45th Congress, 2nd Session
Birchard Hayes, President
Almon Wheeler, Vice-President
John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury

Coinage of Silver Dollars.

Mr. Kernan.  I want to make one suggeation to those who favor the coinage of the silver dollar, and I make it in favor of the Finance Committee's amendment.  All who have advocated this recoinage of silver have agreed that if it turned out that silver bullion did not appreciate to the gold standard, we should have to change our law as to silver coinage.
---[ You are advocating for single gold standard.  Why should silver appreciate to the gold standard ?  Why not silver standard (and leave gold wherever it is, or wherever it goes) ? ]
Under the original bill, the Government would allow individuals to have their bullion worth less than par coined and make 3, 4, 5, or 6 per cent. for their own pockets.  That would not be right. ---[But to give controll of the nation's money supply to the international money power is just right in your estimation.]  But, again, if it turns out that silver does not appreciate, and we have to change our coinage law and make the silver dollar worth more than 412.5 grains, the Government, if it acts as every honest government has acted that ever issued a depreciated coin and made it a legal tender, would have to make that legal-tender coin receivable by the Government for its dues at par, as it had been put upon the people as a full legal-tender coin.

By the amendment of the Finance Committee the Government would make the profit of putting out the dollar made out of silver which was purchased below par.  The Government would in good faith have to make good to the holders of the depreciated coinage by receiving it at par, because it coined it and put it on the country as a legal-tender dollar worth one hundred cents.  I suggest this as a reason why we should in the view of those who want to remonetize silver let the Government have the benefit of purchasing bullion at less than par for the benefit of the Treasury, because if the coined dollars do not come to par the Government will have to take them in from the holders at par and not let them lose, whenever, if at all, we have to change our loan and make the dollar intrinsically worth more than 412.5 grains of silver.

Mr. Withers.  I would say a word in reply to my friend from New York.  If the silver appreciates in value equal to gold, none of the evils which he has predicted will occur;  and if we so legislate as to produce such a result, we must start silver in a condition to keep up with gold in the race.  What prospect is there of making silver co-equal in value with gold when you start it out in the race handicapped by the cost of seigniorage, which gold does not bear ?

Mr. Christiancy.  In reply to the suggestion just made by the Senator from Virginia, and a little before made by the Senator from Texas, as to allowing free coinage of gold and refusing it to silver, I agree with them.  I agree that neither of them should receive free coinage at the mints of the United States.  Whatever additional value is given by the coining the United States ought to be entitled to.  I will vote for an amendment to strike out the free coinage of gold and put them both upon an exact equality in that respect.  There is where I think they ought to stand.  The effect of free coinage of silver, which is worth some 9 or 10 per cent. less than gold, is to put that into the pockets of the owners of the mines.  That is the whole effect of it.  Why subsidize them more than subsidize any other branch of business in the United States ?  Let us test it by one single example.  Here are the owners of a mine and they are receiving this value for their bullion, some 9 or 10 per cent. more than it is worth.  They are paying the very men who dig the ore from the mine in depreciated currency.  The miner does not get the same value as the owner of the mine from the same amount of silver.  The producer or owner of the mine makes somewhere from 8 to 10 per cent., while the poor workman who is digging it out of the mine gets only his ninety or ninety-two cents.

Mr. Sargent.  Will the Senator please state where that happens ?  Do I understand the Senator to state that in California where gold is dug, the workman is not paid in gold ?

Mr. Christiancy.  I am speaking of silver, not gold.

Mr. Sargent.  The Senator from Nevada can answer as to that.

Mr. Christiancy.  I wish some one would show me some good reason why the owner of the mine should be allowed to receive more for his silver than the man who digs it from the mine.

Mr. Coke.  In the action on this bill I will vote for the bill as it came from the House;  I will vote also for the amendment proposed by the Senator from California [Mr. Boom.]  The amendment of the Committee on Finance, the amendment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. Beck,] and other amendments which discriminate against silver, already depreciated and needing a helping hand rather than discrimination against it, I shall vote against, as against all measures having that effect.  All the amendments, excepting the amendment of the Senator from California, as was remarked by the Senator from Virginia, handicap silver in its race for equalization with gold.  The argument upon which it is sought to defend these amendments is, that bullion can be bought at ninety-two cents, and that the Government should make the profit.  If I believed this to be a sound argument, I would not vote for the dollar of 412½ grains;  I would put more silver in it.  The theory on which I shall vote for the dollar of 412½ grains is, that it will be worth one hundred cents in gold, and if that dollar is worth one hundred cents in gold, the bullion, with free coinage, will spring up to par with the coined dollar.

If the coined dollar of 412½ grains, which we make a legal tender, ought to be made a legal tender, give silver bullion a free coinage and it will come up to par with the coined dollar.  When it does, there is no margin for profit to the Government.  These amendments are a legislative declaration of a policy against the coinage of silver, because gold coinage is free.  They are a legislative declaration of a distrust of the value of the dollar of 412½ grains.  They are a legislative discrimination against the silver dollar and a tax upon its coinage, and to that extent a disparagement to its coinage, while gold, already above silver, is coined free.  The English policy is to build up the gold standard, and they tax the coinage of silver and coin gold free.  The amendments which propose to do this thing, further the English policy, when we desire not to build up gold but to build up silver until it is equal to gold.

I shall vote against all these amendments.  I shall do it because they tend to depreciate the silver dollar.  They declare the legislative mind to be that the silver dollar ought not to be coined, or that its coinage ought not to be encouraged like that of the gold dollar, which is coined free.  I do not believe that it is the sense of the people of the United States, who demand the remonetization of silver, that this shall be done.  I believe that the people demand a restoration of the old constitutional relation existing between gold and silver, and that is, that they shall be equal before the law, equal, so far as they can be made, in value.

Mr. Saulsbury.  Mr. President, I expressed my views the other day npon this question of the amendment of the Committee on Finance.  I am in favor of that amendment above all amendments which have been offered.  In reference to what has been said by the Senator from Texas, [Mr. Coke,] every one here knows that to-day silver bullion is 8 per cent. below gold.  With that knowledge, is it not apparent that if we coin the dollar of 412.5 grains and say to every man "bring your bullion and take dollars for it," we are giving him as a gratuity, as a subsidy, all the profit that will be made.  I am against all subsidies for railroads or steamships or any other interest.  I want our legislative action, whatever value it may impart to the silver, to result in turning the increased value into the Treasury of the United States.  I shall vote, therefore, against all these amendments, except the amendment of the Committee on Finance to the House bill.  While I concede that there are not any very grave objections to the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, I prefer the amendment reported by the Finance Committee.

Mr. Chaffee.  I suggest to the Senator having charge of this bill that he make three or four slight amendments to meet the suggestions of the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Thurman].  After the word "dollars," in lines 20 and 21, the word "worth" should be inserted.  I think he will agree to that.

The Vice-President.  That question is not now before the Senate.

Mr. Chaffee.  In order to perfect the committee's amendments, I ask the Senator from Iowa to agree to it without any action of the Senate.

Mr. Allison.  I have no objection to that amendment suggested by the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. Ferry.  If the Senator from Colorado will yield to me, I call the attention of the Chair to the motion of the Senator from Colorado that he proposes to amend the text which is to be stricken out, which would have precedence over an amendment to the amendment or the amendment itself.

The Vice-President.  The Chair did not so understand the Senator from California.

Mr. Allison.  I have no objection to the amendment suggested by the Senator from Colorado, but I think the Senate must vote on it.

Mr. Chaffee.  I ask the Senator who has charue of the bill to accept the amendment.  I propose after the word "dollars" in lines 20 and 21 to insert "worth;"  so as to read:  Not less than two million dollars' worth per month, nor more than four million dollars' worth per month, &c.  And then in line 21, after the word "coined" to insert the words:  Monthly, or as near as may be.  So as to read:  And cause the same to be coined monthly, or as near as may be, &c.  I make these suggestions in order to meet the objection raised by the Senator from Ohio. I wish to vote for this amendment of the committee, and I should like to have it perfected in this manner.

The Vice-President.  The Chair understands that the Senator from Colorado proposes to perfect that part of the amendment which the Senator from Kentucky proposes to strike out.

Mr. Allison.  Yes, sir.

The Vice-President.  That is admissible.

Mr. Ferry.  I wish to make a suggestion to the Senator from Colorado.  I had the same thing in mind.  I suggest to him, after the word "coined," instead of the language which he proposes to use, to insert:  Monthly, as fast as so purchased.  So that it will read:  And cause the same to be coined monthly, as fast as so purchased, into such dollars.  The amendment directs the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase not more than $4,000,000 per month and not less than $2,000,000 per month, and simply directs hlm to coin that much, but does not direct him when it shall be coined.  There is nothing in the phraseology of the amendment to prevent the Secretary of the Treasury from withholding coinage one year.

Mr. Chaffee.  My suggestion remedies that:  "the same to be coined monthly."

The Vice-President.  The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Colorado to the amendment of the committee.

The amendment was agreed to;  there being on a division--- ayes 37, noes 11.

The Vice-President.  The Secretary will report the next amendment proposed by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Chaffee) to the amendment of the committee.

The Chief Clerk.  In line 21, after the word "dollars," it is proposed to insert the word "worth;"  so as to read:  Nor more than four million dollars' worth per month.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

The Vice-President.  The Secretary will report the next amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Chaffee] to the amendment of the committee.

The Chief Clerk.  The next amendment is after the word "coined," in line 21, to insert "monthly, as near as may be;" so as to read:

And cause the same to be coined monthly, as near as may be, into such dollars.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. Gordon. Is an amendment now in order ?

The Vice-President.  An amendment to perfect the amendment of the committee would be in order.

Mr. Gordon.  Then I move in line 20 to to strike out "two" and insert "three;"  so as to read "three million dollars' worth per month."

Mr. Ferry.  I think the Senator from Colorado upon reflection will see that the words "as near as may be" will apply to "monthly" instead of to purchase.  The object is to make the law explicit, so that there can be no ambiguity and no question of construction;  for, as has been said by the Senator from Kentucky, if there is no disposition to execute this law there will be a disposition to evade its provisions;  therefore it is necessary for us to express just what we intend.

Mr. Edmunds. You have got it admirably now.

Mr. Ferry.  Yes, the Senator from Vermont says we have got it admirably now.  We want to frame the measure so that it will admirably be enforced, and in order to do that I recall the attention of the Senator from Colorado to the language of his amendment, that it will apply to "monthly" rather than to the purchase of bullion.  If he would use language something like this "to be coined monthly, as fast as so purchased," then it would be confined to the purchase of bullion, whether it be four millions a month or two millions a month.

Mr. Morrill.  I desire to call the attention of the Senator from Michigan to the fact that the words inserted on the motion of the Senator from Colorado, "to be coined monthly, as near as may be, into such dollars," apply to dollars;  they are to be made as near as they can be into such dollars.

Mr. Edmunds. That is right.

Mr. Ferry.  Now the colleague of the Senator, the senior Senator from Vermont on my left, gives another construction to the language suggested by the Senator from Colorado, showing the necessity of careful expression now upon this bill and such as we intend.  I say "we."  I take it for granted that the bill is to pass.

Mr. Morrill.  I think the amendment is very proper.

Mr. Ferry.  I may say just here, Mr. President, all that I intend to say, in a general way.  I have hitherto refrained from expressing my views upon this bill because as is well known I have been one of the earliest advocates of the remonetization of silver and its use as part of the coin of the country.  As a member of the Committee on Finance, I was in favor substantially of the limitation here placed, and believed that the maximum limitation was not objectionable ---as the amount of four millions a month was greater than the capacity of our mints, and the minimum limitation was beneficial in directing the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase 2,000,000 a month.  I became satisfied that if there was no such limitation upon this bill the Secretary might or might not in his discretion make the purchase, and could well afford to acquiesce in the maximum in order to secure the enforcement of the minimum purchase and coinage.

Not being present in the committee when the form of the amendment was reported, being absent from the city, I subsequently called the attention of the Senator, the member of the committee who reported the amendment, to the ambiguity of the expression referred to, and I hope now that it will be modified.  I will take an early occasion to further amend the amendment suggested by the Senator from Colorado.  I desire to put it in the language I have proposed, which I think will be clear, explicit, and give rise to no doubtful construction.

Mr. Chaffee.  I am satisfied myself upon reflection that the suggestions of the Senator from Michigan are good, and I shall vote myself for such a modification of the amendment as he suggests.

Mr. Ferry.  If amended as I propose, it will read thus:  And the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to purchase, from time to time, silver bullion, at the market price thereof, not less than two million dollars' worth, per month, nor more than four million dollars' worth per month, and cause the same to be coined monthly, as fast as so purchased, into such dollars.

Whether it be $2,000,000 per month or $4,000,000, the coinage must be in the same proportion as the pnrchase.  Now, it would seem to me that that is clear and explicit, and there can be no ambiguity by which any Secretary of the Treasury can misapprehend the intent of the framers of the law.  I hope the Senator from Colorado will move to reconsider the vote so that it can be reopened and passed as I have suggested.

Mr. Chaffee.  I make the motion to reconsider the vote, if it is necessary.

Mr. Edmunds.  It is necessary, because it has been agreed to.

Mr. Ferry.  It can be done, perhaps, by unanimous consent.

Mr. Edmunds.  Let us go regularly, because I think as it stands it is better to move to reconsider.

Mr. Chaffee.  I ask unanimous consent that the last amendment on line 21 be so amended as to read, "Monthly, as fast as so purchased."  I think there can be no objection to that.

Mr. Edmunds.  We must have it reconsidered in the regular way.

The Vice-President.  The Chair understands the Senator from Vermont to object.

Mr. Edmunds.  I do.  I think it better to proceed in the regular way.

Mr. Ferry.  Then will the Senator from Colorado move to reconsider ?

Mr. Chaffee.  I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment to the amendment of the committee was agreed to.

The Vice-President.  The Senator from Colorado moves to reconsider the vote by which his amendment was adopted.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to.

The Vice-President.  The question recurs on the amendment of the Senator from Colorado to the amendment of the committee.

Mr. Ferry.  I suggest to the Senator to insert after the word "coined" in line 21 "monthly, as fast as so purchased;"  so as to read, "and cause the same to be coined monthly, as fast as so purchased, into such dollars."

The Vice-President.  The Clerk will report the pending amendment with the amendment moved thereto.

The Chief Clerk.  The amendment which was adopted and reconsidered and upon which the question now recurs is to insert after the word "coined" the words "monthly, as near as may be."  It is proposed to amend the amendment so as to read, "monthly, as fast as so purchased, into such dollars."

Mr. Howe.  I was about to suggest to the Senator from Michigan, and to the Senator from Colorado also, that it seems to me that this amendment or any amendment in that place is entirely unnecessary.  It seems to me the bill as it stands is entirely intelligible, is not likely to be misunderstood by the Secretary of the Treasury or by anybody else.  There is an express command to him to purchase a certain amount of bullion monthly and to coin the same.

Mr. Ferry.  If the Senator will allow me, while the language is strong and forcible enough and direct and explicit enough as respects the purchase, I ask him, under this phraseology as reported by the committee, when is the Secretary of the Treasury compelled to coin that money ?  As it reads he is to purchase $2,000,000 or $4,000,000 per month and cause the same to be coined into such dollars, when ?

Mr. Howe.  I will answer the Senator when I think he or any honest Secretary would have that coined, and that is as fast as the Mint could coin it.  He is told to purchase two or three millions a month and to coin all that he purchases into dollars.  The argument or suggestion is that the Secretary may purchase 2,000,000 this month of bullion, 2,000,000 the next, $2,000,000 the next, and let it lie in the Treasury or in the Mint as bullion rather than to turn it into coin and disburse it again.

Mr. Ferry.  I remind the Senator that it is not a question of integrity, it is a question of judgment, of construction.  We might possibly have another Secretary of the Treasury who might be adverse to the enforcement of this law and would seek every pretext to evade it.  While the Senator cannot escape the fact that the committee have sought to make alterations both as to the maximum and minimnm in the purchase, if that was deemed essential under even the present Secretary of the Treasury, why not limit and direct whoever may be the Secretary in reference to the coinage as well as to the purchase ?  One moment more, and I will not interrupt the Senator long.  The language is plain, and I put it to the Senator from Wisconsin if any Secretary of the Treasury should be adverse to enforcement of this law, or rather be against the use of silver as a part of the coin of the country, might he not purchase the bullion and allow the bullion to lie in the vaults a twelve month without coinage.  This bill says he shall cause the same to be coined, but does not say whether it shall be this month, next month, or twelve months from this time.

Mr. Howe.  Let me answer the question of the Senator from Michigan by putting to him another question.  If the Secretary of the Treasury does not coin in March the bullion he purchases in March, but piles it up in the Mint, and adds two millions to that in April, and two millions to that in May, and still goes on purchasing two millions per month, when is he going to coin it ?  By and by he finds six or twelve or twenty-four millions of bullion in the Mint with a capacity to coin but two millions per month, and he is purchasing two millions a month still.  Evidently he has got to coin as he purchases or he has got to disobey the law.

Mr. Ferry.  In what respect, I ask the Senator ?  The language is "cause to be coined," but does not say when or how fast.

Mr. Howe.  Simply by not coining what he purchase.

Mr. Ferry.  Ah!  But there is no limitation as to the time he shall coin it.  He may keep the two millions a month accumulating until there are twenty-four millions and still not coin it, and having a lease of several years of administration he might not hasten to cause the coinage.  He might ---I do not say that he would--- commit such a violation of the plain intent of the statute by postponing coinage, and allow the bullion to accumulate.  As long as he coins it within the limitation of his tenure of office, I think he would comply with the provisions of the bill, if the language is not made more clear and mandatory.

Mr. Howe.  If the Secretary shall be as dishonest as is stated---

Mr. Ferry.  The Senator will pardon me;  I make no reflection upon the present Secretary of the Treasury.  I put the supposititious case that if there were a Secretary of the Treasury who was adverse to the enforcement of this measure.

Mr. Howe.  If the next Secretary---

Mr. Ferry.  That is better.

Mr. Howe.  Should be as dishonest as it is conceived a Secretary might be under this bill, and would, therefore, rather than coin silver dollars go on packing bullion into the mints, how long would it be before he would exceed the limit mentioned here in the proviso ?

Mr. Ferry.  I have anticipated that.  I propose as we go along, to make the bill perfect.  I understand that at the close of the amendment there is a limitation that he should not invest more than $5,000,000 in bullion at a time.  I understand that there is a limitation to that extent, but where we are to provide for the purchase of bullion of not over four millions per month, and not less than two, I think the clearest, the most satisfactory way is to direct the Secretary also to coin as fast as he purchases, so that we may get in coin what he is authorized to purchase in bullion.  The limitation in the proviso even would allow two millions a month to be purchased for two months and a half without coining a dollar and keep within the terms of the statute if enacted as it now reads.

Mr. Howe. If the object of the Senator from .Michigan is to put in an amendment here which will make this bill perfect when something else is stricken out, I do not know but tha.t be bad better persist in the amendment that he has macle here. I was judging the amendment urged by him in reference to its position in the section as it stands. :Mr. Ferry. If the Senator will allow me a moment, suppose the Secretary of the Treasury purchases $2,000,000 next month, if this bill should become a. law. He could under this limitation fail to order the coinage for one month longer. He could purchase bullion for two months, which woulcl be bnt 4,000,000, and extend to two a.nd onehalf months to meet the limitation of $5,000,000, so that be would not necessarily be coining as fast as he purchased nor a.s fast as the people need the silver . .Mr. Chaffee. He could not be compelled to coin but $W,OOO,OOO I ' 4 4 1 f 1 / 1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1069 a year, because he could purchase for two mo~ths and a half before be coined any bullion, anu then afterward com $2,000,000 a month, and thus only coin $19,000,000 a year. . Mr. Ferry. The Senator is correct m that. .M:r. BECK. Will the Senator from Michigan allow me to make a . suggestion T Mr. Ferry. Certainly. Mr. BECK. I propose to add at. the .end of line 6 of the amend_ ment I offered, line 22 of the amendment of the committee, after the word " dollars," the words: As rapidly as possible; and the ampunt of money necessary to carry out the provisions of this act is hereby appropnated. Mr. Ferry. If the Senator from Kentucky will allow me the qnestion would then turn on a possibility left to the judgment of the Secretary. I propose to ma:ke it definite without l~titude fo! his discretion in the matter; and m express terms req mre the co mage as fast as the limitation proposes, $2,000,000 or S4,000,000 a month. Mr. :McDONALD. If the Senator from Michigan will allow me to make a suggestion, I think this whole question can be settled by striking out in line 20 the words "nor more than $4,000,000 per month," and inserting in line 22 afLer the word dollars: And there shall not be less than thirty-six millions of such dollars coined in any one year. It seems to me that 8~.ch an amendment would obviate the difficulty and clear this que8tlon of any ambiguity. Mr. Ferry. I have no choice of phraseology. The substance of the amendment of the Senator from Indiana meets in he gross sub~ stantially what I wish to reach in detail. I was only ofl'ering .an amendment which was in harmony with the phraseology of the btll, t.hat as fast as the Secretary of the Treasury purchases, whether it be $2 000 uOO or $4,000,000 a month, he shall be directed to coin pro mta 1 h~t a'mount, or to tbe amount of his purchase. Mr. McDONALD. If it is in order, I will offer the amendment, that it may be considered by the Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. HoAR in the chair.) The Chair will inform the Senator from Indiana that his understanding is that the amendment at the pla:e where be proposes it will come in after disposing of tlie amendment moved by the Senator from Colorado. Mr. McDONALD. I then submit it to the Senator from Colorado. Mr. Ferry. I suggest to the Senator from Indiana that bis amendment not beiuO' an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Colorado, will come in after the word "dollars" in ~e~ . Mr. McDONALD. My first amendment is to strike ont in lirie 20 t.he words "nor more than $4,000,000 per month," and then to insert in line 22, after the word "dollars," '' anu there shall not be less than thirty-six million of such dollars coined in any one year." Mr. Edmunds. That is not in order. Mr. Ferry. The amendment is not in order. It is not an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Colorado. It will be in order after the vote has been taken on that amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has so stated to the Senator from Indiana. The question is upon the amendment proposed to the amendment adopted and reconsidered on the motion of the Senator from Colorado. Mr. Ferry. As I understand, the Senator from Colorado accepts my modification, and it becomes his amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that it is not in order for a Senator, without unanimous consent, to accept an amendment to an amendment, although proposed by him, which has once been adopted by the Senat~ and reconsidered. It is a mere matter of form. Mr. Ferry. It has been reconsidered and stands de novo, I suppose. 'fhe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair does not so understand. The Chair undArstands that after being once adopted by the Senate and reconsidered it does not remain in the power of the original mover. The Chair understood the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Edmunds] to object to a departure from the regular rule. Mr. Edmunds. I only objected .to its being done by unanimous consent without a forma] reconsideration. I do not object to the Senator from Colorado adopting the modification proposed if he likes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. No objection being made, the Senator from Colorado will be permitted to modify the amendment originally moved by him as he pleases. Mr. Ferry. I ask that it be read as proposed. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment to the amendment will be read a.s modified by the Senator from Colorado. The Chief Clerk. It is proposed to insert in line 21 of the amendment of the committee after theword "coined" thewords "monthly, as fast as so purchased;" so as to read: And cause the same to be coined monthly, as fast as so purchased, into such dollars. Mr. MORRILL. I desire to call the attention of my frie~d from Michigan to the grammatical construction of the amendment a~ proposed by the Committee on Finance. He will see that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to purchase this coin monthly, and cause the same to be coined into such dollars. There can be nothing more plain than that.it is anu will be as much the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to have this bullion coined as to purchase it. Mr. Ferry. I desire to put a question to the Senator from Vermont who has just spoken. This clause refers entirely to the purchase, that the Secretary of the Treasury shall ~urchase monthly . Mr. MORRILL. And cause the same to be corned . Mr. Ferry. And cause it to be coined when f Mr. MORRILL. Monthly. Mr. Ferry. At what timeT Mr. MORRILL. .Monthly, of course.

Mr. Ferry.  The Senator says "monthly, of course;"  but that is a question of construction.  We propose to put it in such language as that not only he shall purchase monthly, but that he shall coin monthly.

Mr. Edmunds. That is, once a month. Mr. Ferry. Well, once a month and twelve months in a year, which would l>e monthly. Now let me read: The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed * * * to pnrcha:-qe from time to time sih·er bullion, at tbe market price thereof, not less than two million dollars' worth per month, nor more than four million dollars' worth per month- That is, the purchase of that amountand cause the same to be coined into such dollars. But it does not say when he is to coin that amount. The proposition of the Senator from Colorado is to say that he shall not only purchase so much per month, but he shall coin that much per month. Mr. Allison. The objection that I have to the am~ndment proposed by the Senator from Michigan and_ accepted b;y- the Se!lator from Colorado is that it does not seem to be m accord w1th the Idea of the amendment of the committea. In the first place, there is a graduatinO' scale of coinai.Te varying from two to four million dollars a month. wl.y Y It is to en°ablo the Secr~tary of t~e Tr~asury to coi? as ma~y silver dollars as the present mmt capacity w1ll enable h1m to com in any single month. It, may be that this month two millions ca~ l>e coined and next month three, and another month, when all the mmts are in good order and gold coinage is not required, that four millions can be coined. But now it is proposed to provide that he shall purchase from two to four millions a month and shall coin as fast as he purchases. Suppose that is an impossibility. Suppose this month he purchases $4 000,000 of bullion and the mint capacity will only suffice to coin "3 000 000. Then the amendment of the Senator from Colorado would absol~tely fail. ·what we prefilose here is certainly so plain that a wayfaring man cannot mistake it, namely, that the Secretary of the Treasury shall keep bullion on hand suffi?icnt to coin a~cordin_g to the capacity of the .Mint $4,000,000 a month, 1f he can, and if not 1t shall not l>e less than $2,000,000. He is to keep the mints up to that capadty, _and so coin as to have only on hand $5,000,000 of bullion at any one time. Mr. Ferry. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question f 1\Ir. ALLISO:N. Yes, sir. Mr. Ferry. I desire to ask the Senator, as he bas the credit, and it is an honorable one, of inti·oducing the amenuruent-- Mr. Allison. It is the amendment of tho Committee on Finance.

Mr. Ferry.  I ask the Senator what the intention was in making this limitation ?  Why not have it left entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase bullion and coin it into silver dollars ?  But the Senatorfrom Iowa thought fit to restrwt the Secretary of the Treasury · in other words to direct him that he shall pnrchase$2,000,000 per m~h,not leaving it in his discretion, and_fnrthermore direoting that there shall be no more than $4,000,000 comed per month. I was on general Jlrinc~p~es opp?s~d t_o the ma~m~1m limitation · but with a beneficial nnmmum lliDltatwn I am willmg to vote fo~ the maximum, in that it compelled the Secretary of the 'freasncy to purchase at lea~t two millions per mouth, and if we have but twenty-four millions per year that would at least. ceme near the capacity of the mints at the present time. .Mr. Allison. The committee consulted the Director of the l\fint with reference to the reasonable capacity of the various mints. He said, as I remember, to the committee, or to gentlemen who maue the inquiry of him, that we could coin each ~nd every month at least $2 000 000 and that if the New Orleans mmt were opened he could pr~bably ~oin half a million more per month. Therefore we placed the limit so that the reasonable capacity should be used month by month for these purposes of coinage. .Mr. Edmunds. Let. me ask my friend a question in this connection. I think the Senate would like to know, and the people of the country as far a.a they have anything to do with it, would like to know on the topic of which he is now speaking, w~et~e.r this amount .of coinage of the dollar merely is to suspend or dimmiSh the gold comage and the coinage of the subsidiary silver coins, or is that to go on as it does now Y · Mr. Allison. That is undoubtedly to go on as it is now going on, from time to time.~ gol~ may ?e carried to the ~ints or ~s the requirements for subsidiary silver com may call for add1twnal co mage. l\Ir. Edmunds. Then, if I understand the Senator, this .maximum of four milliomis not so great as to excl~de from the oper.a~wns of th:e mints subsidiary silver and gold according to the necess1t1es of business ? Mr. Allison. No, sir. Mr. Edmunds. Am I right about that f Mr. Allison. Oh, yes. · . . Mr. Ferry. Will the Senator allow me to put h1m one question, and then I think I shall be done f Suppose this provision to become a law I ask him if the Secretary of the Treasury should purchase for the ~onths of March and April $2,000,000 of silver bullion each month, makin()' four million, there being no limitation in the latter clause of the am~ndment, would it in his judgment be a. violation of this section if the Secretary of the Treasury should not coin one dollar of those four million during those two months f Mr. Allison. Plainly and clearly it would be a violation of the letter and spirit of the section. I. do not believe t~at any Secr.etary of the Treasury, in the face of th1s law, would fail to carry 1t out accordin()' to its rea-sonable intendment. I am snre the present Secretary ol'the Treasury will do so. The object of the provision is that the mints of the United States shall be usefully and constantly employed in ~he coin~ge of silver d~llars as rapi~y as they ~an be coined cons1shmt w1th the other comage necessarily progressmg at the mints. That is t.he spirit and intent of the bill with the amendments of the Finance Committee, and within its reasonable requirements I have no doubt the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Mint will faithfully carry out its provisions.

Mr. Ferry.  I am not so sure that the question of construction will turn upon the spirit of the statute. My experience thus far in regard to the construction of statutes is that the construction is usually upon the letter, not the spirit.  We have had occasion in that respect to pass judgment upon the construction of statutes that have been passed recently in regard to the financial affairs of the country.  I take it that when the Secretary has this statute before him, he will construe it as it reads.  He does not enter into the Senate to learn what was the spirit under which it was framed, but he considers what it reads plainly in black and white, and it will be the fair, plain construction of the language which will control his judgment.  Let me illustrate.  We passed a statute here in relation to the retirement of what is known as the greenback currency of the country in proportion to the issue of national-bank currency.  The language of the statute was "redeem;"  yet the construction of the Secretary of the Treasury was not only to redeem but to retire and cancel.  I call the attention of the Senator to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury upon that point, where he uses the additional language "redeemed, retired, and canceled" under the statute which expresses simply the word "redeemed."  I think I am not over-tenacious in asking that this language should be made clear and in sustaining the amendment now proposed by the Senator from Colorado so that the coinage of this metal shall be in proportion to the purchase of bullion.

Mr. Merrimon. About this subject we ought to be very circumspect and understand exactly what we are doing, it seems to me.  I have heard something said about the capacity of the mints.  One provision contained in the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Beck] is in these words:

And as much more as can be coined at the mints of the United States.

If you take the literal meaning of those words it is that you are to coin silver dollars and nothing else.  Is that what is contemplated, or is the coinage of subsidiary coin to go on because it is necessary, and is the gold coinage to be carried on at the same time ?  What is meant, in other words, by "the capacity of the mints" ?

Mr. Allison. I am opposed to the amendment proposed oy the Senator from Kentucky and therefore do not propose to interpret it for him; but it is certain that our mints will oe called upon to coin gold from time to time and they may be called upon to coin subsidiary silver. It is not the intention of the amendment proposed by the Finance Committee to interfere with the ordinary and necessary coinage of gold a.nd subsidiary silver; ~nd therefore this maximum and minimum were fixed so as to afford a play to the mints, there being perhaps one month more gold to be coined than another, and the mints could in the mean time be occupied in the additional coinage of silver. 1\Ir. MERRIMON. I beg to ask this question: Can the coinage of silver dollars and the gold coinage go on at the same timeT Mr. Allison. Undoubtedly. Mr. MERRUION. I have understood, I think from the Director of the Mint himself, that the capacity of the mints was about $40,000,000 a year. Now, if he is to coin thirty-six million silver dollars he will have very little margin to coin gold dollars and subsidiary coin. Mr. Allison. The Senator is now speaking of the amendment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky, which is not a part of the bill as recommended by the committee. . , Mr. MERRIMON. I understood the Senator to accept an amendment changing the minimum from two to three millions. Mr. ALLJSON. That has not been vote(l upon. ·Mr. MERRIMON. I thought t.hat was a{lcepted. My inquiry was as to what is meant uy "the capacity of the mints." That seems to be a subject that we ought to understand in order to know exa.ctly whether this provision is intended in any way to interfere with the coinage of gold or of subsidiary silver coins. Mr. Allison. The provision in the amendment of the Finance Committee is not intended to interfere with tho ordinary and regular coinage CJf the mints. Mr. MERRIMON. But will it do so f I tako it that you are interfering on that subject. Mr. Allison. The Director of the Mint says it will not. That is all I know about it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Chaffee] to the amendment reported by the Committee on Finance. Mr. MERRIMON. Let it be reported. The Chief Clerk. After the word "coined," in line 21, it is proposed to insert "monthly, as fast as so purchased;" so as to read: And cause the same to be coined monthly, as faat as so purchased, into such dollars. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to, there being on a division-ayes 23, noes 16. Mr. McDONALD. Is it in order for me now to move an amendment to this same provision Y The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is in order. Mr. McDONALD. Then I move to amend the amendment reported by the committee by striking out in line 20 the words "nor more than four million dollars' worth per month," and in line 2'2, after tho word "dollars," inserting" and there shall not be less than thirty-six millions of such dollars coined in any one year;" so as to read : And the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed, out of any mon~y in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to purcbas , fr"Om time to timo, Bil ver dollars at the market prico thereof, not leas than two million dollars' worth ptlr month, and cause t-he same to bo coined monthly, as fast as so purchased, into such dollars; anl there shall not be less than thirty-su millions of such dollars coiued in any one year. • Mr. Chaffee. I think the Senator from Indiana will see that that is inconsistent with the first part of the amendment in the twentieth line. The amendment of the committee provides that not less than two million dollars' worth per mont~ shall ue coined; and afterward to insert a. provision that there shall not be les::~ th:m 36,000,000 a. year coined, which is equivalent to $3,000,000 a month, would be inconsistent. Mr. WHYTE. I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry just here. Are not these two amendments instead of one, the motion being to strike out a portion of the amendment of the committee and to insert words in some other portion of the amendment f .. Mr. :McDONALD. I do not see an inconsistency in the amendment which I offered. The coinage o:C two millions a month, if simply kopt up at that standard, would be twenty-four millions a year, whereas the amendment that I propose is that, while there must be two millions coined each month, there shall not be less coined in a year than thirty-six millions. Mr. Chaffee. The Senator does not move to strike out two millions per month, which is the minimum. He leaves that in, and afterward provides that there shall not be less than three millions a month coined. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would say in reply to the parliamentary inquiry of the Senator from Maryland [Mr. WHYTE] that the amendment being in a single sentence and designed to effect one object, it will 1Je regarded as one amendment, subject to the right of any Senator to call for a. division. Mr. WHYTE. Then I call for a division. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland calls for a division upon the amendment to the amendment, and the question will bo first taken on striking out. Mr. Allison. Allow me to .make a. suggestion to the Senator from Indiana in reference to his amendment. I see that he desires to effect a. coinage of not less than $36,000,000 per annum of silver dollars. lli.lfcDONALD. Yes, sir. Mr. Allison. If that be true, I suggest to him to allow the amendment of the committee to stand as it is, and then at the end of line 27 to a.dd: P·rovidea, Tbat the total coinage in any one year shall not be less than fJ(i,OilO,OOO. In that way he will cover the exact point he wishes to reach. Mr. McDONALD. I have no objection at all to the amendment going in at the point suggested by the Senator from Iowa, as that effects the purpose I designed to accomplish. I accept the snggestion made by the Senator from Iowa, and will ruove to add after line 27: And that the total coinage in any one year shall not be less than t3(),000,000. Mr. MORRILL. May I ask the Senator from Iowa whether, if the mints are compelled to coin $36,000,000 annually, it will not prevent their being used for the coinage of subsidiary coin and for the coinage of gold f Mr. Allison. I am suggesting to tho Senator from Indiana where he should insert his amendment. I am not expressing an opinion as to the me1·its of the amendment at this moment. Mr. MORRILL. I should like very much to have an expression of the opinion of the Senator from Iowa. at this moment on that point. Mr. Allison. If the Senator from Vermont desires my own views, I think that the Director of the Mint can coin $36,000,000 per annum, and still not interfere with the reasonable requirements of the mints with reference to other coinage. ~ ! I t I t l 1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1071 Mr. Edmunds. Do you intend that he shall interfere with the other coinage J Mr. Allison. No, I do not myself. Mr. ED:\!UNDS. Then we shall offer an amendment that will secure that, and get your vote. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. McDONALD] to the amendment of the committee, to insert at the end of line 27 : And pro1Jided, That there shall not be coined less than 136,000,000 of such dollars in any one year. The amendment to the amendment was rejected. Mr. McDONALD. Now I move to strike out the limitation in line 20, being the words : Nor more than four million dollars' worth per month. In offering this amendment I wish to say simply that, while it is very proper to fix a minimum I can see no reason why the maximum should l?e stated in the uilL The provisions of the law carrying this into effect will certainly not cause coinage more rapidly than the public demands, and therefore I desire to see the maximum the Senate committee have reported stricken out, as there can be no purpose in keeping it in. Mr. 'rHUR.M:AN. Mr. President, there are several Senators who have engagements to-night. I bel_ieve that the friends of this bill wish to sit it out to-night, aud in fact that was the undersianding; but yet as we ought to do all we can to contribute to the convenience of our brethren in the Senate, I mo,Te, if I may do so, or ask unanimous consent to move, that at six o'clock we take a recess until eight. ["No!" "No!"] Mr. Edmunds. Oh, no; let us stay and finish it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion requires unanimous consent under the understanding of the Senate. · Mr. Edmunds. 1 make no objection to the Senator trying the sense of the Senate upon it. Mr. WHYTE. I object, so far as unanimous consent is concerned. The PRESIDING O~'FICER. The Chair will submit the motion to the Senate. Mr. ALLISO:Y. 0£ course I do not object to this motion if it relates to the convenience of Senators, and if it is understood that we shall come back here at eight o'clock and finish this bill before a final adjournment to-day, as we have already unanimously agreed to do; but unless every Senator distinctly understands that, I rather doubt the propriety of taking a recess now. Mr. VOORHEES. Let me ask the Senator from Iowa, who ba-s charg.., of the bill, and whom I intend to follow to the close of it, whether the1·e can be any serious objection to adjourning until tomorrow at noon and then going on, with the understanding that there shall be no reopening of the general debate, but that the ti ve-minute rule shall be applied, so that we may go on and finish the bill to-morrow instead of staying here until after midnight probably Y Mr. ED.MUNDS. You cannot have a five-minute rule on this bill, my friend. Mr. VOORHEES. I only make the suggestion. Mr. Edmunds. It is proper to suggest it, but this is not the bill to make such a rule on. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will submit to the Senate tho motion of the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. THUIL.'1AN,] that at six o'clock the Senate take a recess for two hours. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. BAYARD. The honorable Senator from Iowa stated just now that there had been an understanding that when the Senate met today it should not a{ljourn without having acted upon this bill finally. I was not present when any such arrangement was made, but I hold myself bound by it if such wa1:1 the understanding. Mr. Edmunds. There is nothing on the Journal about it. Mr. Allison. On Wednesday it was agreed unanimouslvthaton this day the Senate was to continue in session until a final vote should be taken upon this bill. I think very likely the Senator from Dela.ware was out of his seat at the time. .Mr. BAYARD. I never heard of it before. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will examine the REcORD. Mr. Allison. It was just before the Senator from North Carolina rMr. MERRL\:10~] made bis remarks. Mr. DAVIS, of West Virginia, (after a pause.) What amendment is pending? Why do we not go on f The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary is examining the REcORD in regard to the understanding. Mr. DA. VIS, of West Virginia. I understand no one makes a question upon it. My friend from Delaware does not question the fact. Mr. BAYARD. I question the statement of no one in the Senate, of course; but I do not-understand that the arrangement was made. Mr. McDONALD. Mr. President-- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will read the REcORD, with the leave of t.he Senator from Indiana. The Chief Clerk read a-s follows from the debates of Wednesday last: The PllEEIDISG OFFICER. Is there any o~je~tion to the understanding that a wte shall bo taken upon the pending bill on Friday before the adjournment f Mr . .Allison. .And on the amenclments. . ~he PR.Rs~~G OFFICER. .And upon the amendments. The Chair hears no obJection, and It 18 so understood. Mr. McDONALD. I simply propose to suggest whether it cannot be so arranged that we need not stay here to-night. The general debate o!l the~e propositions has been _clo~d, a~d certainly no great deal. of t~me will be taken up hereafter m discussiOn. Having reached a pomt, 1~ see~s to rue, where we need not necessarily keep ourselves here to-mght m order to . complete the bill, we might adjourn until to-morrow. Mr. W~YTE: I _am as much opposed to the passage of this bill in the form m which It came from the Honse of Representatives as anybody can l_>e, but I believe the public interest is suffering as much by the delay m the action of the Senate upon the uill as it will suffer when the uill is passed. Under those circumstances I, for one,' am rea~y to stay here if it takes aU night to dispose of this bill, that the busmess of the country may be adjusted to meet its requirements. I hope there will be no arljournment until it is disposed of.

Mr. Blaine.  Does the Senator from Maryland think that the passage of this bill to-night, as it has to go back to the House in all probability, will expedite its final passage a single hour or minute ?

Mr. Whyte.  I do not know whether there is any chance for any amendment whatever to be put on this bill.  My impression is that it is going throngh pure and simple as it came from the House, and will probably be disposed of without debate in the other House, even if we amend it and send it there with amendments.

Mr. Blaine.  I cannot persuade myself that there is enough importance in that issue to make us all uncomfortable for a whole night, when we can dispose of the measure with perfect ease and leisure to-morrow.

Mr. Whyte.  I will say to the Senator from Maine that I was made uncomfortable during 1868 and 1869 a good many nights in this Chamber when we were but seven or eight on this side of it.

Ur. BLAINE. The Senator need not revenge it on me; I was not here then. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will report the pending amendment. Tho Chief Clerk. In lines 20 and 21 it is proposed to strike out the following words from the amendment of the committee : Nor more than four million dollars' worth per month. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on this amendment of the Senato{)r from Indiana to the amendment of the Committee on Finance. The amendment to the amendment was rejected, there being on a clivision-ayes 13, noes 30. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment will be reported, being the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr BECK.] Mr. SAUNDERS. If it is not too late, I should like to have the yeas and nays upon the amendment of the Senator from Indiana. I am not one who is afraid _of having too many good dollars, and I do not see why we should put into the bill u, limitation of that kiud that would go out as though we were afraid of having too many. Although we may not he able just now to coin any more than the $4,000,000 a mouth, still we expect greater facilities for business in a few years. If this uill is worth anything it is worth stan cling upon the record for a few years to come. Therefore I think the words ou~ht to be stricken out. The PRESIDING OFFICER. As the Chair understands, the request for the yeas and nays comes too late. The Chair understands that the amendments reported by the committee come first. in order, subject to the right of Senators to move any amendment thereto. The amendment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky is an amendment to strike out the entire amendment reported by the committee and substitufu something else. 'l'hat. will be in order after the committee's amendment has been voted upon. J\ir. EATON. 1 beg the pardon of the Chair. .An amendment to the amendment of the Committee on Finance would be in order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. .A:ny amendment to that amendment will be in order . Mr. DAVIS, of illinois. The Senator £rom Georgia. [Mr. GoRDON] moved to strike out the word u two" and insert "three," before the word "million" in the twentieth line. He is not in his seat now, However. .Mr. S A.ULSBURY. My impression is that the Senator from Georgia does not intend to press that amendment in committee. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Notice ha8 been given of such an amendment. Mr. Ferry. To which amendment does the Senator from Connecticut refer f Mr. EATON. The next amendment following the onethatweha.ve adopted, the amendment reported by the Committee on Finance. Mr. WHYTE. That iM another section; that is section 2. Mr. EATON. Undoubtedly, but it is the succeeding amendment in the printed amendments. Mr. GARLAND. That is to insert another section. Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. The Chair held that the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BECK] was an aruendment to the amendment reported by the Senator from Iowa. Mr. Ferry. As I understand, the Senator from Kentucky propo es to perfect the amendment suggested by the committee. Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. I did not understand the order of the Chair. Mr. EATON. The Chair ordered that as there was no amendment to the amendment offered by the Committee on Finance, therefore the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky was in order. I then said there was an amendment to be offered to the amendment of the Committee on Finance. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for that amendment is the present time, as the Chah understands. Mr. EATON. I so supposed that it was in order. The proposed section 2 is in these words: That immediately after the passage of this act tbtl President shall imite the governments of the countries composing the Latin union, so called, &c. I move to strike out in the second line, the letter "s" from the word " governments," and insert "of Great Britain, and," so as to read: That immediately after the pasHage of this act the President shall invite the government of Great Britain and of the countries composing the Latin union, &c. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair supposed that the Senator from Connecticut designed to propose an amendment to the committee's amendment, which has been already under consideration, when he informed the Senator that the present was the time to offer an amendment to the amendment of the committee. Mr. EATON. Not at all. The :PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is of the opinion that an amendment to the second section reported from the Committee on Finance will not be in order until all the amendments proposed to the first section which are now pending have been disposed of. The Chair understands that an amendment by the way of a substitute to the amendment of the committee has been moved by the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. BECK.] Therefore that will be in order before the amendment proposed by the Senator from Connecticut. The Chair was led into his error by supposing that the Senator from Connecticut proposed an amendment to the first section of the committee's amendment. Mr. BECK. Would it be in order to offer an amendment as a substitute to the amendment of the committee f The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair so understands. Mr. BECK. I offer an amendment to add at the end of line 6 of my amendment-- Mr. Edmunds. The Senator cannot offer a further amendment to the amendment. We have an amendment in the third degree already. The Senator can modify his amendment to suit himself. It has not been voted upon yet, nor the yeas and nays ordered. Mr. BECK. I never knew much about parliamentary law, and therefore my error. I will modify the amendment which I proposed. The PRESIDJNG OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is in order. He gave notice of his purpose to offer an amendment at this time, which was printed for convenience. Mr. BECK. I move to strike out all after the word "Treasury," in line 17 of tho amendment of the committee, and in lieu of the words proposed to be stricken out to insert: Is directed, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to purcbMe from limo to time silver bullion at the market price thereof. 110t lt>SS than i:J, t..OO, 000 per month, and as much more as can I.Jo coined at the mints of the United ~lll.tcs, and cause tbe same to be coined into such dollars a.~ rapiUy as pos ible; anti thoamoontof money 11eces ary to carry out the pronsions of thlsact is h~reby appropriated. .And any gain or seigniorage arising from tl1is coinage shall be accounted for and paid into the 'l'reasm-y as pro·dded Ullc.ler existing laW\i relative to sul.Jsidiary coinage: P.rovided, That whenever the mat·ket price of sil"er bullion is such that it cannot be purchased by the Secretary of the Treasury as herein provided at less than par With leea.I-tender not{!s of tho United States, he shall give public notice of that fact; ana then any citizen of the United States who is the owner of silver bullion may deposit the same at auy U nltorl States coinage mint or as ay oiHcc, to be coined into such doll.a.rs for his benefit, upon the same terms and conilitions as gold bullion i~ deposited for coinage under existing laws. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of tbe Senator from Kentucky to the amendment of the Committee on Finance. Mr. ·wHYTE. I understand, then, by this amendment that the coinage of these dollars is to exclude the coinage of subsidiary silver and ot gold dollars. Mr. BECK. It is not. Mr. WHYTE. That is the effect of it. Mr. BECK. The effect of it is not to do that. Mr. WHYTE. Then I should like the Senator from Kentucky to explain if coining $3,000,000 a month and as much more as can be coined at the mints of the United States, and to cause the same to be coined into said dollars, would not occupy the whole capacity of the mJnts. Mr. BECK. The meaning of it is to occupy the capacity of the mints without saying that it shall interfere with gold coinage at all. l\lr. SARGENT. That would be the necessary etfect of it. In the State of California there will be some 12,000,000 of gold dug out this year, and you would have every dollar of it sent to England because it would be excluded from coinage by this provision, and the Senator hopes it will! I protest against it because that will be the necessary result. I insist on behalf of my constituents, who produce gold in quantities, that the amendment shall not be agreed to and that the doors of the United States mints shall not be closed against them. Mr. BECK. There is no danger of the Secretary of the Treasury cutting off the coinage of gold l>y any interpretation of the provision I propose. Mr. WHYTE. It is to be compulsory. Mr. BECK. The capacity of the mints is what he can coin in the mints and carry on the other le{?itimate business of course. Mr. SARGENT. The Senator's amendment does not say so. Mr. WHYTE. Then it leaves him to do what he can with the gold coinage. l\lr. SARGENT. There is another point. The effect would be tha.t by speculative men, the holders of bullion, greenbacks and bullion would be approached. So that anyl>ody may put their bullion in although it may fall afterward below the price agreed on. You simply provide by this amendment that if bullion comes to a certain value, after that anybody who holU.s it may coin it free, notwithstanding it may. fall below that value. Mr. WHYTE. In one hour. Mr. SARGENT. Yes, sir; in one hour. The amendment is imperfect, and for both tbe reasons I have given it should not be adopted. Mr. EDllUNDS. The effect of the proviso to the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky will be in my opinion to make this free coinage almost instantaneous with the passage of the bill. The provision is- That whenever the market price of silver bullion is snob that it cannot be purchased by the Secretary of the Treasury as herein provided at less than par witiJ legal-tender notes of the United States, be shall givo public notice of that f::l.ct; and then any citizen of the United State:~ who is the owner of silver bullion may deposit the same * * * to be coined, &c. Inasmuch as the bill in the first part of it makes this silver coiu the money in which the United States may pay its debts, legal-tender notes, when it gets enough of it, instead of gold, as the law now sta.ntls, in my opinion the moment this bill has passed, or as soon as business adjusts itself (that is what I mean by "moment") the legal-tender notes of the United States will be a little below the par of silver bullion, because they are to be redeemed in that silver bullion when it is turned into coin; and inasmuch as there is not enougll of til at silver coin to redeem them immediately they will be at a discount from that fact, just as now they are at a discount as compared with gold, because they are not presently redeemable in gold. Therefore, the effect of this will be that presently after the passage of this bill, the event will necessarily happen under a business opemtion that the occasion will have arisen when any citizen of the United States will be entitled to his free coinage. '!'bat is what it will amount to, and with our eyes open to that fact, if a majority of the Senate like it, I have nothing to say. Mr. BECK. I merely desire to say that while I am J?.Ot sure that will be the effect I hope that \Vill be the effect. Mr. Edmunds. It certainly will be. Mr. BECK. And very properly. I desire to come to the House provision just as rapidly as I can. Mr. Edmunds. Certainly; that is candid and fair, and we know exactly what it means. Mr. BECK. T"nat was tho intention; but I desire to say that J had no idea of excluding the gold coinage by the words "as rapidly as possible." I think the construction it bears is that this silver is to be coined as rapidly as possible consistent with other legitimate obligations of the mint. Mr. Allison. I trust that the friends of the bill will not vote to strike out the words in the amendment of the committee now proposed to be stricken out and insert the words suggested by the Senator from Kentucky. I do not think the amendment suggested by lliru is any improvement upon the amendment proposed by the committee. Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I am not quite sure that the price of silver bnilion and of greenbacks will be precisely the same should this l.Jill pass. It will cost about 1 per cent. to coin silver bullion into ''the dollars of the fathers," and although I feel very certain that the silver dollar, if this bill passes, will be worth more than the greenback, whether it will be worth 1 per cent. more and also added to that the cost of transportation of the silver dollars, when they are to be had at the mints, which is also to be taken into account, I am not exactly prepared to say; but if that should be the case, then my friend from Kentucky will see at once that his amendment in its practical effect is simply the House bill. Mr. BECK. I desire to come to the House bill at the earliest posmble moment, but as long as silver bullion is 6, ~.or 10 per cent. below gold, I do not want this Congress to so vote as to give any private citizen, or any foreign nation, or any foreign corporation that seigniorage. Mr. THURMAN. I have no fear from any foreign government. Mr. BECK. Or any private man from Europe. Mr. THURMAN. I have no fear of any private man from Europe bringing hero too much silver for us to absorb; and, therefore, that will not trouble me. With respect to the silver and the greenback, for the reason that I have stated, it seems to me that there is no necessity for this amendment of my friend; but there are two serious objections to it that have been noted. One is that it looks to excluding from the coinage gold and the subsidiary silver coins. I hope my I ' 1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1073 friend :from Kentucky will reconsider the matter and let us stand l>y the bill. Mr . .BECK. All I have to say is that the amendment looks neither to the exclusion of gold nor of subsidiary coinage as I understand it; but, if it is thought lt does, a very simple remedy is to vote it down. I want the bill passed in some shape. I will vote for the House bill. I prefer the amendment I have offered, but if that is not right, vote it down, and I will vote for the House bill pure and simple if I can, and if the California 'miners, the Nevada miners, and all the combinations of bullionists make four or five millions a year and the people have to carry it, it is not my fault. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky to the amendment of the committee. The amendment to the amendment was rejected. Mr. McDONALD. I now move that the Senate take a recess until eleven o'clock to-morrow. ["No!" "No!"] I donotthinkthat anything can possibly be lost by taking a night's rest to-night and completing the bill to-morrow. . Mr. PADDOCK. I hope the Senator from Indiana will not press that motion. 1\Ir. McDONALD. I certainly shall press it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana moves that the Senate now take a recess until to-morrow at eleven o'clock. Mr. CONKLING. Mr. President- The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not debatable, but the Chair will hear the Senator from New York. Mr. CONKLING. If the motion is not debatable, is it in order f Tho PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will hear any point of order that any Senator may raise. 1\Ir. CONKLING. I do not wish to transgress the rules of the Senate, although I am opposed to this recess. If these gentlemen want a postponement until Monday I shall not object to it for one, but some of us have important business to-morrow and it would not be pleasant to be subjected to attendance upon the Senate when there is no occasion for it. Mr. Allison. I do not wish to debate the question, but I submit to my :friend from Indiana that his motion is a very delicate way of avoiding a direct motion to adjourn until twelve o'clock to-morrow, which would not be in order under the agreement that we have made. Mr. Edmunds. It would be in order, put it would be against the understanding. Mr. Allison. It would be against the understanding, certainly. Mr. COCKRELL. I think we all understand the motion, and I object to any discussion. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that no order of the Senate is entered on the Journal in respect to the matter spoken of by Senators. • Mr. McDONALD. I do not think it would violate ~ny understanding of the Senate to take the recess I propose. I apprehend at the time that understanding was entered into it could not be told how long a time would be occupied in general debate on this question. That debate has been entirely closed, and wo have nothing to clo now but to complete the questions that are before us by voting upon the various amendments that are offered and upon the bill finally. I do not see that it would be any violation of the agreement or understanding for us to take a night's rest and complete the bill to-morrow. Mr. CONKLING. Then let us adjourn until Monday. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on tho motion of the Senator from Indiana that'the Senate now take a recess until to-morrow at eleven o'clock. The motion was not agreed to ; there being on a division-ayes 18, noes 35. Mr. MORRILL. I move that we take a recess from now until seven o'clock. ["No!" "No!"] The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of tl1e Senator :from Vermont. Mr. CONOVER. I move to amend by saying nine o'clock. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Florida, [Mr. CONOVER.] The amendment was not agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFiCER. The question recnra on tlto motion of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] that the Senate take a recess until seven o'clock. The motion was not agreed to. The PRESIDING OF~'ICER. The question recurs on the amendment proposed by the Committee on Finance. Mr. Edmunds. Let it be read as amended. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be reported. The Chief Clerk. The first amendment of the committee is to strike out of the bill, commencing in line 12 of section 1, the following words: And any owner of silver bullion may deposit the same at any United States coin· age mint or assay office, to be coined into such dollars for his benefit, upon the same terms and C-Onditions a.s gold bullion i8 deposited for coinage under existing laws And to insert in lieu thereof the following : · And the Secretary of the Treasury i8 authorized and directed, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to purchase, from time to tinie. silver bullion, at the market price thereof, not less th:m two million dollars' worth per month, nor more than four million dollars' worth per month, and cause the same to be coined monthly, as fast as so purchased, into such lollars. And any gain or VII-68 seigniorage arising from this coinage sh:ill be accounted for and paid into the Treasury, as proviuPd under existing laws relative to the subsidiM"Y. coinage: Prouided, That the amount of money at any one time invested in such silver brillion, exclusive of such resulting coin, shall not exceed $5,()(11),000. Mr. MORRILL. At the end of the proposed amendment on the part of the Committee on Finance, after the word "dollars," in line 27, I move to insert: Pr01Jidedfurt.her, That for the· first year after the passage of this a.ct not more than 25 per cent., and for the second year not more than 50 per cent. of any payments of duties shall be receivable in the coinage hereby authorized. I offer this amendment in good faith, for the purpose of having the ail ver that shall be coined at our mints distributed all over the country, and for the further purpose of allowing all parts of the country to be equally well served in the payment of duties. I understand that unless an amendment of this kind shall be incorporat.ed into the bill, the amount of silver that will be coined will be immediately grabbed at one or two places, and then that all the duties that are payable at any other places will have to be paid in gold. I desire perfectly fair play in reference to the payment of the8e duties. If theyare paid a portion in silver, let a.ll parts of the country enjoy eqm_.l facilities. Mr. WHYTE. I hope that this amendment will be adopted. This . is a grand opportunity of getting these silverdollarsforthe poorman and to keep them out of the hands of "salt-water despots" em the seaboard who will be looking for them to pay duties with. Mr. Howe and Mr. SAULSBURY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. SAULSBURY. I hope the amendment will not be adopted. The tendency of the measure is to degrade the silver dollar-- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognized the Se:aator from Wisconsin. Mr. Howe. I simply rose to inquire of the Senator from Vermont whom they are that he suspects of a wish to grab up this debased currency. Mr. MORRILL. Those persons who understand it to lJe worth 8 or 10 per cent. less than gold 2nd who have to pay duties. Mr. Howe. They are going to grab it Y · Mr. MORRILL. Of course they will if they havP :tn ·opportunity. Mr. Howe. Oh, they are too honorable to do that. I wonl(l not suspect them for a moment. The PRESIDING O~'FICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Vermont to the amendment of the committee. Mr. MORRILL. I aak for the yeas and nayfl. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the s~cretary proceeded to call the roll. 1\Ir. Edmunds, (when his name was caJ'Pd.) On all these questions I am paired with the Senator from R- nsas, [Mr. INGALLS.] I understand him to be in f)l ?Or of the bill p•:re and simple, ~ it came from the House, and I do not know but 1 !.at I should be if we are to havo it at all. The roll-call having been concludecl, the result was announcedyeas 21, nays 47; as follows: Anthony, Barnum, Bayard, Blaine, Burnside, Butler, Allison, Armstrong, Bailey, Beck, Booth, Bruce, Cameron of Pa.., Cameron of Wis., Chaffee, Cockrell, Coke, Conover, Conkling, Dawes, Eaton, Hamlin Hoar, ' Kernan, YEAS-~.n. Lamar, McPherson, Mitchell, Morrill, Randolph, Rollins, NAYS-47. Davis of lllinois, Jones of Nevada, Davis of W.Va., Kellogg, Dennis, KirkwOod, Dorsey, McCl'O(\ry Eustis McDonald, Ferry,' McMillan, GarlimJ, Matthews, Grover, Maxey, Herefcrd, M.errimon, Howo. M.org:m, Johnl'ton. Oglesby, Jones of Florida, Paddock, ABSENT-B. Sal1!ent. Wadleigh, Whyte. Pln'mb, Ransom, Sa.ulsbury, SaunderS; Spencer, Teller, Thurman, Voorhees, Wallace; Windom, With erg. Cbristiancy, Gordon, Hill, Patterson, Edmunds, Harris, Ingalls, Sharoll'. ·I So the amendmPut to the amendment was rejected. :Mr. BLAINE. It occurs to me that the voting on sundry amend~ men ts that are pending would be simplified if the vote of tho Senate were first taken upon an amendment whi6h will be offered-· in its order, but which if put now would clear away a good deal of doubt about other amendments; that is on :fixing the number of grains in the dollar. I suppose there is no doubt whatever that the Senate indicates one way of voting, but I should like to move now that the amendments 011 that question be disposed of. Mr. Allison. I submit to the Senator from Maine to wait until the amendments of the committee are disposed of. Mr. BLAINE. I thought they were disposed of. Mr. Allison. No, they are not disposed of. Mr. BLAINE. I will wait until the amendments of the committee are dispose(1 of. · The PRE~IDING OFFICER. The question is upon the amendment of the committee, as modified. Mr. WALLACE. I move to amend in line 2-2, after the word "dollars/' ·by adding the following : And one hundred million of such dollars shall be coined during three years from this dat,e, and if tho average monthly gold price paid for said silver bullion during the last twelve months thereof shall be less than ninety-seven one-hundredths of a gold,dollar, the Secretary of the Treasury may suspend such coinage until further action by Congress. The Senate will at once see that this is the logical result of my position so far as I have been able to impress it on the Senate in regard to this question. I believe that silver bullion will appreciate by use, and by the debt-paying power impressed upon it. I want to test that question by coining one hundred million of legal-tender dolJars available for all purposes. If, during the last twelve of the thirty-six months during which these $100,000,000 are being coined, the actual monthly average of cash paid for silver bullion shall be more than !l per cent. below a gold dollar, then action should come by Congress to regulate the value of the two forms of money ; in other words, that then we will have ascertained by practical experience the realllifference between gold and silver as money. I need say no more to the Senate on this question, but simply ask a vote upon the amendment. Mr. Ferry. I should like to ask a question of the Senator from Pennsylvania, if he will permit? Mr. WALLACE. Certainly. Mr. Ferry. Would it not be as wise to wait until the end of three years for a modification of the value rather than to anticipate it nowf Mr. WALLACE. It seems to me that there is something due to the sentiment that we have heard from a good many sections of the country -represented here. I want to meet by a practical answer the alle~ gations that have gone to the country from this floor and the charge that we are att~mpting to put cheap money upon the owners of the indebtedness of the Government or to provide a debased currency for payment of labor. I wish to do nothing of this kind. I want to restore both gold and silver as the measures of value. I desire to make both these moneys legal-tender money. I believe that 100,000,000 is enough to test that question upon. I think that three years is a proper period of time to test it; and when we shall have had practical experience, during the last twelve months of those three years, by means of our own purchases monthly, of what the real price of silver bullion is, then we shall have reached a point from which we can regulate the value between the moneys. Why shall we wait until that period comes to make this declaration Y Can we not say now 'tha.t we believe no harm can come, that we intend to do none f It is my belief, it is the belief of those who act with me and of many whom I represent on this floor, that these two metals will approximate each other in va;lue when silver is made money and the use of bullion is fairly tested. Why should we not say we mean to test this question experime~tally and fairly, as a practical question, doing no violence to any interest and carefully and honestly trying the future f Mr. Ferry. I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania will not the effect be, by anticipating at this time, upon the public mind as much as though we said that there would be a depreciation Y • Mr. WALLACE. I think not. Mr. Ferry. I believe there will not be a depreciation, and I would be unwilling at this time in advance to say that there may be a depreciation. My judgment is that silver will appreciate the moment this bill is passed ; therefore I am willing to abide the future; it will be time enough when it arrives to correct the evil if there be any. My judgment is that there will be no evil, and if there be any modification needed it will be on the oth,er side, to reduce the value rather than to enhance the value. Mr. WALLACE. We shall meet the evil when it comes; there is to be no danger in that quarter. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALLACE] to the amendment of the committee. Mr. CHRISTIANCY. I aak for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. Allison. I trnst this amendment will not be adopted. It makes provision for what shall be done three years from now. Congressisverylikelyto be in session.several times between now and then, and if any modification is required, of course the nien who come after us will be as intelligent as we are on this subjec~, and can make the necessary modifications. · · Mr. BLAINE. Does not the Senator from Iowa think that would be a very strong expression of confidence on the part of those who llelieve in a dollar of 412t grains Y . Mr. Edmunds. But suppose they have not that confidence Y Mr. BLAINE. Does not the Senator think that no form of confidence could be stronger to go out from the Senate of the United States than that which the Senator from Pennsylvania has proposed, and that it might have a very large effect in appreciating the value of the dollar! Mr. Allison. I can imagine a very muoh stronger method of expressing our confidence, and that is by resolving by our votes that we believe that gold and silver will be equal to each other. Mr. BLAINE. That is faith, but the Senator from Pennsylvania proposes works. Mr. Edmunds. But make faith a legal tender, and it is just as good I There is no trouble about that! ,

Mr. THURMAN.  Mr. President, I should not trouble the Senate with a word on this question if the yeas and nays had not been ordered;  but as they have been, I wish to state why I shall vote against the amendment offered by my friend from Pennsylvania.  I am very sure there is no one in the Senate who has more respect for his opinions than I have, and I know he is a sincere friend of the remonetization of silver;  but it does seem to me that this amendment ought not to be put on this bill.  I think just the opposite of the suggestion of the Senator from Maine.  I think the effect of adopting this amendment, instead of being a defiant boast that silver will be equal to gold and a challenge and defiance to those who hold the other view, will be to cast doubt and distrust on the point whether it will be equal to gold.  I think the American people do not expect their Congress to brag, to utter defiance, to say in the face of the people, "We will show you that we are right."  I think they expect the legislation of Congress to be deliberate, considerate, and wise.

Now, Mr. President, what must be the effect of this amendment, should it be adopted ?  It must be to say to the people of the United States, as suggested by the Senator from Michigan, "We are not confident of the results of our own work;  we distrust what we are doing."

But that is not all.  I submit to my friend from Pennsylvania whether if his amendment be adopted we are not putting ourselves in the toils of the gold-brokers of the city of New York, who may corner gold or corner silver, who may bull or bear gold or bull or bear silver, and thereby affect the legislation of the United States.  No, Mr. President, it seems to me that if we are right in this business, there is but one way to do, and that is to say to the world, "Silver shall not be demonetized in the United States."  Its purchasing power, as demonstrated by the Senator from Nevada yesterday, is more than 10, ay, nearly 20 per cent. more than it was when it was demonetized;  and that is enough.  It is enough for this country to pay 10 or 20 per cent. more in wheat and corn and beef and pork for the silver dollar, without requiring it to pay still more;  and if we are in earnest in this bill, if it is not all a sham, if it is not all demagogism, if it is not all an art of political adventurers, if it is the earnest work of earnest and truthful men, do not let us throw discredit upon it.

Mr. Howe.  Mr. President, I am very sorry that this motion is made.  I shall have to vote against it.  I do not want any one to say that I advertise by my vote on this amendment that if a certain condition of things shall happen three years hence I will not meet that condition justly.  But I make this one suggestion to the Senator from Pennsylvania, that it is not for us to say what shall be the law of our coinage or of anything else three years hence.  We can say what it shall be to-day or to-morrowor while we are here.  It is another body of men very different who will be empowered to say what it shall be three years hence.

Mr. Windom [future Secretary of the Treasury].  Mr. President, I approve of the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Wallace.]  The only criticism I would make is that the time when we shall cease to coin depreciated dollars is postponed too long.  I would much prefer that the coinage should cease at the end of two years if this dollar does not prove to be equal to the standard dollar of the commercial world.  Any vote that I shall give to-day upon this bill and amendments shall be given with the hope at least that the silver dollar to be coined will be equal to the gold dollar.  And so far from this amendment expressing a want of faith, as feared by some Senators, I regard its passage as the strongest expression not only of our faith, but also of an honest intention on the part of this Senate to show its faith by its works.  Senators seem to fear that we shall depreciate this proposed financial creation by a disclosure of our own lack of faith in it, just as if our expression of faith, or our determination as to what it shall be worth, would in the slightest degree affect the market value of the dollar when coined.  It will be governed by other considerations than the confidence in its value of those gentlemen who vote for or against it.

I am in favor of the remonetization of silver, provided the dollar is equal to the gold dollar.  Senators declare their belief that it will be.  Let us then give the world an expression, not only of our faith in it, but of our honest intention to make it so hereafter, if we fail to-night to provide the right quantity of silver to accomplish that object.

The great difficulty I have encountered throughout this debate ---and I confess I have had difficulties--- has been to know just how many grains of silver should compose the silver dollar.  I think that is the pith and marrow of this whole question.  I have not troubled the Senate with many words on the subject;  but I have been a very attentive and patient listener for the last six weeks, and have earnestly sought to arrive at the truth with reference to it. Some Senators tell us, doubtless in good faith, that a silver dollar of 412.5 grains will be equal to the gold dollar.  They assume that the mere act of coining ninety-two cents' worth of silver and making it a legal tender will advance its value from ninety-two to one hundred cents.

I am very much afraid it will do no such thing.  If the depreciation of silver could be attributed wholly to the act of demonetization by this Government, the proposed remonetization might be expected to reinstate its former value;  but unfortunately for that theory there are many other causes of its decline even more potent than that.  They have been so often stated I will not weary the Senate by their repetition.  Many causes having contributed to a given result, it may not be unreasonable to assume that the removal of one of these causes will not certainly remove the effects of all the others.  I am therefore willing to give evidence of my disposition to make a full-sized honest dollar by voting for the amendment proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Thurman.  I have very high respect for the Senator.  Will he please tell me why he takes the gold dollar as the standard, apart from the act of 1873, and why it would not be just as right, just as specific, just as fair to reduce the number of grains in the gold dollar as to increase the number of grains in the silver dollar ?

Mr. Windom.  My answer is briefly this:  that several of the leading commercial nations have already adopted the gold dollar as the standard of value and others are rapidly tending in that direction.  If we are to compete for the commerce of the world and to trade on equal terms with those nations we must adopt a similar measure of values.  Whether the instrument by which values shall be measured be gold or silver makes no difference, in my judgment, providing the standards are alike.  If, as assumed by the Senator's question, that great instrument of trade and commerce known as the dollar has no recognized value, and one thing may be called a dollar as properly as another, why waste 412.5 grains ?  Why not call 200 grains a dollar, and have twice as many of them ?

Mr. Thurman.  I will say to my friend because we promised our creditors 412½ grains, and we cannot in honesty give them less, and they promised to take them.  Whenever the time shall come that the States of the Latin union and the United States shall agree, as they ought to do, to the ratio of 15½ to 1, making provision so far as we are concerned that that shall only apply to future contracts, we ought to adopt it and then the dollar would be 400 grains.

Mr. Windom.  Then I will say to the Senator if there is no reason for making the dollar 412.5 grains except that we may pay the creditors whom we owed at the time silver was demonetized, why not settle with those creditors at 412.5 grains and then make a dollar of only 200 grains for our own use.  By such a brilliant financial achievement we could at least double the number of our dollars.  So remarkable an invention for making money cheap and plenty ought to immortalize the inventor and certainly would do so if the dollar of the commercial world has no intrinsic and recognized value as an instrument of exchange.  I believe there is that which the commercial world does recognize as a dollar and I want ours to conform to it.

Mr. President, I am in favor of expansion, (not inflation,) but I want it to be an expansion of good dollars.  I do not want inferior ones.  And while I am on this subject I will say one other thing.  The great difficulty in this question I apprehend is that if we authorize the coinage of an inferior dollar and refuse to make the pledge now proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania, that it shall be made good in the future if it is not so now, it will be the only dollar in circulation.  It has been admitted on all sides in this discussion that a superior dollar, one of greater value will not circulate with the inferior.  If that be true, what will be the result ?  Suppose that by this bill we secure a depreciated dollar.  Our mints cannot coin more than about thirty-three million silver dollars per annum.  The fact that a depreciated dollar is authorized will cause the gold, just now beginning to make its appearance, to hide itself away from the companionship of its dishonored rival or to seek some other nation where it is appreciated.

Mr. Allison.  Now I will ask the Senator from Minnesota to tell me why the gold dollar will go out if we coin the silver dollar on Government account ?

Mr. Windom.  Suppose the Senator himself has two dollars in his pocket, one worth ninety-five cents and the other a full dollar, and he has a debt to pay, which will he use ?  He will pay out the ninety-five-cent dollar and keep the one-hundred-cent dollar in his pocket.  Everybody else will do the same thing.  And further, I will say to tbe Senator from Iowa, that if we coin an inferior silver dollar and make it an unlimited legal tender, the metallic or bullion value of gold will be greater than its money value, and of course it will be sent to the melting-pot, or be gold as an article of merchandise.

Mr. Allison.  My friend will pardon me a moment.  The proposition that is made in this bill for a limited coinage on Government account does not recognize a distinction between silver dollars and gold dollars.  One will perform exactly the same functions as the other, and they will be equally valuable, and the gold will not go out any more than the silver will go out until there is a superabundance of both metals for the wants of our country.

Mr. Windom.  Ah, Mr. President, your depreciated silver dollar may be made to pass as a dollar so far as our local commerce is concerned, but it will be the only dollar in use, and the moment you cross the water and begin to trade with other nations of the world it will pass only at its real value.  It will not be a dollar in the markets of Liverpool when the Senator's constituents and mine cross the ocean to sell their wheat in the markets of the world.  The farmers of Minnesota have some twenty-five million bushels of wheat to sell this year.  Its value at the place of sale will be measured by the gold price in Liverpool, while it will be paid for in the inferior coin of this country; it will be sold for gold in Europe and paid for in silver at home.  If Congress shall authorize a dollar worth only ninety-two or ninety-five cents, the difference will have to be borne mainly by the producer.

The Senator from Wisconsin smiles disapprovingly.  I suppose he does not believe the story, but I tell him that the speculators, the middlemen between the market in Liverpool and the wheat fields of Minnesota and Wisconsin will see to it that this margin between the gold dollar of England and the silver dollar of America finds its way into their own pockets.  I am therefore ready to say by this amendment that if 412.5 grains of silver will not make a dollar which shall be the equivalent of the commercial dollar of the world, I will add enough silver to make it so.

Mr. Howe.  The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Wallace] just now said the precise thing that I was afraid would be said out of this Chamber, but did not fear would be said in the Chamber, in a little stronger terms than I even apprehended it would be said outside.  His language was, "Then it is intended, if this be a vice, that the vice shall continue."  The Senator is not authorized to infer any such purpose on my part, although I vote against this amendment.  I vote for the bill because I believe it is not a vice, but a virtue.  Whether the Congress which shall sit here three years hence will consider it in the same light or not, I do not undertake to know, nor do I predict.  I assume that if they think it a vice they will correct it;  if they think it a virtue, they will adhere to it;  but I am utterly opposed to our undertaking to say to-day what shall be done three years hence with reference to this matter, for two reasons:  We have no power to say that;  it would be a mere brutum fulnum if we did say it;  and, secondly, if I knew that this silver dollar would not approximate to the gold dollar within three years, I would never agree to command the mints to suspend the dollars at that time.  I certainly, if I had anything to say about it at that time, would think I was called upon to take some step to bring the two dollars into relation to each other, but not to stop the coinage of silver.  That coinage must go on upon some relation, at some ratio.  The one crime that I never will agree to is that of dismissing one of the great metals, the commanding metals of the world, from the measure of value.  If it is not worth twenty-five cents an ounce in three years, I would not agree to suspend the coinage of silver, but I would agree to change the relation between our present coinage and the coinage of gold.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. Edmunds. I wish to move an addition to the amendment just adopted. I had ri&eu to make that motion while the Senator from Iowa was making a speech and voting at the sa.me time, and supposed I was in time, but it turned out I was not. I move to adi at the end of the amendment just adopted these words: But nothing in this section contained shall have the effect to disturb the neces. 1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1077 8ary and usual coj" age of gold and of the subsidiary silver coins as now authorized bylaw. So as to make it clear that the operation of thiB act is not to stop the coinage of gold coin or to stop the coinage of the subsidiary coins. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state to the Senator from Vermont that strictly hiB amendment would be in order at a later time. but the Chair will submit it at this time, if no objection be made. · Mr. Allison. Why not wait until it is regularly in order f

Mr. Edmunds.  That comes with great grace from my friend from Iowa who made a speech and closed the opportunity of anybody getting the floor at the same time by voting "yes" or "nay" as the ease may have been.  I am very much obliged for the courtesy of the suggestion of the Senator from Iowa.

Mr . .Allison. Inasmuch as the Senator from Vermont has seen fit to refer to that, I will say to him in reply that I made no speech whatever. In response to an inquiry, I simply stated what the question was, namely, the amendment of the Committee on Finance, with the verbal suggestions of the Senator from Colorado incorporated therein. Mr. Edmunds. The REcoRD will show what the Senator said and cid. Mr . .Allison. Undoubtedly it will, but I made no speech. The PRESiDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment -of the Senator from Vermont ; which will be pnt in writing and read. The Chief Clerk read as the amendment of Mr. Edmunds: But nothing in this sec~on shall he co~~ed to .interfere with the e&inage of gold coin or to stop the coma.ge of the subsidiary corns. Mr. Ferry. If the mints of the country are employed in coining gold there will be no silver coined. If it is not to interfere with the coinage of gold, it is a limitation then upon the coinage of silver, as I understand the amendment proposed by the Senator from Vermont. If so, I am opposed to it. Mr ED~IUNDS. The Senator from Iowa in charge of thiB bill stated, and I believe publicly and in the debate, certainly to me, that as he understood from the Director of the 1\fint and other authentic sources the coinage provided for in this section of the silver dollar was not intended to interfere with this ordinary and customary operation of the mints as to the gold and the subsidiary silver coins, -and that the capacity of the mints of the United States would be -equal to both. Am I right about that T Mr . .Allison. In order that I may not make a mistake, if the Senator will yield to me a moment I will read exactly what the Director of the Mint saya. , Mr. Edmunds. That is not the point. Am I not right in stating what the Senator from Iowa stated to be the effect of the section as it etoodf Mr . .Allison. Why, Mr. President, the Senator is exactly right. I made that exact statement and I took it substantially from the report of the Director of the Mint. Mr. Edmunds. Very well. Mr . .Allison. And therefore it was a truthful statement. Mr. Edmunds. Yes. I have no reason to doubt the fidelity of the Senator from Iowa. But in order to make it certain on the face of the law and not leave it to probabilities, I propose that this shall be gtated, that we are not to have the 412t grain dollar to the exclusion of everything else, but that each is to have its fair chance in tho mechanical operations of the mints for the benefit of the people. That is the object of the amendment. Mr. WHYTE. May I ask the Senator from Vermont whether he will not put the word which he first used, "necessary," befor~ "coinage filf gold~" Mr. Edmunds. I changed that ont of deference to the suggestion of the Senator from Virginia. I thought "necessary " was preferable, butj.t seemed to be objectionable to the Senator from Virginia that it left it opeiJ ; so I now merely leave it under the authority of the law. The law, then, if this amendment be adopted, will apply to gold, to the silver dollar, and to the subsidiary coinage in exactly equal degree, according to the necessities and the demands and operations of the affair.

Mr. McMillan.  May I inquire of the Senator from Vermont whether there is any limitation upon the coinage of gold under existing laws;  and if there is not, whether or not this amendment being introduced in the nature of a proviso to this section, does not take away the effect of the section by providing that gold shall be unlimited in coinage, and until the coinage is exhausted in gold no silver coins shall be issued from the mints ?

Mr. Edmunds.  No, Mr. President, that is not the effect.  Any gold may be coined that is brought to the mints to be coined now by law undoubtedly.  There is what is called free coinage in gold although it is not free absolutely.  The charge is, I believe, only one-fifth of 1 per cent.  The Senator from Michigan who knows all about it can tell us exactly.  I wish to continue the ordinary coinage of gold, if that is as good as silver, and I have always been taught to suppose it was so considered.  Even in this debate my silver-tongued friend from Nevada does not contend, I believe, that gold is any worse than silver, and admits that it is rather a good thing to have.  The present laws provide that it may be coined, and this law which you are now to pass declares that not less than two and not more than four million silver dollars per month shall be coined in the mints.  The Senator in charge of the bill has stated that that may be done, and not interfere with the customary usual coinage of gold such as the demands of the people who have gold bullion call for, or of the subsidiary silver coins.  Now I wish this law to say, if we are to have it, that this 412.5-grain business shall not exclude from the people through the mints the subsidiary silver coins that are so necessary in every part of the country now that the fractional currency is taken away, and shall not exclude the gold coinage which is still thought to be of some value, I suppose.  The Senator from Iowa says that he understands that practically it will not do it.  I wish to have this law say, if we mean that, that it shall not do it, but that each shall stand its fair and equal chance.  If we mean to say that everything shall stop but the silver dollar, let us say so in plain terms.  If we do not mean that, say so.  If we mean to say that the coinage of the gold dollar and the gold two-and-a-half-dollar piece and three-dollar piece if that is still provided for, and the five-dollar and the ten-dollar and the twenty-dollar piece may still go on, and that the coinage of half dollars and quarters nnd twenty-cent pieces and dimes and so on may still go on, then let us say so, so that there shall be no doubt about it.

Mr. McMillan.  As I understand the effect of the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont, it is this:  Under existing laws gold coinage is unlimited, so that the Government may occupy the entire capacity of the mints in coining gold.  If that be the case, then the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont in the nature of a proviso to this section which provides for the coinage of silver dollars makes the coinage of silver depend altogether on the exercise of the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury whether he shall occupy the mints of the United States to their full capacity in the coinage of gold.

Mr. Edmunds.  Would not the Senator just as lief have gold as silver if it is coined and put out. Mr. McMILLAN. What my preference in the matter may be is not a question of importance. I only want to know what effect is to be given to this law. If it is intended not to have silver coin then the amendment of the Senator from Vermont is very effective; but as I understand the effect it would be to make the coinage of silver dependent upon the Secretary of the Treasury entirely. Mr. Edmunds. My friend from Minnesota I think is mistaken. If the whole capacity of the mints can be employed in the coinage of gold dollars instead of silver dollars, inasmuch a-s we all agree that gold dollars now are worth more than what' silver dollars there are, it will not hurt the public; bnt we all know from the condition of silver to gold in the world that they cannot be, and this lJill proceeds upon that proposition. No'W, all the effect my amendment has is to put these two metals upon an entire equality in respect of the mechanism of the mints that this silver dollar shall not exclude the coinage of gold dollars and not exclude the coinage of the necessary subsidiary coins. That is all. Of course if gold were to rush in faster than silver and the Secretary of the Treasury therefore were occupied all the time with gold, it would be for him to say whether he would coin gold or silver, although I am not sure that I am right in going as far as that, because the first part of the act requires that he shall coin silver dollars; but if my amendment be adopted, the ordinary authentic coinage of,gold would still be allowed to go on and it would be rather a stretch of power in the Secretary to say if silver and gold were both ordered, "I will coin no silver, but will coin gold." Mr. Allison. I desire to read what the Director of the Mint says on this subject in his annual report found in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury : With our present minting capacity we could, with a full working force, coin silver dollar pieces at the rate of $2,000,000 per month, and at the same time manu· facture the necessary gold, trado, and fractional silver coinage. ·The issue of silver dollars for circulation to the amount above stated, (S2,000,000 per month,) would no doubt prove of much benefit to the public, and aid in stimulating the revival of business. I desire simply to call attention to the fact that the Director of the Mint here in the most explicit terms says that the coinage of $2,000,000 a month can go on and provision still be made for the trade-dollar and the subsidiary silver and the gold coin that is r~uircd. The trade-dollar is absolutely under the control of the Secretary of the Treasury under existing laws. The subsidiary silver coin is limited to $50,000,000, nearly all of which has been coined. So I submit to the Senator from Vermont that there is not the slightest reason why his amendment should be adopted. • Mr. Edmunds. Is there the slightest reason against it f Mr. Allison. A very slight reason against it. Mr. Edmunds. Very slight indeed. Mr. Ferry. In my judgment, the amendment proposed by the Senator from Vermont is a qualification of the requirement to coin $2,000,000 a month of silver. Now the statement just read by the Senator from Iowa shows that the capacity of the mints is some $46,000,000 a year. If the amendment of the Senator from Vermont prevails, the Secretary of the Treasury might employ the capacity of the mints and coin $46,000,000 gold and that would shut out the coinage of silver. Mr. Edmunds. How is he going to get the gold to do itY Mr. Ferry. If he can go jnto the market and buy the gold with bonds, he can find gold enough. Mr. Edmunds. Does the law authorize him to do that f :Mr. Ferry. It does for resumption. Mr. Edmunds. What! To buy gold bullion ! Mr. Ferry. To exchange bonds for gold. Mr. Edmunds. For gold coin, but not for gold bullion. Mr. Ferry. If the Secretary of the Treasury can employ the eapacity of the mints to coin gold, he can then shut out the coinage of silver. On the other hand if the bill is left as it is, the Secretary of the Treasury is compelled simply to coin $2,000,000 a month of silver, leaving a mar~in of over $20,000,000 for the coinage of the necessary gold. So I think if the bill is left as it is without the amendment, it will secure the end sought, namely the coinage of both silver and gold.

Mr. Coke.  Mr. President, the last vote taken adopting the amendment of the Committee on Finance to the House bill, in my humble judgment emasculates the bill of three-fourths of its efficacy.  It leaves an amount of discretion to the Secretary of the Treasury, who is known to be hostile to the bill, which may be used for the defeat of all the benefits which those in favor of the bill supposed would be derived from it.  It places a limitation upon the coinage of silver, puts the brand upon that metal already inferior to gold in market quotation, and taxes the coinage of the silver dollar in a way that must create the impression upon the country and upon the world that the American Congress believe that the coinage of the silver dollar should not be encouraged.  I have many regrets that it should have been the pleasure of the Senate to adopt that amendment.  The bill as amended will fail to meet the demands of the American people. The equality in value which is being sought between silver and gold is positively denied by this bill as amended. Silver is branded as the inferior dollar. In addition to this the amendment of the honorable Senator from Vermont seeks further to postpone the silver dollar at the mint, as I understand it. It proposes that the subsidiary silver coinage shall have precedence of the silver dollar provided for in this bill, if I understand the amendment properly. I hope it will not be the pleasure of the Senate to adopt that amendment.  If adopted it adds another weight to those already placed by previous amendments upon the silver dollar that the bill provides shall be coined. I had supposed that it was the purpose of the Senate to provide for the coinage of a silver dollar of 412½ grains, which should be equal, if it could be made equal by legislation, to the gold dollar.  The enemies and opponents of silver remonetization have ingrafted an amendment upon this bill which insures the inferiority in public estimation of the dollar that we declare shall be a legal tender.  The amendment proposed by the Senator from Vermont comes in to complete the inferiority of the dollar that the people, as I understand their demands, say shall be made equal to the gold dollar.  This bill degrades the dollar that we all seek to exalt from its present depreciation to an equation with gold.  The amendment of the Senator from Vermont is the only step that is necessary to complete this degradation.

Mr. President, I am instructed by my constituents to vote to place gold and silver coin, the only constitutional currency, the only constitutional tender for debts, upon an equal footing, upon the same plane, to make them equal before the law, and as nearly as possible equal in value.

Mr. Coke.  If I were to be entirely prudent and wished to create a silver dollar certainly equal to the gold dollar, I would diminish the dollar of 412½ grains by 3½ per cent., because the dollar of 412½ grains was worth 3½ per cent. more when it was demonetized than the gold dollar.  Through abundant caution, in order that we may not make a tender for debt of a dollar that is not worth a dollar, I advocate a dollar of 412½ grains, one that was from the foundation of the Government a legal tender up to 1873, and when demonetized was worth three and a half cents more than the gold standard which was then erected.

As I remarked before, this bill, as amended, will fail to meet the wishes of the people;  it fails to come up to their expectations.  The amendment last adopted emasculates the House bill, and I rely upon the representative character of those who sit elsewhere, upon the strength of the people of these States with their Representatives in the other House, to see to it that the people of the United States have the dollar as they demand it.  The other House sent us a bill which secured it, and we have simply taken all the life out of it by an amendment that has been adopted, and the other amendment now proposes to finish it.  I shall vote for the bill as it is amended upon its final passage, but I shall do so in the hope and in the belief that when it goes back to the House, where the people are more directly represented, the voice of the people will be asserted and heard.

Mr. Merrimon.  Mr. President, I must confess my astonishment at the speech of the Senator from Texas.  I do not understand that the amendment adopted by the Senate has any such effect as that suggested by him.  It only contains such provision as gives the Government the advantage of any difference between the coined silver dollar and the gold dollar, if there should be any difference, and it provides for the coinage of as many dollars as the capacity of the mints will allow.  How that is to prejudice the people I cannot understand.

Mr. Edmunds.  Mr. President, I am bound to say that I think the Senator from Texas is to a large degree right and that my friend from North Carolina is wrong.  The amendment that has been adopted is in direct opposition to the theory of the bill.  The bill goes upon the theory that private persons are to profit at the expense of the people, and the amendment goes upon the theory that the Government is to profit at the expense of the people.  It changes the wrong from the pocket of the private person to the responsible representatives of the people.  That is what it does.

Mr. Merrimon. The Government belongs to the people.

Mr. Edmunds.  Yes, the Government belongs to the people as my friend says;  but a robbery committed by the Government upon the people does not always inure to the benefit of every man that is robbed by a wrong decree.

Mr. President, the real truth about this business is that the whole spirit and animus of this bill goes upon the ground that silver is not worth as much as gold in the proportions in which they are stated in this bill of 16 to 1, or whatever 412.5 grains may be to the dollar;  and the House bill going upon that theory, and led by its spirit and nothing else, just like paying in depreciated paper, proceeded to declare that the private owners of bullion should pocket the profits while the laboring-man and the business man should sufter the loss.  We have modified that, and have done the great boon to the working people of the United States (and there are a great many more working people who are creditors than there are of the bloated bondholders and bankers) of providing that, instead of allowing the private owners of bullion to rob the people, we will do it ourselves.  That advantage is gained and the Treasury profits by the performance instead of the private owners of bullion.

Now, Mr. President, the simple question here at this present moment is-which is the point I arose to speak about-whether you intend to leave the bill in this shape, that the coinage of four millions of silver dollars a month, which is the maximum, is to prevent the coinage of gold and the coinage of the minor silver coins. '!'he Senator in charge of the bill says that is not the intention. He said it before. He has read from the report of the Director of the 1\.Iint to show that is not the purpose and is not to be effected. Now, when I offer an amendment that states explicitly it shall not have that effect, to guard against any possible mistake or perversion or whatever might happen under the bill up to four millions a month, Senators say, "Oh, no; that will not do." The purpose, then, it necessarily follows, is to exclude the coinage of gold, although it iH worth about ten cents on the dollar more than silver, if it be necessary to put off on the people four millions a month of the silver dollars. In other words, it amounts to saying that we will banish gold if :J!ecessary in order to get out four millions a mont4 of silver dollars. That is the ground of the opposition to this amendment, and I want the workingmen, to whom appeals have been made, the small traders, the farmers who have things to sell, to ponder upon what kind of friendship it is to their interest which says they shall not have coined for them the gold which i6 worth now ten cents more, whatever it may be worth hereafter, but that they shall have silver to the exclusion of it. If that is a benefit to the people, then the Senators who are in favor of this bill will have the advantage of the benefit. I move this amendment in order that there shall be no misunderstanding of the purpose of this body in a direct vote upon the question. Mr. Allison. I do not wish to occnpy,time; but my opposition to this amendment is not based upon the idea that farmers or mechanics or any set of people are to be robbed, nor upon the idea that any gold that is- carried to the mints to be coined will not be coined under the provisions of the bill as it now stands. The Director of the Mint tells us that be can coin $2,000,000of silver a month. WeJ.Iave given him a limit of from two t.o four millions, in order to cover the exact point made by the Senator from Vermont, namely, that if gold comes in more rapidlv for coinage silver shall not be coined up to the maximum of $4,000,000, but if gold is not presented for coinhge then the present capacity ofthe mints shall bt\ used for silver coinage. Mr. Edmunds. Then you ought to vote for my amendment. Mr. Allison. Perhaps I ought, but I shall not vote for it, for the reason that I do not wiHh to prescribe specific rules for the Director of the Mint or the Secretary of the Treasury. But the Senator from Nevada ha-s suggested to me another most excellent reason why the amendment is unnecessary, namely, that every holder of gold bullion can carry that bullion to the Mint and secure for it stamped bars, and the Treasury issues certi£catesfor those stamped bars, and those certificates have the power of coined money; they are receivable for all dues and exchanges. Therefore it is not likely that a considerable amount of coinage of gold will be required. Mr. Edmunds. Then why not adopt the amendment, as the Senator from Michigan so wisely said a little while ago in putting in the ''dollars' wdrth" and" as fast as it can be done monthly,'' &c., to guard against any possible misapprehension OI' mistake into which we may fallf Mr. Allison. The honorable Senator from Vermont will remember that I opposed the amendment of the Senator from Michigan for substantially the same reason that I oppose this one, that I am willing to trust the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Mint, friendly or otherwise, to faithfully carry out the provisious of this bill. Mr. Edmunds. But bow can yon tmst a man when you are to ) f 1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1079 trust to break a law! A.s your bill now stands it says, he shall coin at least two millions a month. Suppose it happens that a mint breaks down somewhere so that he can only coin a million and a half; you stop all the gold coinage and all the subsidiary silver coinage. Mr. Allison. No law would be broken by it. Mr. Edmunds. I beg the Senat.or's~ pardon. The law says he shall coin two millions a month. Mr. Allison. But no law would be broken if gold and subsidiary coinage were not coined in any particular month. A holder of bullion can carry bullion to the Mint, but the Government of the United States has not provided that the next day or that day it shall be coined. Mr. Edmunds. That is it exactly. The Senator has stated the case, and it is as the friends of this bill undoubtedly intend it shall be, and as the Sen a. tor from Texas has so well stated it ought to be; and that is that this two million or four million shall be put out upon the people if it does exclude the coinage of gold; and if two men bring $100,000 in gold bullion, and another $100,000 in silver bullion to the lfint, the silver shall be preferred, although it is only ninety cents on the dollar, in order that either the GovernJD.ent or somebody else may make a profit at the expense of the people. Mr. SARGENT. The second reason given by the Senator from Iowa has rather a comical aspect to my mind; but, as he was prompted thereto by the financial wisdom of my friend from Nevada, [Mr. JoNEs,) I hesitate somewhat to laugh at it. He says that the consolation which the miner who has·dug out his gold bullion has is that he can take that bullion, have it run into a bar, and get a certificate for it, and that the certificate is good to pay all Government obligations. What good does that do him, as all Government obligations can be paid in silver under this billY The Government can redeem that certificate to him by pa.ying him in these silver dollars which by this very bill are made le~al tenders for everything, for all dues and demands. So he takes h1s gold, worth 8 or 10 per cent. more than silver, to the Government; it gives a certificate that he has deposited so much gold, and then, when the Government redeems that certificate, he has got to take silver dollars for it worth a great deal less. Mr. Allison. I do not so understand this bill. Mr. SARGENT. Are not these silver dollars made receivable for all Government dues of every kind, even the payment of interest on the public debt, payment of the bonds, of customs, payment of anything whateverf Mr. Allison. But the laws providing for those certificntes provide that they shall be redeemed in gold coin or in stamped bars of gold. Mr. Edmunds. Yes; but thisisthelastlawonthesubject, which repeals the other. Mr. SARGENT. This is the last law on the subject; and, furthermore, by this very bill you stop receiving gold at the custom-houses, and the Government will soon have no gold whatever. But the law authorizing those certificates does not, in terms, make them redeemable in gold, and that is my point. .M:r. Allison. I should like to have the Senator from California· show me where -we stop receiving gold at the custom-houses. Mr. SARGENT. By providing that the duties can bepaidinsilver, these very silver dollars. · Mr. Allison. Do we say that gold shall not be received at the custom-houses T Is that a provision of the bill! Mr. SARGENT. No; but yon say that coin of less value than gold shall be received, and common sense gives the commentary that that excludes gold. Mr. Allison. Common sense shows the very contrary, namely, that these silver coined dollars will be equal to the gold dollars. Mr. SARGENT. Ah! '!'he argument all the way through has been that we ought not to exclude one of the metals, made money by the Constitution, from the c 1rrency ; and it has been insisted that a great wrong has been do~Le by excluding silver. · Now the Senator comes in and insists that you should exclude gold. That is just the effect of it. In other '\'\-Jrds, he proposes that the Senate refnse to adopt an amendment t1u.) effect of which would be to prevent the exclusion of gold. Let me tell the Senator that ~;~o sensitive is gold that the slightest obstrn'Jtion put in its way sends it out of the country. The Senator from Nevac~ a says to me, soto voce, that he wishes it would go. I have no doubt or it, aud I have no doubt that he would like to exchange for it an irredeemable flood of legal-tender paper or paper without the legal-tender quality. I have not the slightest don bt of it. He and I differ entirely. I agree with his ideas of four years ago, when he made the echoes of this Chamber ring with his denunciation of any one who would insist upon any money except gold. I agree with the ideas which he then expressed, and I have not followed him down, step by step, step by step, until I worship this rag-baby. I do not receive it nor acknowledge it. I stand where the Senator then did and believe as I then did, and as the fathers of the Republic always believed and declared, and I do not wish that gold should be banished from the country. I believe that that is the true standard, and that if we wish to retain any commercial relations with the rest of t~e world we n;tust h~ve some respect for that standard; a.nd I say aga that gold 1s banished from the country by any obstructions wh tever put in its way. We fonq.d that when we bad only a coinage charge of one-filth of 1 per cent. for the coinage of gold at the mints then our gold went to England, and we took off tha~ charge in order that the gold nright remain in the country, and it was neceMary to do so in order that gold might remain in the country. In England they coin gold without charge though there is always a coinage charge on silver, and we were compelled in order to keep it in the country to do the same. But now we make au inferior coinage of these silver dollars; inferior at this moment it is admitted. Senators say a Government stamp is to bridge the Q.ifference between the two. You make the inferior dollar receivable for all Government dues. Do you say that then a man will come forward with his gold coin, admitted to be worth more at present, and pay it into the Treasury of the United States when he can get in your ninety-two-cent dollar f Yon· require the Government to pay for ~is bar of gold for which he receives a certiflcate in gold coin, and yet you take away any means by which the Government can pay that gold coin unless it goes into the market and buys the gold ; and how many of your dollars will it take to buy the gold to pay it to this man! There will .be the test of value of your silver dollar; there will be when it must be brought down to its intrinsic worth. There are certain propositions which cannot be disputed, which amount almost to axioms. Yon say you want silver equal to gold. How much silver equal to how much gold T Is the proposiUon that a piece of silver coin shall be equal to a piece of gold coin f Then why not take a silver half dollar and say it shall be equal to a. gold five-dollar piece f That would drive the gold out, of course, if the half do11ar could be taken for the function of the five-dollar piece. If you say that that is an unfair comparison, then take the half {lollar with the single gold dollar, and why is it an unfair comparison still f Because there are not grains enough of silver in the half dollar to bring it up to the gold dollar. You must keep increasing it in order to make the equality, until there are grains enough of silver in th~ piece to equal in value according to the judgment of the world in commercial transactions the gold dollar. I think this amendment is necessary for the protection of a great interest. The Sena.t-or from Nevada. read a long lecture tons here, studied under the midnight oil, abont the miners who delve down in the mines two thousand feet below the surface, and repelled a.ny intimation on them as tl.tongh any body accused them of making a corner in silver or gold or having speculative ideas. I feel for tnose men who mine on the barren hills of California and dig out their gold, and I say that they have just as much right to consideration as the hardy miners of Nevada, and they are both equally entitled to consideration. If the miners of Nevada produce silver, the miners of California produce gold. Mr. JONES, of Nevada. Will the Senator permit me to interrupt him T Will the Senator allow them both to be put on an equal level so far as co~nge is concerned i Will he put them both on the same planeT Mr. SARGENT. I will if you will make your silver dollar· of the same value as the gold dollar and not ask for a pinched coin, an attenuated thing called a dollar. I want tho dollar to be an honest dollar, and then I will v.oto for a bill to try yonr experiment of ·bimetallism. I believe the two would draw apart through the or(linary laws of commerce, necessarily. I do not believe that you aan maintain equilibrium, but I would start them fair at lea.st; and if the Senator ancl his friends will so amend this bill as to put into the ~ilver dollar which it is proposed to flood the country with enough grains of silver to make it equal to the standard dollar of gold as now provided by law I will vote for his bill and admit then that he proposes an honest thing. Such equality I am in favor of. Mr. JONES, of Nevada. Ratify the fraud that has been committed! Mr. SARGENT. I sa.y there has been no fraud committed; I do not know of any fraud ; and points are not gained by calling hard names. Fraud does not e:rist because a suspicion of it may exist in Senators' minds. Let those who talk about fraud show fraud. I know of no fraud in former legislation, and I admit none so far as I myself am concerned, and I do not believe there was any on the part of Congress. Fraud in what f Senators have got up he:::e and said they were members of the other House and did not know what took pl\lce there when a bill wa~ printed eleven times ovm·, when it was considered at five different sessions of Congress, when there were pages on pages of debnte in both Houses on the bill, when it was fully explained, when it W::tS read in their presence as was shown by the extracts read here by the Senator from Maine, immediately before its passage in the House. They come in here anr1 say they did not know that any such legislation was in proa-ress. Why, I have no doubt there may bemember'3 and Senators who :ue never in their seats and never know what is going on in Con~ress; but there was no excuse for any man doing his duty by the peoplo not to know it. Whether he might remember four or five years after that he did know it at that time is another question, but there was no excuse for • him at that time not to havo known what was proceeding. I deny the fraud uecause a creditor of the Government or any other creditor coulcl not have desired not·to be paid in sil,·er coin, because as was confessed all through the debate then that it was worth three or four cents in the dollar more than the gold; and why should he conspire and maneuver in order not to be paid in the most valuable coin Y That ~ itself repels the idea that there was any evil animus in that legislation ; and it is a sham, an appea.l of dema.gogism to talk about fraud in any such connection as that.

Mr. Edmunds.  Will the Senator from California allow me to say in this connection what I should have said when the Senator from Ohio spoke an hour or two ago, that I remember distinctly when the act of 1873 about the coinage and what is called demonetization passed this body, that it was read according to our usual method at the desk, section by section, listened to by everybody in a quiet Senate, and passed without any debate, because I supposed, and I thought everybody else did, that it was obviously proper, that there was no occasion to go into debate about it, silver being above gold in value, and the desirability of one single standard that should be uniform being so obvious, as Alexander Hamilton in his day had stated it ought to be.

Mr. Sargent.  I would like to ask the Senator from Nevada why be wishes the gold to leave the country ?  He has said here in reply to me that he desires the gold to leave the country.  I should like to inquire why he wishes the gold to leave the country ?

Mr. Jones, of Nevada.  I will tell you when you get through.

Mr. Sargent.  The Senator says be will tell me when I get through why gold should leave the country ?  I will give him a chance to do it;  and the chance is now.  I say gold is an American product, at least equal in value to the amount of silver produced, and we have no more right to legislate to banish one from the country than we have to banish the other.

Mr. Jones, of Nevada.  It seems to me that this is a tempest in a tea-pot.  As I understand the proposition of the Senator from Vermont, as advocated by him and the Senator from California, it is to render absolutely secure the coinage of all gold bullion offered at the mints, notwithstanding the fact that if the prophecies of the Senator from Vermont with reference to the pending bill should prove true, not a dollar of such coin would or could remain in the country, that, instead of keeping the mints employed in coining money that will circulate, they shall be occupied in coining undervalued tokens and medals that cannot circulate, that can be of no sort of use to the people, that will be excluded from circulation just as much as the trade-dollar is now and as the silver dollar was in 1873, and if the silver dollar shall continue, as Senators who oppose the silver bill predict it will, below the value of the gold dollar, there could be no object whatever in minting gold dollars in this country.  There would be no use for gold coin here and it would be a needless expense to fabricate it.  Whenever the silver dollar shall become the equivalent of the gold dollar, is it not apparent to the humblest intellect that it will make no difference whatever which dollar is coined ?

Mr. Edmunds.  How will it be in the mean time until it does become so ?

Mr. Jones, of Nevada.  In the mean time it must be idle in hoards or perform duty in the import trade.  Ceasing to be useful here, it might go to help sustain the price of our exports.  I ask the Senator from Vermont why he cares to make snch particular provision for a coinage which will not circulate and which when coined is in no better shape for use than is bullion.  The mints should not be required to coin the dearer metals which will not circulate, but their operations should be directed exclusively to the coinage of the cheaper metal, the money that will circulate.  Upon a divergence in the relative value of two different legal-money units the dearer becomes at once a commodity, the cheaper only remaining as money.

Mr. Edmunds.  Ah!  The Senator is always for coining the cheapest money.  He had better go on the full greenback theory because that is cheaper still.

Mr. Jones, of Nevada.  That is exactly what I am in favor of doing.  Our money system was not based on the idea that we should have both metals always and concurrently in circulation, but upon the idea that there might occur occasional variations in their value and that it would always be to our advantage in every respect to make avail of the cheaper of the two.  The great feature of the double or optional standard is not the actual use of both metals but the right to use either.  The option of using either metal was enjoyed by the United States without let or hinderance until 1873-'74.  It then having been exercised by a formal legislative act, it requires a formal legislative act to exercise it now, but the right to exercise it now is as unquestioned as was the right to do so then.  This right of option of choosing either metal in which to make payment sufficiently accounts for the fact that after about 1840 gold, then having practically become the cheaper metal, largely predominated in the coinage.  It was upon this very theory that our coinage laws were framed, and when silver became the dearer metal the demand for its coinage diminished.  Was it ever charged in 1873 that the gold dollar was a depreciated dollar, a ninety-seven-cent dollar, because at that time its value was 3 per cent. below the value of the silver dollar ?

Mr. Eaton.  Will my friend allow me to interrupt him ?

Mr. Jones, of Nevada.  Certainly.

Mr. Eaton.  Will he have the kindness to answer his own gold argument of four years ago ?

Mr. Jones, of Nevada.  I have tried to do that several times and think that I have very effectually succeeded in doing so.  If my opinions are different now from what they were then it demonstrates the possibility if not the probability that I have learned something during the last four years;  that I may have made some advance while my friend from Connecticut and those who agree with him have barely held their own.

Mr. President, we are told that, hecause we did not coin silver very largely when it was the dearer metal, our option to do so now, when it is the cheaper metal, has thereby been forfeited;  that our option to coin and use the cheaper metal has been lost because we were not foolish enough to coin one hundred and three cents into a dollar when one hundred cents would serve the purpose.  The instinct of thrift is too keen in this country and in every other country that I ever heard of to coin a dearer dollar when a cheaper dollar would answer the same purpose.  The money system of this country was based on the principle of averages.  Its framers and founders knew very well that a scarcity of metallic money had at various periods in the world's history caused universal and almost immeasurable disasters to the human race, and that it would be to the last degree dangerous to remit the industry, commerce, and credit of this growing nation to the uncertain measurement of a single metal whose production might at any time be vastly curtailed or cut off altogether, whose production depended upon the accidental discoveries of mines, to the vicissitudes of fortune in mines already discovered, and to a thousand other contingencies.  They had never seen anything but blessings flow from a plentiful supply of metallic money, and therefore, to ward off disaster from an insufficient supply of money and to be in a condition to reap the advantages to flow from a plentiful supply, they refused to chain our money system to one metal alone.  They preferred to take the chance of the yield of both metals with the privilege of using either or both.  Our money system was based on an average of chances rather than on a single chance.

A danger of a deficiency in the supply of money, even with both metals used as such, has for the last hundred years attracted the attention of thoughtful men, and many plans have been proposed to avert it.  Among others was a proposal by Richard Cobden which provided that a commission appointed for that purpose should estimate and publish the prices of a large number of the leading articles of commerce, and that all payments should be equitably adjusted by reference thereto.  This, it was believed, would protect the business and industrial interests against a corner which might be easily made in any one commodity.  Is it because we did not choose to coin silver dollars in great quantities at a time when we had no object in coining them that we have lost the right to have them coined ?  It is not disputed that ever since the Mint was established, in 1792, the people of this country enjoyed the privilege of using at their option either gold or silver dollars in the payment of all their debts, nor is it disputed that they always exercised it by choosing for that purpose which ever happened to be the cheaper dollar.  Is it maintained that by exercising the option and exercising it wisely we thereby lost it ?  Do the lawyers of this body maintain such a proposition as that ?  If I have charged that the work of demonetization was the work of fraud, I will retract it.  It would be difficult to make me believe that there was or ever will be a respectable minority in either branch of Congress that would perpetrate such a swindle on the people of this country;  but I do charge that the stripping of the money function and the debt-paying attributes of one of the two metals in which the debts of the country were solvable was a blunder which in governmental action is worse than a crime.

The mint law of 1792 reserved to the people the right of paying debts in either of the two metals.  The law of 1873-'74 was not only an exercise of that option, but was something more.  It did not destroy the option, but it made the future exercise of it impossible except by the repeal of that law or by the enactment of a new one.  Is it claimed that we have not had the same right to exercise our option in 1875, 1876, and 1877 as we had to exercise it in 1873-'74 ?  Or that we have not the same right now as then with regard to the option;  that law, equity, or logic would permit the impairment of the rights of the people in 1873, but would not permit the wrong to be righted in 1878 ?  It is not a matter of surprise that even if the demontization act had been tediously and elaborately discussed when it passed, it did not attract public attention.  No act had been passed for the resumption of specie payments, and for the one single purpose for which the use of either of the metals was required, gold was selected, because it was then, as it had been for a number of years previously, the cheaper of the two;  but small as was the demand for it then, any proposition for the demonetization of gold would have attracted attention and aroused opposition.  Although under recent definitions a ninety-seven-cent dollar, it was a dollar which the people had a right to the use of.

If severe censure is visited on those who engineered through the bill demonetizing silver when to all appearances it deprived the people of no right and when the silver dollar being the dearest it inflicted for the time being no practical injury, and when it might be urged as an excuse by its advocates that the experience of nearly a hundred years justified them in believing that under our relations of value the silver dollar would continue indefinitely to be the dearer dollar and consequently the dollar out of use, and that they could not foresee the change in the relations of value between the metals that has recently taken place nor the influence their action was likely to have on the value of the metals, respectively, will not our action on the pending bill, now that the dimension of the wrong inflicted by the demonetization act is plainly before the eyes of all, be subjected to severest criticism and censure if we do not promptly restore to the people the valuable option of which they were unjustly deprived ?

If, as has been said many times in this debate, the demonetizing law of 1873-'74 was an exercise of our option, it can be said in mitigation of the offense of passing a law to do that which we always had done freely and always could do, that the cheapest metal was retained.  The right of option having been neither impaired nor destroyed, why do we hesitate to exercise it in the same direction in 1878 and restore to the people absolutely and unconditionally the rights belonging to them ?

I am asked why I am willing that gold should go out of the country.  I answer that if the confident predictions of the gold-standard advocates prove true that notwithstanding the remonetization of silver gold will continue to be the baser metal, then there could be no possible good in its remaining here.  It could not remain here as money;  it would be to all intents and purposes a commodity.  We could just as well spare it as wheat or anything else.  It would go to countries where it would circulate as money and would tend to increase the gold prices of our exports.  If it goes, it will go freely and without compulsion.  No holder of gold coin or bullion will be obliged by law to send it out of the country, and if he does so it will be because he can make a desirable exchange of it for something else.

Mr. President, there has been an immense amount of property throughout this country confiscated in the last ten years by an increase in the value of money.  If an equivalency between the two metals and their concurrent circulation is desirable, why not produce that result in the same way as in 1834 by diminishing the weight of the dearer metal, which no one owes, sufficiently to establish an equivalency between it and the dollar of the contract, the dollar in which all debts are expressed.  Why raise the burden of debts ?  Why increase gratuitously the wealth of those who deal in nothing but securities and by the same act and more than to the same extent smite with poverty the masses of the people ?

Returning to the amendment of the Senator from Vermont, I repeat what I before stated, that if the view of the Senator is correct the effect of the passage of the pending bill will be to drive gold from the channels of circulation, and there can then be no necessity whatever for his amendment.  Why coin gold for export ?  The seven or eight hundred millions coined in this country since 1862 have been worse than useless.  A vast amount of money was expended in coining it and most of it has gone by the shortest possible route and without halting on the way to foreign countries, where it was melted and recoined.

continue