The Stark County Democrat

The following is an extract from Garfield's speech in Congress on paying the bonds in gold:

Thus, Mr. Speaker. I have shown that, when the original five-twenty bond bill passed the House in 1862, ALL who referred to the subject stated that the principal of those bonds was payable in gold; that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] so stated five distinct times and no member suggested anything to the contrary: that when in 1863 that gentleman raised a doubt on the subject he was promptly met by the statement of a leading member of the Committee of Ways and Means that he never before heard of such a suggestion and nobody on the Committee of Ways and Means dreamed of the possibility of paying them in anything but coin.

Old Thad Stevens pronounced it an absolute falsehood and stated that at the proper time he would take occasion to show the gentleman up in his proper light.

Old Thad is in his grave and the Tribune takes occasion to (and Garfield will, no doubt, do the same,) slander the old man's memory by putting words in his mouth that he never used. If there is any one political subject on which Mr. Stevens was honest and sincere, it was upon the policy of paying the 5 20 bonds in greenbacks. Last winter he wrote a letter to a friend in Lancaster on this subject, in which he said:

It is just, also, to the Democratic party to say that when the question has been discussed in the House no lawyer among them has set up such a foolish pretension ; and when the bill was on its final passage the question was expressly asked of the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, and as expressly answered by him that only the interest was payable in coin. But every instrument speaks f. r itself; when it is silent upon the subject of the currency it is always made payable in money, which means the legal tender of the country. I fear, however, I am elaborating this point ad nauseam, unless a newspaper editor or a country broker can enact laws and afterwards enforce them.

There is nothing short of the sheerest folly in this argument and it will not be persevered in by those who have sufficient strength to carry them gently over the "asses' bridge." Nay, more: I fear that what I am going to state may set New York editors and brokers upon a dangerous rampage amid the flowery fields and golden images of Chiriqui and Golfonto, and yet I shall venture to say that if the United States chose to be faithless enough she would tender and pay not only the principal but the interest in legal tenders, although the latter is expressly contracted to be paid in coin. The law of legal tender means this, or it means nothing. Let not this alarm any one, for no nation short of the basest Asiatics would ever think of such an act, however capitalists might ask trustees, guardians and administrators to violate the law and their sworn oaths to double the revenue which the public debtor is to pay them.

This language of Mr. Stevens is not to be mistaken. He was the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means who prepared and reported the legal tender bill and explained its provisions to the House and his word was taken that it provided for the payment of interest only in coin.

The proposition announced by Mr. Stevens that the government could, if it thought proper, pay not only the principal, but the interest in greenbacks, is original with him and has never been put forth by any other public man.

Yet Garfield, in his Painesville speech, had the meanness to charge it upon Mr. Pendleton. If this proposition should ever be forced into the political issues of the day, all we can say is, "Good-bye, Mr. Bondholder."

McGREGOR, of the Stark County Democrat had, in his last issue, asked him a question.
He disputed his right to ask questions. McGregor asks me to tell whether I am in favor of equal taxation. I am not. Taxation should not be equal. Those who have most should be taxed most. There should be discrimination between capital and labor. This sucker means am I in favor of taxing these bonds. I am-if he will find a way to tax them. If he had told the Democratic Legislature of Ohio, perhaps they would have done it. These fellows that go around asking questions had better be prepared to answer them.-Judge Ambler's speech at Waynesburg as reported in the Cleve. Herald.

Now, we assure the Judge, this "fellow" is prepared to answer:

And firstly, while the Radical Congress enacted that no State should tax the bonds, Congress for itself made no such pledge. There is, therefore, nothing to prevent Congress taxing the bonds. So here is one way found to tax the bonds. Let Ambler give us credit.

But we go further, and say that Congress nor no other power can say to Ohio, "there is a certain class of property in your State which you must legally protect, and whose owners shall have all the rights as to schools, roads, bridges, public asylums, &c., &c., and which property shall pay no tax for any purpose whatever." And we assert that the highest legal authority is with us on this position. Besides, let Congress amend their law-let the wrong be repealed.

But Judge Ambler is not "in favor of equal taxation," for "those who have most should pay most." We would give the school boy a sugar plum who would utter anything so smart. We would pat him on the head and tell him he was radically and niggerally fit for Congress. Bully boy!

"There should be discrimination between labor and capital," says Ambler. Does he mean that labor should be taxed and plundered, and capital (bonds, &c.,) go free? Is that his discrimination? Does he approve of the act of Congress exempting bonds from taxation? Would he, if elected, vote to repeal the same? Let us know without dodging or equivocating.