63rd Congress, 2st Session,
(December 1, 1913 -- October 24, 1914)

debates of House Resolution 7837
to provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks

The Chaplain, Rev. Forrest J. Prettyman, D.D., offered the following prayer:

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gifts.  Along the track of the years there lingers the sweet music of an angel song, and its blessed ministry has never died out of the human heart.  It has come at this time into the lives of little children and speaks with its blessed message of hope to the heart of our common humanity.  It has come with its refining influence into the Christian home.  We bless God that it inspires us all to a likeness to Him, who gave Himself that we might be rich.

We bless God to-day that with the recurring seasons the message comes back to us from Thee, unfolding Thy glory, inspiring us with the ideals of the life of a perfect manhood, giving to us a spirit of helpfulness and brotherliness.

We pray that the spirit of the Christmas time may enter into the hearts of these Thy servants, inspiring, enlightening, cheering them in the discharge of all their sacred obligations.  We ask for Christ's sake.  Amen.

Conference Report--Banking and Currency.

The Vice President.  In accordance with the unanimous consent agreement, the Chair lays before the Senate the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 7837) to provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, for furnishing an elastic currency, affording means of rediscounting commercial paper, and to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes.

Mr. Gallinger.  Mr. President, ordinarily a conference report ought to be read, but I ask unanimous consent in this case that the reading of the report be dispensed with, as it is in print.

The Vice President.  Is there objection ?  The Chair hears none, and the reading of the report is dispensed with.

Mr. Bristow.  Mr. President, the conferees who participated in the conference on this bill have made certain changes in the bill, some of which I think are bad.

Mr. La Follette.  Mr. President, would it disturb the Senator if I should ask him a question ?

The Vice President.  Does the Senator from Kansas yield to the Senator from Wisconsin ?

Mr. Bristow.  I do.

Mr. La Follette.  Would it disturb the Senator to inform us who did participate in this conference and whether any Senator declined to participate ?

Mr. Bristow.  As to those who participated in the conference I am not advised.  I was a member of the committee of conference appointed by the President of the Senate, but I had no knowledge as to the meeting of the conferees until after the report, as it is before us, had been made, printed, and placed upon the desks of Senators.  I was then notified by the chairman of the committee that there would be a meeting of the committee of conference at 4 o'clock, two hours after this report of the committee of conference of the two Houses of Congress on the bill (H.R. 7837) to provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, for furnishing an elastic currency, affording means of rediscounting commercial paper, and to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes, had been placed upon my desk.  I, in company with the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Nelson], visited the room where we were invited to appear.  We found the chairman of the committee and the Democratic members of the committee of conference, there, and were given to understand that they had perfected the conference report.  We were then invited to express our opinion of it, but I preferred to express my opinion where it might appear in the Record, rather than in the privacy of the committee room, and that I shall undertake to do this morning.

I see this report is signed by the Democratic members of the committee.  Of course, I did not sign it because I was not invited to sign it, and I should not have done so, anyway, for I did not know at the time the report was prepared what it contained, and I had had no opportunity of ascertaining what it contained.

The first important change made in the bill by the conferees --and I am merely going to call attention to the important changes-- is found on page 4, where an organization committee is provided for, consisting of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Comptroller of the Currency.

Mr. Townsend.  Mr. President, does the Senator from Kansas know whether the bill which is now on our desks is the report of the conference committee ?

Mr. Bristow.  I suppose it is.  Document No. 335 says:  "As agreed to in conference" and "as passed by the House."  That is exactly the same document and the same number as the one which was laid on our desks yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Gallinger.  Will the Senator permit me ?

Mr. Townsend.  I want to finish my question, if the Senator from New Hampshire will permit.

Mr. Gallinger.  Very well.

Mr. Townsend.  I want to ask the Senator from Oklahoma whether this large document here [exhibiting] contains the correct report of the conferees ?

Mr. Owen.  There is a second print marked on the "Comparative print," which contains the last changes made by the conferees and agreed to.  I suppose the Senator has that in his hand.  There were two of those prints, and this latter contains the various changes that were made.  After the first preliminary draft was printed for use, the Democratic members of the conference committee met, went over the bill, and reconciled their differences so far as they could.  Then, as chairman, I summoned a meeting of the conferees at 4 o'clock, as the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Bristow] has stated, but the Republican members suggested that it was offensive to them for the Democrats to have previously met and done this work, and so they withdrew from the conference without being willing to remain, although we urged them to do so and to express their opinions about any changes they would like to have made.

Mr. Burton.  Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield to an inquiry ?

Mr. Owen.  Mr. President, the Senator from Kansas has no justification in supposing that the majority party can not or would not act in unison and as a unit in conference.  If the Senator thinks that he, representing an opposition party, can split the Democratic Party at his convenience and change the policy of the majority of the Democratic Party in this body, he is mistaken.  He tried to do it in the Banking and Currency Committee and he failed.  He was not permitted to try it in the conferences of the Democrats of the Senate, and we had good reason in excluding in the preliminary consideration of this bill the Senator from Kansas, because we did not want a "debating society" in lieu of a conference.

Mr. Bristow [Joseph Little Bristow (1861-1944) Kansas, R; studied to be methodist minister; very active supporter of female suffrage; gathered together a number of books on the subject, in 1983 Eustace Mullins aquired that collection].  Yes; I will get to that pretty soon.  There are some things in this bill which the senator from Kansas was for that the Senator from Oklahoma is against.  The President of the Senate appointed the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Kansas as members of the committee of conference and the Senator from Oklahoma had no right, either in morals or so far as the membership of this body is concerned, to exclude him from a full and free conference in that room, whenever the bill was under consideration.  I believe it was done because the Senator from Oklahoma knows that he could not control the vote of the Senator from Kansas any more than he could control the votes of all the Members on the Democratic side in the interest of certain great banking concerns which have had a part in the framing of the provisions of this bill.

Mr. Owen.  Mr. President, I deeply feel my recent affiliation with the big business interests of the country, and I appreciate the complete reform of the Republican Senators, who have had for years the opportunity of giving this country relief against big business and have never done it, and who have not only been affiliated with big business, but have been receiving campaign funds ad libitum from those very interests.

Mr. Bristow.  The Senator from Oklahoma, who has assumed such virtue in the years that are passed, who has denounced the Aldrich bill, has accepted its most offensive provisions and covered them with a mask to deceive the American people, and he knows it.

I now come to the insurance of deposits.  Before I take that up I will refer to the provision on page 42, which requires the Federal reserve bank to receive on deposit at par from member banks or from Federal reserve banks checks and drafts, and so forth.  That will come as a severe blow to the small country banker, who has so violently protested against that provision.

Now, I want to take up section 7.  Every provision in this bill that was in the interest of the banks has been retained.  The provisions that were stricken out were provisions in the interest of the public.  I call the attention of the Senate to the colloquy with the Senator from Oklahoma on the last day that the bill was before the Senate in regard to the insurance of bank deposits.  It will be remembered that I read an article from the New York Sun, in which it was said that Secretary McAdoo had been revising this bill, and that one of the things he decided upon that should go out was the provision for the insurance of deposits.  The Senator from Oklahoma, after some equivocation, finally said that there was no agreement that it should go out, but declined to say that it would be held in.

I want to speak just a few words about the insurance of deposits.  It has been attacked upon this floor with great violence.  A provision was placed in the bill which was ineffective, but it recognized a principle.  It would have been of advantage at least to some parts of the United States.

The present postal savings bank is simply a scheme or a system very largely for the insurance of deposits.  The Government takes the money from the people and pays 2 per cent interest on it.  The day that it is deposited in a post office an officer goes across the street and deposits it in a bank, and the bank pays the Government 2½ per cent.  The postal savings bank system was instituted for the purpose of giving the people who were afraid of banks a safe place to put their money.  They had confidence in the Government, but not in the banks.

Mr. Thomas.  Mr. President---

The Presiding Officer.  Does the Senator from Kansas yield to the Senator from Colorado ?

Mr. Bristow.  I do.

Mr. Thomas.  I think the Senator can go a step further and say that the purpose of the pending bill is to insure bank notes or notes of issue.

Mr. Bristow.  Yes; that is true.  The argument that was made for the postal savings bank was that it would bring money out of hiding;  that such money would be deposited in the post offices, where those who are skeptical as to the safety of banks would have no doubt about its safety.  It has resulted in bringing out something over $30,000,000 that has been deposited in our post offices.

As I said, the same day this money is taken by the post-master and deposited with a bank, the bank pays the Government 2½ per cent;  that is, the Government insures the safety of that fund to the depositor and charges him one-half of 1 per cent for it.  If there is any Senator here who can deny that proposition, I should like to have him do it now.  It is nothing in the world but an insurance of the money to the depositor that it will be returned.  The Government does not use it.  Probably one-thirtieth of the amount that has been deposited has been invested in bonds, but the amount is comparatively insignificant.  The postal savings system, as we have it now, is an insurance of deposits, for which the Government charges one half of 1 per cent;  yet we are told it is unsafe to take a part of the profits of a regional bank and insure depositors in the member banks against loss.

The fight that has been waged here against depositors'  insurance is an unjustifiable assault upon as sound an economic principle as ever was woven into the statutes of the United States.  It ought to have been in this bill.

The Senator from Oklahoma can preserve the features in this bill that add to the profits of the bank of which he is one of the owners, but he lets go out the only provision that would insure the safety of the funds of the people who deposit in those banks.

Mr. Owen.  Mr. President---

The Presiding Officer.  Does the Senator from Kansas yield to the Senator from Oklahoma ?

Mr. Bristow.  I do.

Mr. Owen.  The Senator from Kansas goes far in attempting to impugn the motives of a brother Senator.  He violates the Senate rules in doing that.  I shall not dignify the intimation of the Senator with any answer.  It does not deserve an answer.  I have for years advocated a guaranty fund or an insurance fund for bank deposits.  I spoke in this Chamber five years ago in favor of it.  The House committee is preparing a special bill on the plan of insuring bank deposits.  They have a subcommittee expressly charged with that duty.  They expect to bring out a perfected bill and one that is not so imperfectly drawn as this proposed use of a part of the funds which are earned by the Federal reserve banks.  I should expect to assist in perfecting a measure of that kind, but I remind the Senator from Kansas, while he invokes the gods to witness as to the perfidy and wickedness of the Senator from Oklahoma, every single member of the Kansas delegation who voted at all voted for this measure in the House.  The Senator thinks he represents Kansas.  Not a single member of the Kansas delegation voted against this measure in the House.

Mr. Bristow.  I regret very much that is the case.

Mr. Owen.  Six of them were for it and two were absent.

Mr. Bristow.  I regret very much that the Representatives from Kansas should have so voted.  I think if they had been thoroughly advised none of them would have voted for it, except those who do not profess to be free and independent from the dominion of a caucus.

Mr. Reed.  Mr. President---

The Presiding Officer.  Does the Senator from Kansas yield to the Senator from Missouri ?

Mr. Bristow.  I will for a moment, but I must get through.  I am taking more time than I ought to take.

Mr. Reed.  Very well; I will take a few moments after the Senator is through.

Mr. Shafroth.  I should like just to say in a minute that during the conference consideration the Senator from Oklahoma insisted three or four times upon this amendment being in.  It was denied by the House conferees.  They made the claim that they were going to have a perfected system.  The action of the Senator from Oklahoma was absolutely loyal to the provision which the Senator from Kansas is referring to.

Mr. Reed.  Mr. President, that is what I rose to say, exactly, and I would have said it in stronger terms than my friend from Colorado has said it.  I only make a remark now because I want to emphasize what he said.  Since I have the floor, let me say that this was practically a last-ditch proposition on the part of the Senate, and it came to a point where, manifestly, there would be a disagreement reported and the passage of the entire measure delayed unless there should be a yielding.

The fact which induced us to yield was that a bill is in process of preparation, indeed it is almost, if not quite, prepared, developing a plan that will create a real fund.  Even if such a plan did not exist, we have the power to inaugurate such a plan;  and even if neither proposition were true, it still remains that if the Representatives of the House absolutely refused to yield and we had the choice of delaying or defeating the entire bill or yielding this matter, it would have been better for the country, of course, to yield upon the principle that if you can not get entire relief, you had better have some relief than nothing.  The criticism of my friend from Kansas---

Mr. Bristow.  Mr. President, I beg the Senator from Missouri to remember that the time for discussion is limited to-day, and I shall have to ask him to speak in his own time.

Mr. Reed.  I did not know that.  Let me finish this sentence, and I am through.  The criticism of the Senator from Kansas upon the chairman of the committee is not justified by any fact which occurred in conference.

Mr. Bristow.  Mr. President, it may be satisfactory to the Senator from Missouri, in whose sincerity of purpose I have confidence, so far as this proposition is concerned, to say that "we will let this go out of the bill and we shall provide for it in different legislation."  Since I have been in the Senate that has been one of the methods of defeating legislation.  Now is the opportunity;  now is the accepted time;  now we had the provision in the bill.  If it were desired to perfect it, it would have been just as easy to perfect it now as it would have been to perfect other provisions in the bill.  It was a provision directly in the interest of the depositors of the banks.

I notice the Senator from Oklahoma did not yield the point that the interest to be paid on the stock which these same banks are made to hold should be 6 per cent instead of 5 per cent.  The House provided that the dividend to be paid on the stock by the regional bank should be 5 per cent.  The Senate increased that from 5 per cent to 6 per cent, and that provision remains in the bill.  It was a provision of the Senate that gave the banks 1 per cent more, and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Weeks], when he discussed the bill, declared that it meant throwing away by the United States Government a million dollars.  I suggested on the last night when the bill was under consideration that we could take that million dollars and create a depositors' insurance fund, which would be of value to the depositors in the banks throughout the United States.  Oh, no;  that suggestion could not be accepted.  Those who drew the bill in the interest of the national banks preferred to put that million dollars into the coffers of the banks instead of putting it into a trust fund to insure the money of the depositors in the banks.

You may say, "We will legislate on this subject in the future."  Yes, possibly;  but now is the time.

Mr. Owen.  Will the Senator from Kansas yield to me ?

Mr. Bristow.  I shall have to let the Senator from Oklahoma answer in his own time.  I want to read an extract from the Congressional Record, on page 4719, of September 5:

Mr. Williams.  I want merely to read a part of Jefferson's Manual which relates to a direct personal interest, not to the general interest of consumers.  I am interested in beef because I am a consumer of it:

"Where the private interests of a Member are concerned in a bill or question he is to withdraw.  And where such an interest has appeared his voice has been disallowed, even after a division.  In a case so contrary, not only to the laws of decency, but to the fundamental principle of the social compact, which denies to any man to be a judge in his own cause, it is for the honor of the House that this rule of immemorial observance should be strictly adhered to."

Then the Senator from Mississippi continued:

The Speakers of the House of Representatives and the presiding officers of the Senate have ruled that the Member's vote could not be excluded in his interest, because he himself was the judge of the fact as to whether he was personally and directly interested or not;  that he must rely upon his own sense of honor and justice in determining that fact.

That was a quotation read and those were remarks made by the senior Senator from Mississippi when the tariff bill was under consideration and the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Lippitt] was discussing it.  An attack was made by a number of Senators on the other side upon the Senator from Rhode Island because he is interested in some cotton mills.  It was alleged that the tariff on cotton was directly in his interest.  While the tariff on a cotton fabric may be of general interest to the manufacturers of cotton fabrics throughout the country, it can not be located specifically and directly in the interests of a single manufacturer as personal legislation.  If a Senator owns a large interest in a bank and he votes for a provision which increases the earnings of that particular bank, does he not vote to increase his own personal fortune in a direct way and not in a general way such as would be the case under the tariff bill ?  I maintain that he does.  When a Senator votes for a dividend of 6 per cent instead of a dividend of 5 per cent on stock in which he has a personal interest, it seems to me that is coming in direct violation of the rule which Jefferson's Manual lays down;  it is far more direct than any vote could be on a tariff schedule;  yet the indignation of some Senators in this Chamber against some other Senators who have voted on general schedules has been very great.

I now want to read a clipping which has been handed me, which is as follows:

Owen Invests in new bank -- Senator will be big Stockholder of St. Louis Institution.

Senator Robert L. Owen, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, last night confirmed a report that he is to be a large stockholder in a national bank now being organized in St. Louis.  The head of this institution will be the Rev. J.T.H. Johnston, president of the Reserve National Bank of Kansas City.

The new institution will absorb a number of other St. Louis banking concerns, among them the German Savings Institute and the Commonwealth Trust Co., the latter being one of the influential financial concerns of the city.

My allegation is that this bill has been drawn in the interests of the banks;  that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Owen], as the chairman of the committee, is largely interested in banks;  that the profits which will accrue to those banks directly will add to his personal fortune;  that he has voted to increase the dividends on the stock of the regional banks, which will be paid to the member banks, from 5 per cent to 6 percent; that he has voted against permitting the public to hold the stock of these regional banks and has insisted that it shall be held by the member banks;  and that he has voted against giving the Government the control of the regional banks, and in favor of the banks controlling the regional banks, and it is for him to say he has violated the rule laid down in Jefferson's Manual.

In closing I desire to say that this bill contains a concentration of power that has never been lodged in any Federal officer since the Government was established.  It puts in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury and his subordinate officer, the Comptroller of the Currency, a power over the banking and currency affairs of this Nation greater than has ever been held by any man in the history of any civilized nation over the banking and currency of that nation.

Where are we coming to in the centralization of power ?  The Attorney General by a statement sends up the stock of corporations, the aggregate capitalization of which is more than $500,000,000, approximately 10 per cent in a single day.  By his action he can decrease the value of that stock tomorrow in the same amount.  When you take the power which the Attorney General assumes under the laws and add to that the power that this bill places in the Secretary of the Treasury, you are providing a centralization of power that Alexander Hamilton would have blushed with shame to have suggested, and yet this is done by a political party that holds up Thomas Jefferson as its patron saint.  Ah, you may pursue this course and deceive the American people for a time, but it will be for a limited time, and for a limited time only.

Mr. Owen.  Mr. President, it will only take me a moment to answer the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Bristow].  Twenty-four years ago I did establish a little bank down in Oklahoma --the First National Bank of Muskogee.  I had stock in it then, I have stock in it now, and I shall keep it until I die.  I am proud of that little bank;  it has done a good work in its sphere.  The suggestion of the Senator from Kansas that my action in connection with this bill is moved in any degree by my possession of that stock is not only ridiculous but absolutely false, and the Senator knows it is false.

The suggestion made by the Senator from Kansas that 5 per cent on $100,000,000 --which would abstract $5,000,000 from this system-- is less expensive to the general public and more advantageous to the banks than 6 per cent on $50,000,000 --which would abstract $3,000,000 from the system-- is mere foolishness.  There is a difference in favor of the 6 per cent on $50,000,000 over 5 per cent on the $100,000,000 of $2,000,000 in favor of the general public.

The banks of the Southwest do not regard a 6 per cent investment as a valuable investment.  They lend money at 8 and 10 per cent;  they are doing it now, and they have no difficulty in placing money at 8 per cent on excellent security.  The suggestion of the Senator does no credit either to his judgment or to his heart.

Mr. Reed.  Mr. President, I shall occupy the floor but a moment, because the time is limited and I understand, under the arrangement which has been made, all of the time has been assigned to the other side of the Chamber except about an hour.  I said in part when permitted to interrupt the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Bristow] that the Senate conferees had contended for the so-called guaranty, or insurance, provision of this bill until it became manifest that a disagreement would result.  A disagreement would of course have delayed the final passage of this bill and possibly would have imperiled its passage at

unduly inflates the currency it will certainly have failed as a political emergency measure.  It is true that a number of years ago --18 or 20 years ago-- the demand was for more money.  Prices were low and it was said that we could not have good prices without more money;  and yet at this time, when the claim is made that things are too high, thereby showing by the same rule that there is a redundancy of money, it is proposed to pass a law for political purposes which will make money more plentiful, without regard to its quality.  Under existing conditions if such a result follows it will be a mistake.  Such a law can not be passed and the country still maintain that stable prosperity, that sure progress which it has enjoyed and ought to continue to enjoy.

Furthermore, the bill is passed at a time when the country is disturbed over conditions not directly connected with banking and currency, but with the relations between capital and labor, with propositions to control the great trust question, with unsettled conditions of industry generally, with new schemes involving a reorganization of the Government itself, some of which questions have had their birth in the minds of ambitious and sensational politicians operating for political revenue only, at a time when legislators have been overworked throughout a long year's sessions.  Under those conditions the public mind, as represented in the Senate, at least, is not in the most judicial frame for passing upon legislation which should endure during many years to come.

I think that this bill creates a political machine --one of the greatest political machines that has ever been created by legislation.  Mr. President, the modern cry has been against political machines, and yet under the sanction of law it is proposed to create one whose possible baneful effects may control the finances of our country.

I referred a moment ago to the fact that the condition of the country is peculiar.  The Democratic Party is in power, to be sure --in power not by the will of the majority of the people but because of a division among the opposition.  One of the leading characters, perhaps the dominant character, in this administration is a man [W.J. Bryan] whose ideas on finance, whatever else we may say of him, have not been considered sound.  I assume that not even a majority of the majority approve those ideas now.  That his idea is to have more money there can be no question;  and I am fearful that, inasmuch as it is possible to create a political board, one will be created;  and, having created such a board and given it unlimited power, lodging in it great discretion as to the issue of currency, having given it the power to appoint all the employees of the system, we will have a machine which, it seems to me, it is unwise in every particular to create.

It is undoubtedly true that there are some features of this bill which are good, but I submit that the 25 per cent bad, to which the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Weeks] referred, is sufficient to vitiate it all.  I do not believe that the existing law is 25 per cent bad.  That law provides for emergency currency and is good enough until we can get together in a non-partisan manner and enact a law which will not be dictated by the ambitions of politicians or by the necessities of a political party in trouble.  Every candid Senator will admit, if he consults his honest convictions, that we could have had not only a better bill than the one before us but a good one if partisan politics had been eliminated and an honest effort made to get the best.

I said it was a bad time to pass this law.  We have just passed the tariff bill.  We now propose to pass a currency bill.  Suppose, for argument's sake, that the country shall go "wrong," as we use the term, suppose that conditions shall not be what they ought to be, to what cause are we going to charge that condition ?  Some of us insist that because these bad conditions had begun before this law was enacted they are due to the tariff;  other gentlemen will insist, possibly, that they are due to the currency legislation.  Where are we going for the remedy and where are we going to apply it when we think we have found it --to the tariff or to the currency, or to both ?  Must the next Congress, in its efforts to bring relief, revise both the tariff and the currency laws ?

It has seemed to me that with the emergency currency law which is now on the statute books we could well have tried out one of these great experiments at a time.  Then we would have known exactly the cause of the trouble, if trouble should exist.

So, Mr. President, believing, as I do, that this bill is not carefully framed, believing that it is possible under it --nay, probable under it-- to inflate the currency to such an extent as to bring disaster to the country, believing that it is framed upon partisan lines for political purposes and that a currency bill should not be a partisan measure, believing that instead of restoring order it will add to existing confusion.  I have felt it my duty to vote against it in the past, and I shall feel it my duty to vote against this conference report.

Mr. Lewis.  Mr. President, how much time is there yet undisposed of on this side for those sustaining the report ?

The Presiding officer (Mr. Saulsbury in the Chair).  The Chair is informed that there has been no division of time whatever.

Mr. Lewis.  Mr. President, I am conscious of the ability of the members of the Committee on Banking and Currency to discuss the merits of this measure to a degree so much superior to anything I contribute that I will not trespass upon that field.  Nor, sir, would I mar the effect, certainly the success, of any discussion they may offer upon the correctness of this measure.  I shall intrude myself upon the Senate for a few moments to indulge one or two observations that have suggested themselves to me as I have listened to the eminent Senator from Michigan [Mr. Townsend] and the able Senator from Kansas [Mr. Bristow].

I came into the Chamber this moment when the very enthusiastic and energetic senior Senator from Kansas was, with his usual vehemence and always admirable declamation, pouring out his invective upon those who were the creators of this bill.  He expressed with unqualified malediction his prophecy as to the ruinous effect of its operation.  Then, when he was followed by the versatile Senator from Michigan, it became evident to my mind that these eminent Senators really are haunted with the specter that there is in the distance somewhere, not now to be located, some danger, and they wish to cry out against it that they may get credit for sounding the alarm.  Though they do not see it, yet they would have the country understand that it is approaching.  They do not exactly understand in what form it is stealing upon us, but they wish to have the country understand that whatever it is, they wish to be held as having "spied it first" and to have early disclaimed responsibility for it.

The philosophy of these distinguished Senators seems to be compiled and expressed in that famous quatrain that has come lately to us from the humorous poet in the phrase:

I never saw a purple cow;
I never want to see one;
But I will tell you, anyhow,
I'd rather see than be one.

I will say to the distinguished Senators that with all the "bulls" they may perpetrate upon the Senate they need have no fear of being impaled upon the horns of this imaginary purple cow which somewhere upon the road is supposed to collide with their vehicle of progress.

The able Senator from Kansas seems to have an idea that a very great machine called centralization is quite on the way to disturb the democracy of this country.  But the distinguished Senator from Kansas did not hesitate, in his very able addresses, to propose to the Senate the creation of a single central bank in the United States of America, with a single head, with a single body, with various arms --arms truly of Briareus, eyes of Argus, and strength of Hercules-- that could, with all the force of ancient and modern power, grip the Republic in a single hand and tyranny of centralism --an institution that would only relax its control whenever to do so served the political uses of the political party in power or crush the Nation when it declined to yield to its dictates.  Yet this is the able Senator who inveighs against this bill for fear for what he says is centralism.

My learned friend from Kansas has not hesitated to give his approval in the past to all that system of government that has turned over to the Federal power --as against the local home rule or State government-- those instrumentalities that centralize all power in the Federal Government under the theory or designation of a Republican Party domination.  The conscience of the wrong of all this that has lately come upon him as against centralization seems to be a new birth and a new baptism.  I would welcome him to the creed, and likewise to the conversion, but I would rather see it in acts of performance than in mere profession of words.

What is the grievance of the able Senator from Kansas ?  It is that in this bill there are some elements to which he can not give his accord.  Will the distinguished Senator from Kansas certify to his country that with the platform of his party demanding that there shall be currency reform, and having demanded it in the last eight gatherings --certainly in the last four national conventions-- that the Republican Party shall, as far as he is concerned, make the declaration but shall do nothing toward its performance;  and that when something is done by the Democracy it shall be defeated, however filled with blessings, however faithful to its promises, however full in its relief, merely because it comes from the Democracy ?  Surely that can not be the sentiment of a patriot;  and that the distinguished Senator from Kansas is patriotic we are ready to concede.

The objection lies solely and wholly, if I do not misunderstand him, in the creed of his saying, in effect, "Either the scheme I present or none.  The country may be in want, but it will take the bread I improvise or none.  It may thirst upon the road, but it will take water from my cup or it shall thirst to its death.  It shall continue in all its distress unless it takes its remedy in nostrums from my hand.  If it shall not bear the credit of my name, my distinction, and my authorship, then be it the House bill or the bill from the Senate house which may tender remedy --in the language of Mercutio to Montague and Capulet, I shall cry out 'A plague upon both your houses.' "

This may in certain regions of this country go for statesmanship, but with the small wisdom that I am able to summon up I can but impute to it a temporary political expediency which will not serve an enduring or enabling use.

When I saw my learned friend from Kansas turn from his past faith;  leave off the pursuit of his old hope, and colleague with those Senators on the other side whom for days and days in the last two years he has been holding up to the execration of his country;  when I recalled his past, that when he sought the votes of Kansas at any time successfully, he got them by crying out the names Gallinger, Root, and Penrose, and by the names of this Mephistophelian trinity was enabled to win the approval of Kansas and the restoration of himself to the confidence of the people;  I was pained to note that upon the very first opportunity coming to him he was found casting his vote with these gentlemen, with these eminent Senators, according to the views they possess, these which had for so long been denounced by him as the source of all public danger.  Mr. President, I could not help but conclude that the Senator had awakened to a fancy that there had come a time when there must be a change in his course.  That if there is to be a hope in Kansas, his hope must be anchored there with the accursed and condemned of yore.  That he had made a mistake in assuming that his past course had profit or political return, and that now he must return to the black mansion where ruled the tyrant trio.

I remember, Mr. President, that somewhere in the sacred songs we hear in the revival services there is something that goes like this:

There is a fountain filled with blood
Drawn from Immanuel's veins;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood
Lose all their guilty stains.

Mr. President, I fancy I can hear the distinguished Senator from Kansas in his new conversion improvising and paraphrasing that, in its application to these distinguished Senators, men whom heretofore he has so indicted before the country, his new chant to be:

There is a fountain filled with gold
Drawn from corporate veins;
And if I can be gathered into its fold
I may lose my Progressive stains.

Truly, the distinguished Senator from Kansas may take to himself what consolation this new religion may afford him, and ultimately he may feel that he will have his reward.  But now he turns to these singed and ancient forbears of the party against which heretofore he has cried out so greatly, but with whom he now allies himself at the moment of his emergency, when he approaches a conflict in Kansas in which by their aid he thinks he has much to hope, but, I fear, little to gain.  The Senator possibly now feels that from these only he has his succor, and possibly he turns to them now as he once clung in ancient faith;  and in the language of that sweet and gentle admonition of Ruth to Naomi, we can hear him again exclaim to "Penrose, Gallinger, and Root":

Entreat me not to leave thee, nor from following after thee, for wherever thou goest I will go, wherever thou stayest I will stay, and wherever thou liest there, too, will I lie and be buried also.

And, Mr. President, I dare say when these new redeemed gods of Belial come to speak of the Senator in the future they will no longer refer to him contemptuously as the "long hair."  He will no longer be designated as one who has gone wrong, and as an "anarchist" --no, no !  I deplore the suggestion that rises within me.  It will be none of these.  It will no longer be, sir, "the brave Bristow from dauntless Kansas."  No longer will it be "the independent Joseph Bristow" --alas, oh, no !  In recognition of the contrite position he has taken at their altar of the worship he has poured out at their throne, hereafter he shall be accepted in full faith and designated as "St. Joseph, our long-lost brother."

Mr. President, out of the sense of esteem and sweet affection I have borne the distinguished Senator from Kansas because of what I felt to be his pure motives, I regret to see this departure and this surrender.  Hereafter these devils of contrivance --these three Senators named-- which have been held up by him to the execrations of this country, are no longer to be regarded as enemies.  They are now the heroes of the salvation of the Nation.  They are now the exemplars of divinity.  They are the sole trinity of pure progress and virtue for the future, as far as the vote of the distinguished Senator from Kansas can certify.  There he will be no longer astray, though for some years out of the fold, shivering like the naked beast of burden, seeing the provender distributed to others who were saddled and bridled --he prefers to turn to where he can be ridden and driven by those whom he hopes can drive him safe to a distance just beyond which to what in navigation would be called a harbor and in politics would be termed a refuge.

Mr. President, out of my regard for him I call him back.  In the language of the philosopher poet, I cry to him :

Behold your host, noble scholar and student,
Look you! that no longer you should roam;
But to the glory of your fame,
To the honor of your name,
Turn about and come home.

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Townsend], ever pleasing to me --sir, there is no man who rises upon his feet here who, I assert, contributes more of sincerity, of sweeter eloquence, more accurate diction, or more delightful rhetoric than the able Senator from Michigan-- what says the able Senator from Michigan from his point of view ?  He exclaims that there will be a panic from this bill.

Mr. President, I have not seen a measure proposed here on the floor of the Senate from the Democracy that some distinguished Senator on the other side has not found it convenient to rise in his place to summon the American country to view the fire that is being lighted;  the incendiary hand that is lighting it, and the desolation that is just ahead, because some measure of legislation has come from the Democracy.  Says the Senator:  "This is a political bill !"

What does my distinguished friend expect in a political government ?  The bill, I desire to say to the Senator from Michigan, for two months and a half was before the Senate under the able leadership of the leader of this side and under the conscientious cooperation of them all, each and all of us endeavoring to make it a nonpartisan and nonpolitical bill.  What aid did we get from the distinguished Senator from Michigan ?  That committee duties may have called him away justifying his absence.  I will not deny;  but the roll call will indicate an absence more profitable to the committee he was serving than to the Senate.  Then I ask, What aid did the Democracy get in seeking to make this a nonpolitical measure ?  What encouragement from the distinguished Senator's colleagues ?  None.  Where was the cooperation of those who should have come to the Democracy to aid it in carrying out the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box or in platforms ?  It was absent.  Where was the effort on the part of the distinguished Senators on the other side to rescue the measure from the air of politics, in order to give it a business air and a nonpolitical character, that the country might obtain relief from it as ordered by both platforms --theirs and ours ?  The answer is, There was none.

Why ?  Because eminent Senators such as the distinguished Senator from Michigan feared that in the natural result of affairs some credit might fall to the opposite political party, and rather than have that small credit come to the Democracy they would defeat to the people the great benefit that would go to the country.  Then what was left ?  The Democracy, after long indulging the able Senators on the other side, calling them, sir, without hope, because the effort had been a failure, was compelled in take its resort to the only course left, that it might carry out the will of the people.  This was under party organization, by the Democratic Party --that party that had been designated at the ballot box to carry out the reliefs for which the people had voted.

The learned Senator is right.  The bill is political, political to the extent that it voices the political ideas of the people of this country, political in that it expresses in legislation the platform of the Democracy and that it now speaks the hopes of the Democracy for the welfare of the country.  To that extent alone is it political.

Says my friend, "It will bring about machine control."  Well, that there may be 10 or 12 men who may have a small control of the organization of the financial system --as all things must be controlled-- I will concede.  But where was the voice of the able Senator or his colleagues when, under an earlier organization, one man, the Comptroller of the Currency, had the control ?  Under the Aldrich-Vreeland bill, presented here in a preceding Congress, while the Republican administration was in power, shall it not be recalled that centralization there rested in three men, and they under no control of the Government at all, if I may read the English language ?

All things must be guided, honorable sir.  To some men each system must be intrusted.  The people have intrusted to us the administration and given to the Democracy the power to execute their will.  Then to those must be intrusted the bill passed by the legislative body.

But my friend, the able Senator from Michigan, still, in the words of Polonius "harps upon my daughter."  He recalls, no doubt, his support of the resolution of the able Senator from Kansas [Mr. Bristow] that sought to condemn the Secretary of State at a time when it was assumed that the Secretary of State, Mr. Bryan, was giving some of his time to public discourses before the country.  The dual combination of the fervent, impulsive, and generous Senator from Kansas and the calm, philosophic didactician from Michigan is always found whenever the name of Bryan is suggested or the possibility is opportune of some voice against him where he can not speak for himself.

Says the learned Senator:  "There is the hand of Bryan upon this currency."  I do not know whether the learned Senator from Michigan contrived that from his brain or whether it was born from a certain fatuous fetish worship I have observed on the Republican side of the Senate, that whenever the senior Senator from New York [Mr. Root] arises and says a perfectly evident thing in an extraordinary manner, yet with much hesitancy, as if he were in doubt himself about it [laughter], promptly there arise upon his side his generous worshipers, and lighting their tapers before his shrine cry out:  "Me, too! Correct you are, noble sage, reverend philosopher--how true!"  Promptly upon the assertion by that sage that upon this bill were the marks of what he termed, if I recall his expression, the "heresies twice repudiated before the country," whatever he meant by it --referring to the Secretary of State-- trusting as the distinguished Senator from New York did that he might arouse some old prejudice that had previously prevailed, awaken some fear;  light some alarm-- the able Senator from Michigan, ever alert and ever conscientious under ordinary conditions, likewise rises in his place, and, if I may use the barnyard illustration, when the great Shanghai crowed, the lesser brood flapped their wings and cock-a-doodle dood. [Laughter.]

Has it come to this, that able Senators of respectability and conceded capacity can find no other argument against measures than to seek to revive old and ancient differences long since disposed of, and that when the country is once again united, when we are in harmony, when the ridges that once divided us, the chasms that once separated us are all closed up and we are again seeking the common good, the common welfare, to give peace, prosperity, and happiness to a united people in our common country ?

Sir, since it pleases my able friend to conjure confusion by the name of Bryan, therefore reflecting an imaginary cloud upon the Democracy because he was its leader;  I invite him to recall what has been the effect of the teachings of Democracy when this man was its standard bearer.  Where are those denunciations against the position taken on the election of Senators by the vote of the people ?  The eminent Senator was the first afterwards, when the public were aroused to the justice of it, to cast his vote in affirmance of the doctrines which were preached and those which were advanced by the gentleman he now condemns.

Where was this doctrine, sir, of primary election, by which the people should express themselves directly at the ballot box, condemned on the part of eminent Senators on the other side as being in violation of the Constitution, anarchistic, socialistic, revolutionary, contravening every doctrine of common sense and patriotism --where ?  Why, adopted by the vote of the distinguished Senator from Michigan and his colleagues.  One after another the reforms proposed by the Democracy when the present Secretary of State was its leader have been espoused in the platforms of one wing of the Republican Party, designated as Progressives, and adopted, whenever there was a hope or desire of success, by the other, called the Republicans.

If the distinguished Senator from Michigan will pause to reflect, there will be borne in upon his mind that the great people outside of this Chamber are not deluded.  They are conscious of the great issues.  The Democracy has been placed in power.  It received its mandates from the ballot box.  One of them was to wrest the money control from those who had abused it, and to place it in the hands of those who would and prosperity to the great mass of the people.

The measure has received its birth from the Democracy.  If there be any amendation or changes necessary to perfect its life, they will come in due time, and in due and proper way, from the hands of those to whom the people have intrusted the subject.  The Senators need have no fear.  That duty will not be shirked.  It will not be abandoned.  It will never be surrendered.

There is before this country a united Democracy.  She stands upon the principle of the constitutional right of every citizen, however situate.  Her doctrine is, Sovereign citizenship to the humblest man;  equal rights to the poorest citizen.  There she rests herself to-day, and rejoicing in her reunion, she says to her fellow mankind, paraphrasing Philip of Falconbridge in King John:

Now that our princes are come home again.
Come the three corners of the world in arms,
And we shall shock them.  For naught can make us rue,
If Democracy itself do rest but true.

Mr. Townsend.  Mr. President, I shall not attempt to present many facts to disturb the picturesque Senator from Illinois---

Mr. Lewis.  I can not hear the Senator.  I cannot afford to lose anything he says.  May I ask for order for the Senator ?

Mr. Townsend.  I merely wish to call attention to one matter to which he referred, which might be taken seriously, although I doubt it.  The Senator stated that if the junior Senator from Michigan had been present in the Senate, he might have assisted in framing this bill.  That, of course, is a part of the humor of the speech of the Senator.  As if any Republican Senator would have been permitted to assist in that work !  The fact is that while I was away during some of the time the Committee on Banking and Currency were considering this bill, and nothing was before the Senate, I was away under the order of the Senate with the junior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Robinson] on the work of the Senate.

I doubt if any man has been in the Senate more than I have been during my term of office.  I am always in my seat.  I am here when the other side of the Senate Chamber is practically vacant.  I try to attend to the duties of my office.  If the distinguished Republican Senators who are members of the committee were unable to impress themselves upon the committee, I do not know what I could have done sitting here in the Senate when the bill was not before us.

Mr. Shafroth.  Mr. President, I regret very much that there has been criticism on the part of the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Nelson] and the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Bristow] as to the action of the conferees with respect to this bill.  They seem to ignore the fact that every tariff bill that ever has been passed has been the result of conference;  and not only that, but conferees have been appointed at the end of whose meetings the members of the opposite party were not permitted to appear and to consider the matter.

I wish to say that the Senators who have been criticizing the procedure stand in high esteem on the part of every member of the conference committee, but their action has been precipitated by themselves.

Mr. Bristow.  Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me to correct a statement ?  I understood him to say that every tariff bill had been conducted in the same way in conference.  I challenge the statement, and I do not believe he can point to a single tariff bill in connection with which a conference has been held in this way.

Mr. Shafroth.  I asked several Senators if that was not true.  I know the last tariff bill was passed in that way.

Mr. Bristow.  Yes; but that is the only one.

Mr. Shafroth.  If it was not done previously, it was just due to the fact that they had such an overwhelming majority that it was not necessary to bring together the members of the party with relation to it.

Mr. Smoot.  Mr. President, I simply wish to say that the Senator is mistaken, as far as the Senate is concerned, when he makes the statement.

Mr. Shafroth.  I know it has been done in almost every instance in the House.

Mr. Smoot.  I know nothing about the House.  I am speaking of the Senate.  I do know that the statement is incorrect, so far as the Senate is concerned.

Senator Robert Owen. Mr. President, the House acted on Saturday, December 20; voted down the Senate version roundly].  The Democratic members of the conference committee on the part of the Senate met and immediately undertook to reconcile their differences with the Democratic conferees of the House.  They worked until half past 4 o'clock Monday morning [December 22], at which time there was sent to the printer a preliminary draft of the conference report, subject to further correction and consideration before it should be finally completed and submitted.  At the same time there was ordered to be printed for the Senate a first edition of this preliminary draft of the report of the committee of conference.  In that first report we had reconciled most of the differences between the Democratic members of the conference committee of the Senate and of the House, but had not then completely reconciled all differences.
---[On Monday evening the House voted and accepted the conference report which ~reconciled the differences, now, on the 23rd of December the Senate is accepting it; and in hot haste, before the day is over, President Wilson signs it into law]

At 4.30 o'clock on Monday morning the Printing Office was given the data and at 7 o'clock a.m. the copy was prepared and at 1 p.m. the preliminary draft was printed in three parallel columns.  As soon as we got the copy from the printers --1 p.m.-- we immediately served the Republican members with copies and explained what work we had done and asked them to go over the items and see to what extent the adjustment of the points of difference was agreeable or objectionable to them.  That was about 1 o'clock --some time shortly after 1, to the best of my recollection.  Therefore, until 4 o'clock there was about three hours for the Republican members of the conference committee to examine the work which had been done as a preliminary matter by the Democratic members of the conference committee.

The full meeting of the conferees was called at 4 o'clock, and they were all present, except Senator Crawford, who had gone home.  The Republican conferees who for three hours had had the print showing what the Democratic conferees had been able to accomplish, were then invited to express themselves with regard to any of these items, but they felt offended because they had not been taken into consultation in the preliminary work and alleged that they had been treated with some indignity.  In point of fact, no indignity whatever was done them or intended to be done.  It was believed that we would make time by having the Democratic members come together and reconcile their differences without the interference of their political opponents;  and it was expected that the Democrats would stand together as party members and not permit the Republican conferees to control the matter in conference any more than the Democrats had intended or expected to permit the minority members of the Committee on Banking and Currency to control and write this legislation in the Banking and Currency Committee by cooperating with one Democrat.

There is a party obligation resting upon the Democracy.  They are in honor bound to deliver to the country a release from the intolerable conditions which have so long prevailed in this country under Republican and plutocratic rule.  I am not willing to charge those intolerable conditions to any one party alone.  I rather think they have grown up out of commercial and financial conditions for which perhaps no single individual can be held responsible;  yet the Democratic Party, in its great desire to improve conditions, made certain great and serious promises to the country and that party can only carry out its pledges to the Nation by cooperating as a party and by strict party organization.

Mr. Gallinger.  Mr. President---

Mr. Owen.  I yield to the Senator.

Mr. Gallinger.  Just one question.  I noticed that the Senator from Oklahoma said that the Democratic members did not propose to permit the Republican members of the conference committee to control the action of the conferees.  Now, I will ask the Senator this question:  Supposing those three Republican members held the same views that two of the Democratic members did on the matter of insuring deposits, does not the Senator think that those five men in that conference ought to have had their way on that particular point ?

Mr. Owen.  I will say to the Senator that the six members of the conference committee representing the Senate were in favor of the matter to which the Senator refers, but the House absolutely refused to agree.  I will say further to the Senator, answering the spirit of his question, that if there were two Democrats on the conference committee representing the Democrats of the Senate, I would regard it as party perfidy on the part of one of them to vote with the Republicans to turn down his colleagues.

Mr. Gallinger.  Then a conference is of no consequence at all, if its members are not to be permitted to express their views and vote their views.  I have always supposed the rule to be that it is necessary to have a majority of the conferees of each House to agree upon a report, and I had always supposed, if three Republicans chanced to agree with three Democrats in a conference committee of nine, that they ought to have their way.

Mr. Owen.  I do not understand that to be the practice;  I do not think that is the practice in a matter of this kind.  It may be true with regard to some immaterial matters, but not in the case of a great bill of this kind, which has been made a matter of party action by the Republicans as well as by the Democrats, because the Republicans all lined up practically unanimously against it in the Senate, as well as in the committee.  They stood together in the committee as a solid phalanx and made it a political matter by their own action.  In the first case the chairman of the committee attempted to prevent this matter being treated in a partisan way and thought it was possible to do so, but he found it was impossible to do it;  and when he ascertained that to be a fact, he did the only thing remaining for him to do --he treated it as a party matter.  He was completely justified in doing so, because there was no other way in which to get adequate results and to represent the sentiment of the Democratic Party in this country.