it on to tbe thrift®tmr boys, a* he put up largely on the "UntarrifaL* Cy is a brother-in-law of Frank Lander*, earthdate for Governor of Indiana. The folleWtagM* the result of our reporter’s pumping prooeaa: “Well, Cy, what is the outlook for fndiartF* t “Why, it looks d d blue, you know.** “Are you not betting on Frank!” "Well, I might a little, for relation's sake art to keep up appearances, but gad sir, it's a<inwy Judgment.” “What seems to be the trouble/” “Well, the d d fool Greenbackera are art solid, although Frank is -did on them, art (han some old hard money Democrat* are acting Mm d—d fool, and BfH English and hi* crowd are very unpopular, and they have a regular fmrtr quarreL I’m afraid of them, and the Reipnhsl can* have started all kind* of infernal Ure about hi* drinking, ete., and are sprer.ding than* all over the State until, I tell you, tt JaaMn blue, d— d blue." “Good day, «ir,” “Good day.”

ROBERT TOOMBS’S VIEWS.

The Machine Must be Ran to SaU (fen Soaihera Boy*. General Robert Toombs, the frank-OMfitiM Georgian, has given hl* views of the poottaal situation -and prospects tn a letter to a Bdertdn Washington. After a reference to som «s*• matters, he turns hi* attention to public vMdas, about which be writes in this interest!! r Mfftec "I am aa positive that Hancock will beetenrt aa lam that there is a God in the heawana. You say he is a Yankee. Well. I know timt; art I know, too, that bl* sword ha* pierced fin breast of many a gallant man in gray. Bn* wbat are we to do! We can’t put in one of ear men this time, and have to take a -Yank.' Than beiug the ease, let u* take one who i* lee* fetoa.bcllied’ than most of them.” “You may depend upon it. sir, that 'Yrtfwr no ’Yank,’ if elected, the old boy* of tbeSertl will see that Hancock does the fair thin* My them. In other words, he will run the tnaekfeh to suit them, ot they will run the thing thanaselves. They are not going to be played wrt any longer. “If you hear any man say that Hancock enonot carry all of the South, you may put flfea down aa a damn foot”

Duty of Greenbackers.

Chicago Inter-Ocean. Every infeUtgent, observing, posted, ertSfl Green banker knows that there is no chnMedn this presidential campaign for Weaver to rtfe either at tbe ballot-box, or In tbe House of ■*- reeentatives, should there be a failure to e'-rt by tbe people. There is not one reaeonaMewn of contingency to bang a hope unon. BtftMm Greerbaokers, by adhering to their sjpaaaha electoral ticket, may beaHetortov some doubtful State or States into the k*rta off the Democracy, and thna succeed, tt may be, fin ’ •eating Hsneock in the executive chair <rf Ms Nation. That result would endangerfitewareprinciples for which the Greenbackers are tending, because tt almost certainly wunld lert to a new contraction of the currency, rtfeh would be brought about tn tbe followhsganma The party which electa a president nartmr secure* also a working majority ta tart branches of Congress. The Bemcoraas nan pledged, both by their traditional poltey artrt ’ their platform, to pass “a tariff for revanmn only;” and they assuredly will so soon aaflhre obtain complete control of tbe gevewaaanre. Such a tariff baa always been followed fry an cesstve importetioM. These hare rtart , against ns tbe balance of trade; dralmift many our specie to pay for a glut of foreign- Maa& disordered the currency on a coin baste: *mre> pel led the banks to require payment Wremre and to restrict discounts, a* measures tonaan themselvee; art made money scares, nrttkrt tbe evils which sneh a condition always rtnMfe Both at home and übroad this has mvaafeMfe been the case under “a tariff for revenue

They Ought, in Deoeney, to Shut Up.

New York Times. The Democrat* are still trying to make snort nent the action of the electoral commlastonMa the present campaign. In the West partfertrtr Gen. Garfield is sasalled as having takanwoMM that action, which is, ot course, dernmnartsw fraudulent. The Deaaoerete forget thattiMnaremlaslon w** ade vice of their own InventtenHfem It was expected to result tn tbe eueceasaf fibaflr candidate; that tt wa* opposed by meny ttaartlican* ** extra-const!rational, ana that Rsaertu was distinctly based on the doctrine of the rrtaa art power* of State* which the Demceoartrt always maintained. Moreover, thl* eotiau-ana not final. It might hare been oremda* tar Congress, er even by either house, ’Hi aife which wae finally conferred on Preeideat Manna oonld rtre been, by orovisionartlM den. who, if anyone, was interested to ttasenmk is net a man to hare thrown away a binaa st success so long a* any was left fib him. On arear principle of common sense, therefore, ttts Stortl the Democrats ought to be closed on Si«finb

When They Smile.

New York Commercial Ad vertlsea A writer to the Pall MMI Gasette smflMß one of th* meet difficult part* of the educate MB.MwHj<mthtelm‘'tMeoraatry wna'ltora been better •* without the Irish.” •ome Irishmen kereabonta think ft wmM tee* beeu jm* a* well *< without him.TiF;

3