One Thousand Secrets of Wise and Rich Men Revealed by C. A. Bogardus (best management books of all time TXT) 📕

(COPY OF U.S. BOND.)

The United States of America are indebted to the bearer in the sum of One Hundred Dollars.

This bond is issued in accordance with the provisions of an act of congress, entitled, "An act to authorize the refunding of the National Debt," approved July 14th, 1870, amended by an act approved January 20th, 1871, and is redeemable at the pleasure of the United States, after the first day of July, A.D., 1907, in coin of the standard value of the United States on said July 14th, 1870, with interest in such coin from the day of date hereof, at the rate of four per cent per annum, payable quarterly, on the first day of October, January, April and July of each year. The principal and interest are exempt from the payment of all taxes or duties of the United States, as well as from taxation in any form, by or under State, Municipal or local authority.

Washington, July 1st, 1877.

J. M. DOTY, Register of the Treasury.

Entered (G. W. B.)        (Recorded W. S.)

Now I am not trying to mislead you when I say that a party who proposes to pay that bond according to contract is not a repudiator, nor am I misleading when I say that a party who attempts to prevent its payment according to contract is a repudiator. The bond, according to its own wording, is payable in coin of the standard value of July 14, 1870. When we learn exactly what that coin is we will then, like Saul of Tarsus, see things in a new light. By the law that was in force on that date silver or gold could be coined into standard money and their standard value was their legal value. The Democratic party desires the privilege of coining the metals according to that law, and then paying the bonds with those coins according to that law. No repudiation there. No, not a particle. (Cheers.) The Republicans do not want to coin silver and gold according to that law, and they do not want to allow the debts to be paid in gold or silver money according to that law. There is repudiation there, yes lots of it; in fact, it is nothing but repudiation. (Great applause.) Do you want to hear about the anarchy part of this question? (Cries of yes! yes!) Very well, let us examine along that line. The Democrats say that the government can coin money and regulate its value and they will accept it in payment of a debt. No anarchy there; no, not a bit. (Laughter.) The Republicans admit that the government can coin money and regulate its value and make it a legal tender. But they openly declare that they won't take it in the payment of a debt unless they want to. There is anarchy there in abundance, yes in great abundance. (Great and continued applause.)

Let me ask the Republicans if it is not a little strange that a law savored with such element of anarchy and repudiation, should have been in full force in America from 1792 to 1873, a period of eighty-one years, and have pleased the people so well, that during all that time no political party ever openly advocated its repeal? Is it not, I ask, strange that George Washington, who fought so bravely for independence, should have signed a law for repudiation and anarchy? Strange, ah, very strange! is it not, that General Grant, when he discovered that he had unknowingly signed a bill for the repeal of the law that they now say would be repudiation, should have said he did not know that the law demonetized silver, and if he had known it he would have suffered his right arm to have been cut off before he would have signed the law.

My friends, not only do the Republicans advocate repudiation, but it also by proposing a scarce money system is advocating confiscation of the debtor's property, for with a large money basis, money is easier to get than with a small money basis. Careful thought will show that easy money means high prices, and when money is scarce and hard to get prices are low; it therefore follows that President Lincoln was correct when he said: "If a government contract a debt and then contract the money before the debt is paid, it is the most heinous crime a government can commit against its people."

We may boast long and strong of the great wisdom of our diplomats and the brilliancy of our statesmen, but whatever they may say will never overshadow the fact that in a people's government the people must vote understandingly, and when we thoroughly analyze this charge of repudiation and anarchy, we will see that it is the same old trick of the burglar crying stop thief to the honest man, while the rogue himself escapes.

Much is being said about our money being good abroad, and great fear is expressed by the banker's party that our silver money under bimetallism will only be worth fifty cents on the dollar in foreign countries. Now, my friends, let us use common sense, and we will easily solve the problem as to how to make our silver dollars good abroad, that feature of the question can be accomplished by following this plain easy method, namely, the next time a foreigner presents a bond of a few million dollars for payment, have Uncle Sam hand the gentleman the amount in silver dollars, then let the foreigner attend to making them good abroad. It will be to his interest to procure a law making the silver good in his own country. Now, I want to ask you in the name of common sense, would not you think the foreigner crazy if when we paid him in our silver, he would go to his own country and cry down the very money we had paid him? Oh, no, he would not do that; he would use his influence to have a law passed in favor of bimetallism in his own country.

But you may urge that he might not succeed in his effort, and he would have a lot of half value American dollars on hand that would not be good abroad. Very well, the worst thing that could possibly happen to us under circumstances of that kind would be when the foreigner found he could not pass the money abroad he would discover all of a sudden that the money is good in America, and as a matter of fact he would spend his money where it would be taken for goods. So we see that we would thus either force a recognition of our money abroad or else we would control the markets of the world. Then in reality we would pay our debts abroad in American produce at a fair price and keep our money at home, where it belongs, as a medium of exchange. And we would then realize the wisdom of the Hon. Wm. E. Gladstone when he said to the English Parliament that "so far as England was concerned bimetallism to them as a creditor country would compel them to pay more for American produce," but the grand old man in his frank and honest manner added, "so far as America is concerned, it would immediately give her control of the markets of the world."

When we lament the fact that under our present financial system the rich are growing richer and the poor are becoming poorer day by day, we hear some one say, "that is true, but the law of the survival of the fittest is to blame for those facts." If you will pardon me for seemingly diverging from the subject I will say something in regard to the abuse of the law of the survival of the fittest. Yes, I admit that under any law, and under any conditions, those who are best suited to the conditions under which they live will get on better than those who are not so well suited by nature to combat for existence and prosperity. Nature has so laid its plans that, at or near the equator in the warm climate tropical fruits grow better than they do in Iceland, while the pine trees, true to nature, thrive best in cold regions. The Polar bear enjoys the snows of Alaska, but would suffocate in the tropical heat of Borneo or Sumatra. True to the law of the survival of the fittest, the elephant and ostrich thrive in sunny Africa, but would perish in Norway's winters. These things are true, because all nature is in perfect harmony with itself. When carefully considered, we find that the reason some things prosper in one place and perish in another is merely that they are fitted for the conditions in which they thrive and are unfitted for the vicious surrounding in which they perish. The lion and tiger prosper among vicious beasts, but the child and lamb survive better where love, mercy and righteousness reign.

Let us suppose that Christ and John L. Sullivan were contesting for the pugilistic championship under London prize ring rules, most assuredly Sullivan would win in the first round. But let us change the conditions and make the place of