Benjamnin F. Butler, Butler's Book: Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin Butler

[934]

Not a word is here said as to the money in which these bonds shall be paid, either as to principal or interest. And why? Because the very section preceding had provided that the interest of all notes or bonds of the United States should be paid in coin, and had further enacted another lawful money which should be receivable in payment of all indebtment of the United States whatsoever, except duties on imports, and interest on the public debt. Is not the principal of the debt an indebtment other than interest?

There is the plain letter of the law. I need not discuss this point further. If there is any lawyer who, reading this law without taking into consideration anything except what stands on the statute-book, will tell me that this law enacts that the principal of the five-twenties is payable in coin, then “for him have I offended,” and either he is or I am so stupid as not to be worthy of an argument.

But the gentleman does not leave his proposition upon this only. The next ground he puts it on is, what this or that congressman said or omitted to say in his speech as to the currency in which this loan should be paid. And the first evidence of the contract he puts forward is that the honorable member from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens]--not now in his seat — did not say, at the time the act was passed, that the principal was payable in currency. Well, the gentleman from Pennsylvania sets forth in a letter recently written by him as a reason why he did not say it was payable in currency, that he did not think anybody but a fool would think it was not. That is not my language; it is his; that is the ground he puts it on; and when he comes in he and the gentleman from Maine can fight the battle out. I am quite certain that the old man sarcastic will take care of himself when he does get here without any aid from me; and therefore I pass from further consideration of this topic.

But it is said that various speeches were made on the one side and the other, which are cited to interpret this contract. I had supposed that there is no better settled rule of interpretation of either public or municipal law, or of the law of nations, than that nobody is bound by any portion of the negotiations or any portion of the declarations made either in regard to a treaty or a law prior to the enactment of the law or conclusion of the treaty, because the enactment settles the terms of the whole obligation, and you cannot go to the speech of this member or that member, in case of legislation, to find out what the legislation means, nor can you go to the protocols and negotiations prior to a treaty to find out what the treaty means. You must take it upon the letter, and I have never yet found any man bold enough — until my friend from Maine exhibited a degree of courage much superior to any bravery required to