45th Congress, 2nd Session
Birchard Hayes, President by vote-fraud
Almon Wheeler, vice-president
John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury

Coinage of Silver Dollars.

Mr. Sargent.  In an interruption to me the Senator said he hoped gold would go out of the country, he hoped the effect of this legislation would be to force it out of the country.  I asked him why he hoped so, and he promised that he would reply to me and give me the reasons why he hoped it.  Now he has given those reasons why he wants to banish one of the money metals out of the country.  The first of those reasons is that when the fathers adopted the Constitution and acted under it in the first few years they had both metals in the country and insisted on keeping them both here and coining them both in order that both metals might be used, and if a corner was raised in one the people might resort to the other;  and because the fathers did this the Senator is in favor of forcing this metal out of the country.  That is one reason.

Mr. Jones, of Nevada.  If I remember aright, I did not give as a reason the fact that the fathers insisted upon both metals being coined.  The reason I gave was that the fathers insisted that either metal should be coined, not both;  but that the cheapest metal should be coined and that the people of this country should have the privilege of coining that metal which they could procure with the most facility, not that they should make both metals circulate as currency.

Mr. Sargent.  Ah, Mr. President, I do not see that that makes any difference in idea.  The fathers did not intend by any legislation they used, to force either metal out of the country, consequently it seems to me rather a strange example for the Senator, who desires that this legislation shall force out gold.  But that was not the only reason the Senator gave why he desires to banish gold from the country.  Another reason was that in 1873 a blunder, not a fraud but a blunder, which was worse than a crime, was committed by forcing out silver, and that is a reason why he is in favor of forcing out gold.  I should like to ask the Senator if according to the same logic it is not just as much a blunder to force out gold now as it was to force out silver;  in other words, if they are not both money metals and if he is not himself pleading a previous bad example for his own ?  The Senator said that the fathers wanted to maintain a principle of averages, and he wants to destroy that principle by taking away any opportunity for an average by having only one thing, the other which is to average with it being sent out of the country.  This may be very logical, but it is not very convincing.

Mr. Jones, of Nevada.  I must ask the Senator from California not to misrepresent me.

Mr. Sargent.  Oh! not at all;  I do not wish to do so.

Mr. Jones, of Nevada.  If the laws of trade, if what is called Gresham's law, shall force one of the metals out of the country, it is because it is to the advantage of the people of the country that it should go out.  What is proposed by the advocates of the silver bill here is to force neither out of the country, but to give the people of the United States the privilege of coining either at their option.  If they do not desire to coin gold because it is the dearer metal, they have the privilege of shipping it out in the shape of bars.  If they do not desire to coin silver because it is the cheaper motal, they can ship that out in the shape of bars.  It does not force gold either way when we make no such legislation against gold as was made against silver.  In fact, we make no legislation at all against gold.  As to silver, Congress demonetized it and dropped its coinage;  and now Senators rise here in their place in affected indignation that we do not give to gold the advantage of silver in coinage.  We simply propose to put it back right where it was, each to take its chances in the mints and in the markets of the world.  If silver shall continue to be the cheapest metal, silver will be coined in this country.  If gold, on the contrary, shall be the cheapest metal, gold will be coined in this country.  My own opinion is that at the relation of 16 to 1, eighteen months will not have elapsed before silver will be back at its old place where it stood before demonetization took place, at 2 or 3 per cent. above gold, and that it will be the metal that will be excluded from the country.

Mr. Sargent.  Does the Senator in that case desire to exclude it ?  Will he say it is best that gold shall be banished from the country ?

Mr. Jones, of Nevada.  Undoubtedly I do.

Mr. Sargent.  Then I have only to say that the Senator has not, by his citation from the fathers and his citation from the legislation of 1873, given any justification or excuse for it;  that he has not given any good reason why it should be banished from the country, or shown what good it would do to banish it, or explained his hostility to it.  For myself I have no hostility to either metal, and do not wish to have either banished from our circulation.  In regard to the other proposition, why coin gold if it will be banished from the conntry ?  I should like to assure the Senator that there are three States in the Union that have all through the troubles of the war, all through the settling of business since the war, down to the present moment, used gold coin as currency.  One of those States in part I represent.  I know that the people of that State are attached to that currency, and I do not desire for their sake that gold shall be driven out of the country.  I do desire for their sake as they produce the gold, if they wish it coined, that they may have a chance to coin it.  They have a peculiar law called the "specific-contract act," which enabled them to maintain the circulation notwithstanding the inflation of greenbacks, and I hope it will enable them to maintain it notwithstanding the inflation of silver.  But I do not wish to take up any more time in this discussion.

Mr. Matthews.  If I understood the Senator from California rightly, he fell into an error in respect to the terms of the bill which I think it is important should be corrected.  If I understood him rightly, he made the assertion that in case the bill became a law, what are now known as gold-coin certificates, which by the terms of the law and by the terms of the certificates are redeemable only either in gold coin or in gold bars, would then become redeemable in silver dollars coined under this act.  I wish to call his attention to the express provision made in the bill pending here as it came from the House, wherein it is provided that the legal-tender quality of the silver dollar authorized to be coined under this act, if it should become a law, does not apply to the solution and payment of contracts that by their terms are payable in gold coin or bars.  I submit to the Senator that he has misinterpreted the terms of the bill and given an erroneous impressio.n of its effect.

Mr. Sargent.  I have not the slightest doubt that the effect of this bill is to violate the solemn contracts of the United States, and I have no doubt that its operation will be to violate them still further.  I do not think that any contract will be construed as standing against the effect of such a law.

Mr. Matthews.  The Senator from California evades the point.  It is a matter of very little consequence what any individual opinion is as to the general effect of the measure;  I call his attention to its express language, and that is, that these silver dollars "shall be a legal tender, at their nominal value, for all debts and dues, public and private, except where otherwise provided by contract."

Mr. Sargent.  Has the Senator a copy of the certificate here ?

Mr. Matthews.  I have not, but I take the gentleman's statement of those certificates, and upon that statement I convict him of the inconsistency which he alleges.  I say that this bill is not at all subject to the imputation which he puts upon it, but that on the contrary it preserves the faith of every contract made either before or after its passage, wherein it is provided that that contract shall be repaid in other coins than the silver coins provided by this bill.

Mr. Thurman.  I ask that the pending amendment be read.

The Presiding Officer.  The Secretary will report the amendment.

The Chief Clerk.  It is proposed to insert at the end of the amendment of the committee the following:

But nothing in this act contained shall be construed to interfere with the coinage of gold and the subsidiary silver coin, as now authorized by law.

Mr. Thurman.  Mr. President, that is offered as an amendment to the amendment reported by the Finance Committee, which has been adopted.  The amendment of my friend from Vermont must go upon the ground that if the bill pass it will repeal by implication some law regulating the coining of gold coin and the subsidiary coin.  There is certainly nothing in the bill that expressly repeals any law for the coining of gold coin or subsidiary coin, and it must be some apprehension in the mind of the Senator from Vermont that the bill, if passed, will, by implication, repeal the provisions of law in reference to the coining of gold coin and of subsidiary coin, which induces him to offer his amendment.  I should be very glad if the Senator from Vermont would point out how there is any such manifest repugnancy between this bill and any existing statute as would produce such a repeal.  No one knows better than the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee that a repeal by implication only exists where the repugnancy between the first and the subsequent statute is manifest;  where the two statutes cannot be reconciled upon any reasonable interpretation.  Therefore I would thank him to tell me, for I seek information, where there is such manifest repugnance between the existing statutes and this bill as to make the bill repeal any statute for the coinage of gold or the coinage of the subsidiary coin.  If there is any such repugnancy as that, then I do not choose to limit the coinage of silver under the bill in that way, through fear that the Secretary of the Treasury might limit the coinage of gold and of subsidiary coin already anthorized by law.

Mr. Edmunds.  I assume from what the Senator from Ohio has said that he is not in favor of excluding the coinage of the gold coins or of the subsidiary silver coins under the operation of this bill.

Mr. Thurman.  The Senater is quite right.

Mr. Edmunds.  That being so, on the Senator's own views there can be no possible harm in the adoption of the amendment.  It would then be only to exclude the possibility of a misconstruction by a Secretary, or of such effect under this act in the operations of the Mint as should require the coinage of the silver dollar to the exclusion of the gold dollar and of the subsidiary coins.  That is all that the amendment says, that these two millions a month, or, as it may be, four millions a month, shall not come in to the exclusion in its due order of the other coinage.  Those who wish to have it come in to the exclusion of the other coinage will of course vote against the amendment.  Those who do not wish to have it come in to that exclusion ought to vote for the amendment even if they did not see the necessity for it.  But there may be a necessity if it should turn out in the practical operations of the Mint that the four millions a month that may be coined of the silver dollar would exclude from the coinage at some particular interval gold that might be offered or the necessary subsidiary coin.

That is the sole ground on which the amendment rests.  The Senator from Texas and the Senator from Nevada have clearly stated that they oppose it on the ground that they wish to exclude the gold and that they wish to force the silver dollar of 412½ grains upon the people of this country to the exclusion of the other to this extent, if I correctly understand them.

Mr. Jones, of Nevada.  I must correct the Senator from Vermont.

The Presiding Officer.  Does the Senator from Vermont yield to the Senator from Nevada ?

Mr. Edmunds.  With pleasure.

Mr. Jones, of Nevada.  I say that it is my wish that the coinage laws of this country as they were adopted in 1792 shall still obtain, and, if the law of Aristophanes or the law of Sir Thomas Gresham shall happen under the coinage laws of this country to exclude either gold or silver, that either shall be excluded, I mean to say, and I have said I think pretty plainly, that I do not believe money coined of the dearest metal will circulate.  I desire that that law shall still continue and I desire that the dearest metal shall do as it always has done, leave the country.  But I do not wish that any law shall be passed to exclude either metal from the country.  This is exactly what we complain of, that a law was passed to exclude silver from the country.  We simply propose to bring silver back again, and, if the laws of commerce or the laws of trade shall permit it to circulate here, then let us permit it to circulate squarely on an equality with gold.  We do not want to do anything more.  If gold is the dearest metal, the Senator from Vermont will readily see that it will not circulate.  He has said so in very able speeches on this floor.  If silver shall chance to be the dearest metal I do not believe it will circulate.  I presume perhaps the reason why silver was demonetized in 1873 was that it was then the dearest metal.  In fact, in an elaborate speech the other day in this body, the Senator himself said that at one period silver had not circulated in this country, and gave as the reason why it would not circulate that it was the dearest metal;  but he now insists upon an experiment that by law we shall force gold and silver to circulate in this country.  We propose to re-establish the laws of 1792 and then let the laws of trade regulate the rest.  I do not propose to vote for any measure that shall exclude either metal;  but I propose to vote for a measure that shall restore the old unit of value in this country, and then let the two take their chances in the trade of the world.

Mr. Edmunds.  If the Senator is right in his proposition, he will vote for my amendment, because the effect of the amendment already adopted by the Senate may be, as it is plainly stated by the Senator from Texas, and now again by the Senator from Nevada, to exclude the coinage of gold.  If you go back to 1792, and so on, as the Senator says---

Mr. Jones, of Nevada.  I ask to correct my own remarks one moment.  I wish to say that instead of proposing to re-establish the law of 1792, we propose to re-establish the law of 1837.

Mr. Edmunds.  Then my honorable friend is not so much for the dollar of the fathers as he is for the dollar of a nearer race of people, the people of 1837.

Mr. Allison.  The dollar of the fathers, the silver dollar, was not changed by the act of 1837.

Mr. Edmunds.  But the Senator from Nevada says he does not wish to go by the act of 1792;  he wishes to go by the act of 1837.

Mr. Jones, of Nevada.  As relates to gold, and the law of 1834.

Mr. Edmunds.  As relates to gold;  but the act of 1834 is just the same, it does not change either.

Mr. Jones, of Nevada.  It relates to silver exactly the same.

Mr. Edmunds.  What the Senator says does not help his case an atom and scarcely touches it.  As he says, and he is perfectly right, you cannot have two metals of unequal value circulating as a legal-tender coinage at the same time, although they can circulate as commodities, just as wheat and corn circulate as commodities in the markets of the world, although they are of unequal values.  That is one thing;  but if he says, as is true, that they cannot circulate when they differ in fixed and arbitrary values, that are imposed upon them by statute, then why does he want two ?  One must be driven out.  He only wants it evidently, as he has stated, in order to have what he calls an average of values;  that is, there shall be a walking-beam that shall go up and down, a state of absolute uncertainty all the time, and the debtor class is trading at the expense of the creditor class all the time upon the chances of the future.  Now, does that benefit the debtor class, Mr. President, supposing we are all debtors ?  Is it any advantage to a debtor who comes to the Senator from Nevada to borrow money to know that the Senator from Nevada thinks that ten years hence the debt is to be paid at the option of the debtor either in wheat or in potatoes ?  No, sir;  my friend who lends that money will put the rate of interest so high as to more than overbear any possible chance of advantage to the debtor, and instead of its being an advantage to him, it will be, as it has been proved in all the world, the means of his, ruin instead of his benefit.  What the people, who are honest, want is certainty when they make their engagements as to in what degree they are to be performed and what kind of performance is to be called for.  All the rest is mere speculation;  it is what the honorable Senator has himself styled in another connection the jugglery of business.  It is the thimble-rigging, which I believe, in the shows I have gone to, always requires two thimbles, and the pea is put under the one that always cheats the public.  That is your double standard, Mr. President, and it is nothing else.

Now, Senators say that this is all for the benefit of the debtor class, the poor.  I wish to repeat more emphatically, if I can, what I said a little while ago, that the creditor class of the country embraces more of the poor and needy, whom the laws are bound to protect, than it does of the rich and the prosperous.  Every laboring-man who earns his daily bread by the sweat of his brow and goes home at night with his dollar, or half dollar, or two dollars, in his pocket to buy bread for his children, is a creditor for that day.  He is selling his labor for pay, and he is a creditor of the "bloated" manufacturer or bondholder, as my friend is so fond of styling them, for that occasion.  Therefore in that sense, and in the true sense, the creditor class is always in the large majority, and that large majority is not composed of the rich but of the poor and the needy.  It is in the interest of that creditor class that I speak, to protect them against this thimble-rigging jugglery of two standards of value, two measures for cloth, two half-bushels for the corn that the man has to buy, two measures for his wheat and his flour, and to have him know that when he sells his labor of the day exactly what he is to get for it at night.  That is the class of people I am speaking for, the class of people who are in a great majority in this country, and whose interests are not diverse from those who employ them, whose interests, rightly understood, are in harmony with the persons who have occasion for their labor;  but that harmony can only be preserved and that justice can only be done when the laboring-man knows in the morning when be engages to sell his labor exactly what he is to get for it at night, and not leave the bulls and beard of Wall street or Lombard street the opportunity to change the value of what he is earning during that day from one dollar down to ninety cents, as they may bull or bear any double standard that you make for payment.

Mr. Jones, of Nevada.  Why not a single standard ?

Mr. Edmunds.  You may bull and bear a single standard, and if you bull and bear that single standard which is the best the man always gets exactly what he contracted for, and gets exactly what he knows the possible chance may be, without doubling the chance of the cards in the gamester's hands, which may be stocked for the occasion to cheat him.  Now, I will come back again to the precise point of this amendment, and that is that nothing in this act, which now commands the Secretary of the Treasury to coin two million of these dollars in each month, and it may be four, shall operate to exclude the coinage of the gold and of the subsidiary silver.  That is all there is to it.  If Senators mean that it shall or that it may have that effect, then say so, and reject this amendment;  but if you mean to reserve the absolute possibility of coining gold whenever it is offered and of coining the smaller silver whenever it is necessary, then say so, and do not leave it open to the chances of trade, or the possibilities of policy, or the accidents of mechanics to exclude one metal from the coinage for the benefit of the other.

Mr. Thurman.  Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont wandered a long way from the question presented by his amendment.

Mr. Edmunds.  I had to do so in order to find the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. Thurman.  I agree that the Senator had an excuse for his digression, but I come back to the amendment.  I put the question to the Senator from Vermont, and if any man in the world can answer it he can, where is the manifest repugnance between this bill and any existing statute which makes it necessary to adopt his amendment, what is his answer ?  Not that there is any manifest repugnancy, which every lawyer knows must exist before there can be a repeal by implication, but that out of abundant caution, or as the old lawyers used to say ex abundanti cantela, he offers his amendment.

Now, Mr. President, I beg you to listen for a moment to what the existing statutes are to see whether it is possible for any lawyer to suppose that there is any such repugnance between this bill and the existing statutes as makes this amendment of the Senator from Vermont necessary.  I ask that his amendment may be again reported.

The Presiding Officer, (Mr. Allison in the chair.)  The Secretary will again read the amendment.

The Chief Clerk.  It is proposed to insert at the end of the amendment of the committee the following:

But nothing in this section contained shall be construed to interfere with the coinage of gold and of the subsidiary silver coin as now authorized by law.

Mr. Thurman.  There are two things referred to in that amendment;  first the coinage of gold, and second the coinage of subsidiary silver coins.  Let us look first, as it is first in order, at the coinage of gold and see what the existing law is on that subject.  It is found in section 3519 of the Revised Statutes:

Any owner of gold bullion may deposit the same at any mint, to be formed into coin or bars for his benefit.  It shall be lawful, however, to refuse any deposit of less value than $100, or any bullion so base as to be unsuitable for the operations of the mint.  In cases where gold and silver are combined, if either metal be in such small proportion that it cannot be separated advantageously, no allowance shall be made to the depositor for its value.

That is all of it.  The whole force of it, however, is in the :first sentence, "Any owner of gold bullion may deposit the same at any mint, to be formed into coin or bars for his benefit."  When is it to be formed into coin or bars for his benefit ?  At the option and convenience of the Government;  that is all.  There is no provision that in any one year, in any six months, in any three months, in any one month, in any particular time, this formation into bars or this coinage shall take place.  It is simply a right to deposit gold bullion and to have it formed into bars or coined at the discretion and convenience of the Government.

Mr. Edmunds.  May I ask my friend a question ?

Mr. Thurman.  Certainly.

Mr. Edmunds.  Will not this later act, if it provides for an absolute coinage of so many millions a month, override the former law, which is merely permissive ?  Or if the former law were absolute, will not this later one override it to the extent that the law provides that there shall be coined at least two, and there may be coined four, millions a month of silver bullion ?

Mr. Thurman.  Beyond all question this latter law, so far as it is mandatory, will require the silver coinage to take place to the extent that the law commands;  and if we shall abridge the coinage of gold under this other section, certainly that abridgment will take place.  But where is there the repugnancy, where is there the repeal by implication, where is there the provision that secures to any man depositing gold bullion, that he shall have his gold bullion coined into eagles, or half eagles, or quarter eagles, or dollars, within any specified time ?  Nothing whatever.

Now, I come to the subsidiary coin.  That is provided for in section 3528, which is as follows:

For the purchase of metal for the minor coinage authorized by this title a sum not exceeding $50,000 in lawful money of the United States shall be transferred by the Secretary of the Treasury to the credit of the superintendent of the mint at Philadelphia, at which establishment only, until otherwise provided by law, such coinage shall be carried on.  The superintendent, with the approval of the Director of the Mint as to price, terms, and quantity, shall purchase the meml required for such coinage by public advertisement, and the lowest and best bid shall be accepted, the fineness of the metals to be determined on the mint assay.  The gain arising from the coinage of such metals into coin of a nominal value, exceeding the cost thereof, shall be credited to the special fund denominated the minor-coinage profit fund;  and this fund shall be charged with the wastage incurred in such coinage, and with the cost of distributing said coins as hereinafter provided.  The balance remaining to the credit of this fund, and any balance of profits accrued from minor coinage under former acts, shall be, from time to time, and at least twice a year, covered into the Treasury.

That is the provision in the coinage act for subsidiary coin.  In another section the amount is limited to fifty millions.  That is the amount of silver bullion which may be purchased, and we are informed that forty-two millions, if my recollection is right, of that appropriation have been expended.  Where, then, is the necessity in respect of the remaining eight millions of that appropriation, for the amendment of the Senator from Vermont ?  It belongs to the domain of de minimis non curat lex.

I do therefore humbly submit to my chief of the Judiciary Committee that there is no necessity in the wide world for his amendment.  There is nothing in the provision which authorizes the owner of gold bullion to deposit it, which would be repealed by implication, by the passage of this measure, for there is nothing which gives the depositor of gold bullion any right to the coinage of his gold bullion in any particular time or in any particular amount.  It is all left to the discretion of the Government.  As to the subsidiary coin, we have already expended forty-two millions, out of fifty millions, which we are authorized to expend, and as to the eight millions, I repeat, de minimis non curat lex.

Several Senators.  Question.

Mr. Sargent.  I assure Senators there is nothing gained in time by saying "Question;"  but I do not wish to delay the debate.  The Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Matthews,] with a judicial air, informed the Senate and me that I had totally misapprehended the effect of the bill so far as certificates issued for gold coin or bullion is concerned, and that I had misrepresented the intent of the bill in some way, by holding that under the bill silver dollars could be paid out at their nominal value in extinguishment of the obligations of the Government recognized by those certificates.  I must confess that I was somewhat disposed to yield the point from the assured air with which my friend rebuked me.  However, I concluded it was best to look at the statute, and having looked at it, I recur to my former opinion, notwithstanding what the Senator may have said.

I suppose it will not be denied by the Senator that anything that may be contained in the certificate itself, unless warranted by the statute, would not be binding to compel the Government, in view of this proposed statute, to pay anything but silver dollars.  I suppose there is nothing in the practice of the Government in heretofore recognizing its obligations to redeem those certificates with gold coin that would be binding in view of the argument which we had from the Senator the other day, that the principal and interest on the public debt could be paid in silver, and all the acts of the Government, short of a statute to show its intention to pay in good faith gold coins, were of no account.  He insisted upon the strictest letter of the bond;  that unless the statute expressly stated that the party should be paid in gold, he had no right to claim it;  that the Government had a right to exercise the option and to pay in silver coin.  I believe I do not misrepresent the Senator in the statement.

Mr. Matthews.  The Senator does, however.

Mr. Sargent.  Then I should like to be set right.

Mr. Matthews.  My position was simply this, that the contract to which the Senator now refers being for the payment of coin of the standard value of July 14, 1870, and the coin of the standard value of that date being expressly by law of two kinds---

Mr. Sargent.  Which contract does the Senator refer to ?

Mr. Matthews.  The bonds the Senator was speaking of just now.  There was an express contract for the payment of those bonds in either gold or silver coin.  The Senator represents me as stating that if it had been merely for the payment of coin I would have required the express exclusion of the right to pay in one or the other.  It was because the contract was expressly payable in either coin that I insisted upon the right to pay in either coin.

Mr. Sargent.  It was the practice of tile Government to pay the interest on the bonds in gold from the time that the bonds were first issued.  The representations made by the Treasury Department, the fact that the Government received gold for the bonds, all the acts of the Government in the way of inducement, except the particular wording of a statute, are excluded as giving no equity to the holder of those contracts of the Government.  It makes no difference either in the consideration that those bonds originally issued, and not funded, have changed hands a thousand times since and are not now held by the men who originally paid greenbacks for them.  They are held by the men who have paid gold or its value since.  They have passed into all the savings-banks, &c.  I do not care to go into that statement.  I merely say that all equities founded upon the practice of the Government count for nothing unless there was the wording of a statute which held us down strictly to pay gold coin.  That was the logic of the resolution brought forward by the Senator which was passed through here and which passed through the House under a suspension of the rules.  Then, nothing can be claimed unless it is in the statute.  The statute in reference to gold certificates does not anywhere provide that the certificates shall be redeemed in gold coin;  and if the certificate issued by the Treasury Department does not provide that it shall be paid in gold coin, the holders of that certificate will be as badly off as any other holders of the obligations of the Government who for sixteen years have been led to suppose that they would be paid in gold.  Section 254 of the Revised Statutes provides that---

The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to receive deposits of gold coin and bullion with the Treasurer or any assistant treasurer of the United States in sums not less than $20, and to issue certificates therefor in denominations of not less than $20 each, corresponding with the denominations of the United States notes.

There is nothing there authorizing the issue of certificates payable in gold coin, or declaring that the certificates shall be paid in gold coin.  In the spirit of Shylock in which we now propose to act toward our creditors we can say for the want of those words of vital meaning, of plain signification, these parties shall be paid in silver coin.  There is, however, a security fund provided out of which these certificates may be paid, as strictly construed, to secure their payment.

The coin and bullion deposited for or representing the certificates of deposits shall be retained in the Treasury for the payment of the same on demand.

No one will contend that this same coin or, if it is offered, bullion, is to remain in the Treasury.  That has not been the construction of the Treasury Depatiment.  The coin is paid out for any cause the Government wishes, either for interest on the public debt or for expense of foreign intercourse abroad payable in gold.  The only meaning of that provision as may be well argued and in fact as is interpreted by the action of the Treasury Department is that it shall be a security or pledge for the payment of the certificates.

The section continues:

And certificates representing coin in the Treasury may be issued in payment of interest on the public debt, which certificates, together with those issued for coin and bullion deposited, shall not at any time exceed 20 per cent. beyond the amount of coin and bullion in the Treasury;  and the certificates for coin and bullion in the Treasury shall be received at par in payment for duties on imports.

The last provision, by giving to these certificates the power of payment of duties on imports, gives to them under present laws the value of gold.  Under the operation of this bill they become merely of the value of silver, for silver will pay those duties.  It is not anywhere nominated in this statute and cannot legally, according to the construction of Senators who are in favor of the bill or by the resolution which passed the other day, be paid in gold coin.  They were special loans to the Government in gold coin and bullion, and the Government gave certificates which are receivable for duties now only payable in gold coin.  That function you degrade to the silver level by this bill, and so take away the value of the function pro tanto.  But as that statute makes no provision for their redemption in gold, and by this bill you make silver a tender for all debts not strictly declared by law payable in gold, the Secretary of the Treasury must pay them in silver or be liable to impeachment.  Therefore I differed with the Senator from Iowa, and on so much ground the Senator from Ohio rests his judicial decision.

Mr. Edmunds.  I omitted to state in endeavoring to be as brief as possible in reply to my honorable friend from Nevada who spoke about making corners in gold and bulling one single standard, what I ought to have stated in that connection.  I did state that taking that for granted, it would be so and so.  I do not wish to repeat what I then said, but I wish to state now, although I do not desire to provoke discussion or take time but so that I shall not be misunderstood, that in any substantial sense you cannot bull a single standard or bear it, as the saying is;  you cannot push it up or down in any effective sense as it respects the value of the labor that the workingman performs.

Mr. Allison.  Nor a double one, either.

Mr. Edmunds.  That is the jugglery again that says you can have the pea under both thimbles at the same time.  That is all there is to that.  I have nothing more to say about the double-standard question;  but I shall object to have any misapprehension as to what I said in respect of appearing to admit what the Senator from Nevada had stated about the capacity of squeezing up or squeezing down a single standard of value.

The Presiding Officer, (Mr. Hoar in the Chair.)  The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Edmunds.]

Mr. Edmunds and Mr. Saulsbury called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. Gordon, (when Mr. Hill's name was called.) I wish to state that my colleague [Mr. Hill] is paired with the Senator from Tennessee, [Mr. Harris.]  If my colleague were here, I presume he would vote "yea," and the Senator from Tennessee would vote "nay."

The roll-call having been concluded, the result was announced yeas 23, nays 46;  as follows:

Yeas--- Anthony, Barnum, Bayard, Burnside, Butler, Christiancy, Allison, Armstrong, Bailey, Beck, Booth, Bruce, Cameron of Pa., Cameron of Wis., Chaffee, Cockrell, Coke, Conover, Roscoe Conkling, Dawes, Eaton, Edmunds, Hamlin, Hoar, Kernan, Lamar, McPherson, Mitchell, Morrill, Randolph, ---23
Nays--- Davis of Illinois, Davis of W.Va., Dennis, Johnston, Jones of Florida, Jones of Nevada, Dorsey, Eustis, Ferry, Garland, Gordon, Grover, Hereford, Rowe, Ingalls, Kellogg, Kirkwood, McCreery, McDonald, Matthews, Maxey, Merrimon, Morgan, Oglesby, Rollins, Sargent, Wailleigh, Whyte, Windom, Paddock, Plumb, Saulsbury, Saunders, Spencer, Teller, Thurman, Voorhees, Wallace, Withers. ---46
ABSENT-7. Blaine, Hill, Patterson, Sharon, Harris, McMillan, Ransom,

So the amendment was rejected.

The Presiding Officer.  The question recurs upon the amendment reported from the Committee on Finance as the second section of the bill.

Mr. Whyte.  Have all the amendments to the first section been disposed of ?

The Presiding Officer.  The Chair understands that the amendments reported from the committee have precedence of other amendments.  The amendment of the committee to the first section has been disposed of, and the question now is on the amendment reported by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Allison] as the second section of the bill.

Mr. Eaton.  I have an amendment to offer to that section.

The Presiding Officer.  An amendment to it is now in order.

Mr. Eaton.  The amendment of the Senator from Iowa proposes to insert:

That immediately after the passage of this act, the President shall invite the governments of the countries composing the Latin union, so called, and of such other European nations as he may deem advisable, to join the United States in a conference to adopt a common ratio of legal tender as between gold and silver, &c.

I move to strike out from the word "governments," in the second line, the letter "s;"  so as to read "government;"  and to insert "of Great Britain."  I desire the govemment of Great Britain to be named in the section in connection with the invitation.

Mr. Allison.  I will say to my friend that if he will examine this section he will see that the President is authorized to invite and undoubtedly will invite the government of Great Britain to join in the conference or commission, because under the provisions of the section he can invite such other European nations as he may deem advisable.  Therefore, it becomes a mere question as to naming the government of Great Britain.

Mr. Eaton.  That does not answer my purpose.  I propose that the government of Great Britain should be first named, because that is, in my judgment, as a commercial nation, the most important.  Therefore, I submit the amendment which I have offered.

Mr. Coke.  I wish to offer the amendment submitted by the Senator from California [Mr. Booth] with a modification.

Mr. Randolph.  Is there not a pending amendment ?

The Presiding Officer.  The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Eaton] to the amendment proposed by the Committee.

Mr. Butler.  It seems to me the Senator from Texas [Mr. Coke] is not in order.

The Presiding Officer.  The Senator from Texas had not stated his amendment.  The Chair will rule on the amendment when the Senator from Texas shall have submitted it.

Mr. Coke.  Whenever I can get the floor I will offer my amendment.

The Presiding Officer.  The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Eaton] to the amendment of the committee.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The Presiding Officer.  The qnestion is on the amendment reported by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Allison] from the Committee on Finance as the second section of the bill, which will be reported.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 2.  That immediately after the passage of this act the President shall invite the governments of the countries composing the Latin union, so called, and of such other European nations as he may deem advisable, to join the United States in a conference to adopt a common ratio of legal tender as between gold and silver, for the purpose of establishing, internationally, the use of bimetallic money and securing fixity of relative value between those metals;"  such conference to be held at such place, in Europe or in the United States, at such time within six months, as may be mutually agreed upon by the executives of the governments joining in the same, whenever the governments so invited, or any three of them, shall have signified their willingness to unite in the same.  The President shall, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint three commissioners, who shall attend such conference on behalf of the United States, and shall report the doings thereof to the President, who shall transmit the same to Congress.  Said commissioners shall each receive the sum of $2,500 and his reasonable expenses, to be approved by the Secretary of State;  and the amount necessary to pay such compensation and expenses is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

The Presiding Officer put the question on the amendment and declared that he was unable to decide by the sound.

Mr. Butler.  I call for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. Bayard.  I do not know what the indication was from the vote we had just now, bnt I hope the Senate will pause before those who are, I do not say who profess to be, but who are in favor of the restoration of a double standard in the values of this country, will omit the only feature in my judgment which this bill contains tending to accomplish their desires.  I have never yet been able to find in print, I never yet have been able to hear orally, from any man who has made this subject a study, the least pretense that any nation single-handed and alone, without the co-operation and consent of other members of the great family of nations, could pretend to create a double standard of its own.  Therefore, as I say, this is the only feature of the bill which has to my mind the faintest chance of probable success in leading this people back to the double value of gold and silver as their standard;  and I hope the Senate will not reject it.

I do desire that silver shall be used to its widest possible extent as a money for tho people of this country.  I have said so before, and probably it is not necessary to repeat it now.  I am very sure that this amendment not only is proper, is well to be adopted now, but in my judgment it should have been the precursor of the whole movement intended by this bill.  I fear we shall be guilty of a violation of the good sense of the proverb in locking the stable after the steed is stolen if we pass the bill first arbitrarily fixing our mint values upon these coins, regardless of their bullion value, and then send abroad to know whether we can possibly maintain the two in circulation.  It would be like providing the medicine after, I am afraid, the patient is in his coffin.  Still it is better to have the examination and the opportunity of retracing our steps should it turn out that the bill is erroneous.  I hope, therefore, the Senate will at least permit this comparison of views upon this highly important subject to be made in the only way that can give us the benefit of the experience and the advice of others, who no matter what may be the form of government under which they live have the same human interest with ourselves, to whom profit and loss fall as painfully or as pleasurably as they do upon us under a republican form of government, and that we may get a little bit over this American idea that we can have principles of political economy bounded by the jurisdiction of our own Government.  I hope that the amendment will be adopted.  It can do no harm;  it may do some good.

Mr. Morrill.  Mr. President, the bill now having been amended, I cannot perceive that there should be any possible objection on the part of any one to the further amendment proposed by the Committee on Finance.  Certainly those who are most earnestly in favor of the bill must desire its ultimate success, and there can be nothing that wonld be more potential in contributing to its success than to secure the co-operation of other and distant nations.  I shall therefore regard it as a test of the sincerity of those who vote for the bill as to whether they really desire to bring silver up to the value of gold or not.

Mr. Saulsbury.  I wish to occupy but a moment.  I expressed the other day my own idea, and I believe it to be correct, that it is utterly impossible for this country to agree with the European governments in reference to any common representative of money. I believe that the whole matter of a convention for that purpose is unnecessary. It would be attended by expense.  A commission would be appointed which must be paid, and it would result as former conventions have resulted on this subject, in no practical benefit to the country.

Besides, if it is a proper measure it ought to be distinct and independent, unconnected and separated from this bill.  The purport of the bill is to reauthorize the coinage of the silver dollar. That is to be again, according to my understanding of the bill, the policy of this Government. If it is desirable to have an international convention to ascertain whether it is possible to put ourselves in unison upon the money system with the European powers why not submit it to Congress as a separate and distinct measure ?  Why connect it with this measure embracing the new policy which we are about to adopt ?  I do not know that I should object very seriously to the proposition if it were offered as a separate and distinct measure;  yet I cannot refrain from expressing my opinion that such a measure, whether connected with this bill or as an independent and distinct proposition, would amount to nothing practical and effective so far as this country is concerned.  What are the grave questions which our representatives would have to meet in such a convention ?  One of the very first questions they would have to meet would be whether we would give up our standard of value, the dollar, and adopt the franc of the Latin union, or whether we would adopt the sovereign of England. We should have this question to meet, and independent of that, the question of pure metal and alloy to be fixed as the common representative of money. So far as I am concersed, I shall vote against this amendment, it being connected with this measure.

Mr. Allison.  I regret to see that the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. Saulsbury,] who has generally favored this measure, now finds it necessary to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Saulsbury.  I beg the Senator's pardon, it is not a part of the measure to recoin the silver dollar.  I am not opposing that.  I shall vote for the bill, but I oppose this amendment which proposes to add in a separate section a distinct question, to appoint a commission to confer with other powers.

Mr. Allison.  I regard this amendment as of vast importance to the success of silver coinage.  The monetary commission that reported upon this subject reported in favor of a conference of nations.  This subject has been discussed over and over again by the scientists and the men who study the question of money in all the nations.  The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Jones] first upon this floor in 1876, in an able and exhaustive speech upon the value of silver, had the honor of proposing an international monetary conference for the purpose of fixing a monetary unit and relation between these two metals.  We simply propose here, not to say whether the United States will adopt the sovereign, or the franc, or the rupee of India, if you please, or any other coin.  We simply propose that this conference shall consider one subject, and one subject only, namely, the expediency and feasibility of establishing internationally the use of bimetallic money and securing fixity of relative value between these metals.  Now, why is such a conference necessary ?  We, by our legislation here, fix the value of a silver dollar at 412½ grains, which is at the relation of 16 to 1.  The bimetallic nations of the world to-day have the fixed relation of 15½ to 1, which overvalues silver 3½ per cent. as compared with the monetary unit which we propose to establish by this bill.

Gold-based Silver coin.

Every dollar of silver coin in existence, whether in the form of francs, rupees, or German thalers, has a relation to gold bearing 3.5 per cent. more than the relation which we fix by this bill.  Then what will be the result if we persist in this monetary unit ?  The result will be either that the bimetallic nations of Europe will keep their mints closed;  or when they open their mints to the free coinage of silver, every silver dollar that is in the United States will flee again to Europe, as it did after the unfortunate and mischievous legislation of 1834, because we then established a wrong relation between the two metals.

If we are to loosen these two metals and have them circulate side by side, I agree that we must have some fixity of relation so that the mints, not only of our own country but of other nations, will be open to the free, unrestricted, and unlimited coinage of silver.  Therefore, the friends of silver, those who believe that it is wiser for the civilized nations of the Earth to utilize $2,250,000,000, or about that sum, of coined silver money, should unite in making an honest endeavor at least to secure and establish a fixed relation between this silver to be used as money and the coined gold which many of the civilized nations will adhere to, whatever we may do in such a conference as is prvposed.  I do not expect that Great Britain will join in this conference and agree to adopt the double standard, but I believe that the influence of that great government will be thrown on the side of bimetallic money.  She has two hundred million people in India who have to-day a thousand million of silver rupees, which is the only coined money of that country, and it is not reasonable to suppose that Great Britain will adopt a policy now which will destroy this thousand millions of coined money belonging to her subjects.  Although England may not adopt the bimetallic system, she will encourage other nations and our own to persist in the use of silver as well as the use of gold.

I say, then, that if gentlemen on this floor are serious and earnest in the use of silver money, I beg of them to initiate a proceeding here which will have the effect of making the use of silver money perpetual in our own country or for a series of years.  I trust this amendment will not be voted down by the friends of silver.  If it is to be crushed, let it be crushed by gold monometallism, because the monometallists of gold have no desire to see legislation either in this country or internationally that will secure the use of silver.

Mr. Merrimon. The amendment looks to a league with foreign nations. It seems to contemplate no other purpose. It proposes to provide a conference for that very purpose. I wish to say that I am opposed to all foreign alliances and entanglements. Let other nations fix their money standard as they will;  let us fix ours as suits our convenience. If it turns out that they make a standard of value that suits us to conform to, we will take advantage of the occasion and circumstances that present themselves when the time shall come for us to change our own and fix some other.

Mr. Biley.  I regret, Mr. President, that the measure under consideration has been offered by the Committee on Finance as an amendment, and that it was not proposed as a separate bill, for I much fear that if we shall continue to load the bill as it came from the House with amendments made by the Senate it may give rise to contrariety of opinion and differences between the House and Senate such as will result in something not very pleasant at all events to the friends of the measure;  and that we should seek to avoid.  Moreover, this is a bill to regulate simply the coinage of the Government and people of the United States.  It is purely a domestic bill in its operation and effect, having reference alone to our own internal wants, and having no reference whatever, in its main features, to the existing coinage laws of other countries.  For these reasons I feel constrained to vote against the amendment that is offered by the committee, and yet I cannot do so without declaring at the same time that, if it shall be brought forward as a separate measure, I will cordially support it, and for the reason that I recognize that there is much force in what has been said by the Senator from Iowa, that there will be a necessity of co-operation on the part of those countries that may adopt silver as part of their coinage with reference to the regulation of the ratio of value which should exist between gold and silver.  I make these remarks simply by way of explanation of the vote I shall give.

Mr. Ferry.  Mr. President, I was inclined to support the amendment that has just been advocated by the Senator from Iowa, reported from the Committee on Finance, and shall be disposed to support it still unless the Senator seeks to rest the utility and stability of the silver bill upon the sanction and co-operation of foreign powers.  I confess that I was a little surprised at the admission of the Senator from Iowa that its stability does substantially depend on such cooperation.  If that be the case, in the judgment of the Senator, then I am not disposed to admit that my confidence in the utility of the bill is so far dependent upon the force of the amendment that I must make it indispensable by my support.

Mr. Allison.  I do not know that I in any sense stated that this measure would depend upon such co-operation, I stated that unless we had co-operation, either the mints of Europe would be closed against silver, or, when opened, our own mints would be closed against silver, as they were closed from 1834 to 1873 practically, because we adopted a relation different from the relation of the bimetallic nations of Europe.

Mr. Ferry.  Does the Senator from Iowa admit that this Government has no power to fix the standard for itself irrespective of foreign nations ?

Mr. Allison.  On the contrary, I know we have a perfect right to fix any standard we choose.  We can make it 1 to 10 or 1 to 50;  but when we do, we take the choice of either having all silver or all gold, as the case may be.

Mr. Jones, of Florida.  What is the present relation established in Europe ?

Mr. Allison.  Fifteen and one-half to 1.

Mr. Jones, of Florida.  And that proposed in the bill now before the Senate is 16 to 1 ?

Mr. Allison.  Yes, sir.

Mr. Ferry.  I did not mean to imply that this Government had not the legal authority to do it, but whether or not it had power to give this value irrespective of foreign powers.  Can we not, in other words, maintain it without the sanction and co-operation of other powers ?

Mr. Allison.  We cannot maintain it and maintain gold if the mints of Europe are closed to silver.

Mr. Blaine.  I should like to ask the honorable Senator from Michigan a question.  Does he think the co-operation of foreign nations would weaken the movement ?

Mr. Ferry.  I do not.  I was disposed to support the amendment, but when the Senator from Iowa, who reports it, bases it upon the sanction and co-operation of foreign powers in order to make it operative, then I take issue with him.

Mr. Blaine.  I do not see why the Senator should change his ground unless he believes that would weaken it.  Whatever may be the motive of the Senator in supporting the measure does not change its effect.  Does the Senator from Michigan believe or desire us to understand that with the single fact of the United States alone maintaining a silver standard and all the rest of the world abandoning it we can keep up the value of silver.  Does he take that ground ?

Mr. Ferry.  I take this ground, that I am satisfied this Government has not only the right but has the effective power to maintain silver as a part of its coin, irrespective of any other power.

Mr. Blaine.  That is evading the question.  Does the Senator believe that our doing it will keep up its value in the markets of the world as money ?  if all other nations fail to do it ?

Mr. Ferry.  I answer that by saying that the declaration of this Government by statute carries with it all the moral as well as legal force of this Government, and in my judgment sufficient to maintain it within its jurisdiction if not beyond.

Mr. Blaine.  "Moral force" does not weigh in the money market.

Mr. Ferry.  I am aware that it does not in the scales of money traffic, but coupled with law it is potential in fixing the money value of the world.

Mr. Blaine.  I beg the Senator's pardon.  If he takes the ground that asking the co-operation of foreign governments will weaken this movement, then he is logical;  but if he admits that it will strengthen it, as he must certainly with his logic, then I think the motive merely of the Senator from Iowa does not afford sufficient ground for him to change his view.

Mr. Ferry.  The Senator from Maine evades the point when he puts the question.  My view is this, and I stated it at the outset, that I was disposed to support the amendment;  but when the Senator who reports it bases it upon the co-operation of foreign powers to make it vital and operative, then I say I must differ with him. I am satisfied that the co-operation of foreign powers is desirable, but I do not feel that their co-operation is indispensable.  That is the ground I take.

Mr. Allison.  I want to make myself understood, if I can, by the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. Ferry.  I am trying to understand the Senator, and that is why I am trying to draw him out on that point, for this reason:  If the Senator who reports this amendment gives it to the country and the world that it is based finally upon the co-operation of foreign powers, then I cannot agree with him.  My view is that it is desirable to secure their co-operation, but, if they decline it, we can stand alone, independent of other powers.

Mr. Allison.  What does the Senator from Michigan mean when he talks about basing this upon co-operation ?  Basing what ?

Mr. Ferry.  Basing the maintenance of 412½ grains of silver as the silver-dollar unit and as an equivalent part of the coin of the country.

Mr. Allison.  Let me ask the Senator a question.  Is it not a fact that at one period because we put 412.5 grains of silver in the dollar, our dollars were expelled from this country and were reminted and recoined in France and we were left exclusively to a gold standard after the act of 1834 ?  Now, that same condition of things will take place again, and the Senator from Michigan, who loves the silver dollar, will find himself in a few years without a silver dollar and thrown back again upon a single gold standard, unless other nations discard silver, and in that event we can of course maintain it;  but if they reopen their mints to silver our silver goes away from us, as it has often gone before.

Mr. Ferry.  I do not confess to such fear that silver or gold is going to leave this country because we happen to change the relation.  It cannot leave without giving us an equivalent.

Mr. Allison.  With free coinage it must go.

Mr. Ferry.  We have stricken out free coinage in this bill as far as silver is concerned.  The Senator from Iowa in his own amendment has stricken out the free-coinage feature of the silver bill.

Mr. Allison.  But my friend from Michigan does not suppose that that provision is to last always.  The very basis of this amendment is that, when we have fixed the relation that silver shall have, it will be open to free coinage in this country, and not only in our own country but in the other countries using bimetallic money---

Mr. Ferry.  I then answer the Senator from Iowa in the same way that I met the Senator from Pennsylvania.  I do not believe in legislating to-day and inscribing on the face of the statute fear of the efficiency of that legislation by asking the future to condone such folly.  I believe in legislating for the present and for the future without question.  Others who follow us will take care of the unforeseen needs of the future.  My judgment is that 412½ grains is the proper standard for silver to hold its equivalent relation to gold.  Believing this, I do not wish to commit myself to any proposition that weakens it by indispensable co-operation with other powers.  That is the ground I take.  I am opposed, in other words, to the argument of the Senator, while I stand by the measure as embraced in the bill.

Mr. Allison.  Well, vote the argument down and vote for the amendment. [Laughter.]

Mr. Ferry.  That is what I am after.  I want to antagonize the views expressed by the Senator as the correct interpretation of the character of the bill.  If it depends upon foreign support, to vote against the amendment, but if it means simply a proposition to invite the co-operation of other governments, that may be advisable.

Mr. Blaine.  There are two points that have struck me in this debate.  Those who go for a single gold standard, if you address them the question, "Do you think silver ought to be given up entirely as money ?" answer, "Oh, no;  other nations will keep it as money, and we shall have plenty of market for the product of our mines by other nations keeping it up."  Now, on the other hand, the Senator from Michigan, who desires silver to be money, says he does not want the co-operation of other nations.  The gold monometallist says other nations will provide for our silver by their making it money.  The silver monometallist (for the Senator seems to put himself in that position) says he wants no co-operation from other nations.

Mr. Merrimon.  I do not.

Mr. Blaine.  The Senator does not want any on cotton.  It is an entangling alliance to take cotton to England and get pay for it;  it is an entangling alliance to send tar, pitch, and turpentine across the ocean and get money for them;  it is a very entangling alliance to have commerce with other nations.  It seems to me there would be just as much force in saying you want no entangling alliances or any interchange whatever as to say it of that which is the basis of all interchange.

Mr. Ferry.  I trust the Senator from Maine does not wish to misrepresent my position.  I stated, and I repeat, that I would desire, if my desire would accomplish the purpose, the co-operation of other powers;  but, in the absence or refusal of such co-operation, I do not admit that we must thereby confess that legislation will be inoperative.  I can say again, if the Senator from Maine desires it and wishes to properly represent me, that foreign co-operation would be welcome, but if it is refused we can prosper independently of it.  I cannot admit that it is an indispensable requisition.  That is the ground of my support.

Mr. Blaine.  It is not so proposed.

Mr. Ferry.  But that is the way in which the Senator from Maine has not put it, and I desire to be placed rightly in that respect.

Mr. Merrimon.  Mr. President, the examples put by the Senator from Maine are not apposite at all.  We send cotton to England or to France or to wherever we will without the consent of England or France as nationalities, if we can find somebody there who wants to buy our cotton.  So of any other product that we desire to send abroad.  We do not want a commission to regulate the price that we shall receive for cotton, tar, pitch, turpentine, or anything else.  We are perfectly free to sell when we will and where we will and as we will.  This case is very different from the one he puts, and therefore the case he puts does not weigh anything at all in the argument.  The proposition embraced in the proposed amendment contemplates an alliance with foreign nations on the subject of money, from which, if it is engaged in, we cannot recede at will.  It is to last for a number of years, forty or fifty years.

Mr. Blaine.  The longer the better.

Mr. Merrimon.  In the mean time, if it should suit the convenience of this country to recede from it and change our money standard, we should not be at liberty to do so without a breach of that alliance which might involve us in war or other difficulties.

Mr. Morrill.  May I suggest to the Senator from North Carolina that the commission is merely to make a report for the future action of Congress ?

Mr. Merrimon.  But that does not vary what I stated in my remarks a while ago, that it looks to a foreign league, to a foreign alliance, to foreign entanglements, to which I am utterly opposed not only in this respect, but in every other.  I want to maintain the absolute independence of this country.

Mr. Blaine.  And I suppose the Senator from North Carolina, then, is opposed to a pound in his State being a pound in Liverpool, or a bale of cotton weighing the same, or to weights and measures being the same between any two nations.

Mr. Merrimon.  I am entirely unless---

Mr. Blaine.  He is for one weight for cotton in North Carolina and one in Manchester.

Mr. Merrimon.  I am unless it suits the business of this country to do it.  If it does we will conform our action to the measure of value in that country and we will do it without a league, without an alliance.

Mr. Blaine.  Therefore the Senator thinks on the whole, if it is better to have fourteen ounces make a pound here, we shall have it despite the world.

Mr. Merrimon.  Certainly.

Mr. Blaine.  Well, it is a great free American right we ought to maintain. [Laughter.]

Mr. Merrimon.  And then we could adjust them as exchanges are regulated now.  A dollar is not equal to a pound, and yet we can resolve Federal money into English money and English money into Federal money.  There is no difficulty at all about that.  The Senator from Maine a while ago asked with an air of triumph if moral considerations had anything to do with money transactions.  I tell him yes, they have everything to do with transactions such as the bonds of this country or any country.  What but the morality of this country, what but the honor and good faith of this country, gives value to our securities in foreign lands or in this country ?

Mr. Blaine.  That is the application of money.

Mr. Merrimon.  We cannot be sued on our bonds.  There is nothing but the morality of this people that gives them credit.  The morality of a man adds weight to the value of his personal bond, his personal security, it adds to it and makes up the very essence of the contract.  But, sir, my objection was that this proposition looks to an alliance with foreign nations, and I am opposed to that, and I predict now that when the vote is taken ten minutes hence, it will be found that every one in favor of a single standard votes for this proposition.

Mr. Paddock.  I should like to inquire of the Senator if he considers in this amendment in its scope that there is anything beyond the inquiry authorized by the amendment.

Mr. Merrimon.  Certainly I do.  It looks to an alliance.  That is the very point.  It is the point that the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Ferry] made a moment ago.  It looks to an alliance.  That is the object.

Mr. Paddock.  Is there a single letter or word in the amendment that looks to anything like an alliance or complication with foreign nations ?

Mr. Merrimon.  I think it means that or nothing.

Mr. Paddock.  It is simply an inquiry to ascertain whether silver coin may not be incorporated as an article of commerce between nations.

Mr. Blaine. The Senator from North Carolina, I think, not intentionally of course, misrepresents what I said about moral worth not being of any value in the money market.  What I meant and what I answered the Senator from Michigan was this:  That Senator was maintaining that regardless of the weight of this dollar the moral weight of this Government beneath it could float it.  The Senator when he comes to argue refers to the application of money.  If you owe a debt you have got to pay it;  but does the Senator say that however great the moral worth of this Senate or the moral worth of the nation that the Senate represents, it can throw that moral worth into the scales to throw up or weigh down an indifferent or short dollar ?

Mr. Merrimon.  I do not.

Mr. Blaine.  At what particular per cent. in the dollar does the Senator put moral worth ?  Is it 8 or 10 ?  What is the component part when you come to the one hundred cents that makeup a dollar, that the moral worth of any nation gives it ?

Mr. Merrimon.  When the Senator gets through I will state my understanding of this subject.

Mr. Blaine.  I am through.

Mr. Merrimon.  What I mean to say is this, that while it would be convenient to have a universal standard of value, as I admit, while it would be desirable, I would not compromise this couptry by making an alliance with England or any other, or any number of foreign nations.  What I desire is that we shall preserve our absolute freedom and independence.  But while it is convenient to have a uniform standard of value, the world has never had it.  I believe it is utterly impracticable that the world ever should have it.

Mr. Ferry.  I ask the Senator if when France paid her indemnity to Germany that coin paid over to Germany was not recoined in Germany, and then when it returned to France was recoined again in the french mint ?

Mr. Merrimon.  I take it that it was.  I say further that while it was useful and convenient to have a uniform standard of value, it is not absolutely essential.  No one ever did exist, and I do not believe any one ever will exist.  The laws of exchange must exist while there are different nationalities on the face of the earth.  We understand how we resolve Federal money into English money and English money into Federal money.  But this difference in point of value, I am satisfied, has been greatly magnified in this debate.  I admit that it is a convenience, but it is not essential, and I am not sure that it is practicable at all to establish a universal standard.  I doubt if it is in the very nature of things.

But, sir, I want to make the point again, and I am glad that the Senator from Michigan has seen it --it is the one I endeavored to call the attention of the Senate to a while ago, in two or three words.  I object to it on the ground that this looks directly to an alliance with foreign nations, which will result, as certainly as we negotiate, a treaty in foreign entanglements.

Mr. Allison.  What sort of an alliance ?

Mr. Merrimon. Just such an alliance as this Latin union. This country agrees with England and France and Germany and Italy and Spain and a half dozen other nations that we will put so many grains of pure gold into a dollar, called by perhaps some other name that does not suit us, and that we shall agree that a pound shall be so much and that our yard-stick shall be so much, and so of all our measures. It looks to that era of universal peace and quiet and equality that is utterly impracticable.

Mr. Allison.  Does not the Senator know that the yard-stick is an English invention and that the Winchester bushel is our bushel, a bushel two or three centuries old ?  All we propose here is that the relation shall be the same.  We make no alliance with anybody, we simply agree with France that if she insists on 15.5 to 1 we will adopt 15½ to 1 in the silver coined at our mints.

Mr. Merrimon.  Then if it is not to be a league, I ask what good it does.  Let England fix her measure, France fix her measure, Germany fix her measure, and if upon experience and observation we find it suits us to make our measure conform to theirs we can do it without consulting them.  In the exercise of our free right we can do it.  We have nothing to gain by such an alliance, but everything to lose.

Mr. Saulsbury.  In addition to what has been said by the Senator from North Carolina, this fact looks us in the face:  when we meet the Latin union upon the question of the relative amount of silver and gold which shall constitute the coins, we shall be met by the fact that there are about two hundred and fifty million people to-day who use coins at the relation of 15½ of silver to 1 of gold, and we, being a population of about forty-four million people, would necessarily have to yield to their views upon that question;  and involved in that is the recoinage of all our silver dollars and all our subsidiary coin.  Now if the people of this country are going to be put to the expense of the recoinage of all their silver dollars for the purpose of being in harmony with the Latin union, you may commence to put your convention in operation to-morrow, and it will take two years at least before they will arrive at any proper conclusion in reference to this matter.  Do you think the representatives of this country would agree to the recoinage of all the silver dollars and all the subsidiary coin of this country or that the Latin union would agree to abolish the five-franc piece and come to the dollar of America ?  You have got innumerable questions of difficulty to be met whenever you undertake to create such a league.  My opinion is that the passage of this amendment of the Senator from Iowa sends out this bill with some distrust of its being a proper bill to be passed.  I am therefore opposed to it upon that consideration.

Mr. Morgan.  Mr. President, the whole pith of the amendment offered is contained in that part of it which terminates with the eighth line.  The provision is:

That immediately after the passage of this act the President shall invite the governments of the countries composing the Latin union, so called, and of such other European nations as he may deem advisable, to join the United States in a conference to adopt a common ratio of legal tender as between gold and silver, for the purpose of establishing internationally the use of bimetallic money and securing fixity of relative value between those metals.

The first suggestion that strikes my mind in regard to this amendmentis that the friends of silver remonetization upon that standard of value maintained at the time of its demonetization are apprehensive that this measure will not meet with public acceptance unless we go abroad for an indorsement of our policy.  In that respect we do not give to the judgment of the legal tribunal of the United States, the Congress of the United States, that sort of value which belongs to the dignity and grandeur of our own country.  I think that the American people have as much right to prescribe for themselves the standard of currency, the standard of value between the two metals used as currency, as they have to prescribe for themselves a tariff or any other institution or establishment that belongs to American affairs.  I think it is hardly necessary to consider whether we are engaging ourselves in entangling alliances with foreign nations when we come to consider our own policy or not, because when we consider our resources, the magnitude and grandeur of our country, we must come to the conclusion that we have the right to prescribe a policy for American affairs, which is peculiar to our own affairs, to our own situation.

But without reference to this broad scope of the question which relates to our interests as they may be involved with the interests of other and foreign nations, there are some points contained in the first eight lines of this amendment which it seems to me must strike the attention of those who are disposed to consider it deliberately as being very objectionable to be enacted in the form of legislation.  In the first place, the President is authorized to "invite the governments of the countries composing the Latin union, so called."  I should not object to the words "so called," because they have been applied to the State which I have the honor to represent, for instance.  I do not know what the states composing the Latin union might think of that term "so called," as applied to them;  they may not have the same feeling of criticism that strikes my own mind in reference to that.

Mr. Allison.  I will strike that out if it will please my friend from Alabama.

Mr. Morgan.  I shall not move to strike it out.  The association is "the Latin union," not the so-called Latin union, but that is a mere verbal criticism and amounts to nothing whatsoever.  I referred to it as a mere matter of pleasantry connected with our past historical reminiscences.

The President has the right to invite the governments of the countries composing the Latin union and "such other European nations as he may deem advisable;"  that is to say, a President of the United States, in favor of remonetization, in favor of the dollar of our fathers, in favor of the re-establishment of that ancient institution which worked so long and so well, and so favorably to American affairs, might invite those nations which are favorable to his views, leaving the others entirely unnoticed, or leaving those aside he may go to England and Germany who are opposed to the bimetallic system, and invite them to the conference, leaving it entirely in the discretion of the President as to whom he will invite into the conference.

Mr. Allison.  He must invite the Latin union.

Mr. Morgan.  There is no doubt about that, but as to the other nations it is entirely discretionary with him.  Now, if we are going abroad to seek wisdom and advice in regard to our own internal affairs, I suppose we had better commission the President of the United States to go to all the great nations abroad who have an interest in this question of bimetallic currency, and we had better make it compulsory upon him to go to all nations instead of to the Latin union, and afterward to such as he may deem proper to invite into the conference.  I do not see any substantial reason, any public or American necessity for leaving to the President of the United States, when he comes to form this great convention, the discretion to invite first the Latin union and afterward such other nations as be may think are worthy to be invited into a conference of this magnitude and this importance on this grave question.  So I think the amendment is entirely objectionable in that feature.

Now we come to another feature of it "in a conference to adopt a common ratio of legal tender as between gold and silver."  Now let us consider this question.  Let us suppose that Italy and Switzerland, to say nothing of France and Belgium and the more important states, are invited into a conference to determine what shall be a legal tender for debts in the United States.  Let me ask you, Mr. President, what would they do with our legal-tender notes in this country ?  What would become of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which, after a great strain and it is said after a reorganization of that grand tribunal, has resulted in the establishment of the law in this country that greenbacks, so called, are legal tender for debts as between the citizens of the United States ?

Mr. Allison.  My friend does not read quite far enough.

Mr. Morgan.  I have read it far enough.

Silver must be tied to gold:
silver must be redeemable in gold

Mr. Allison.  "Common ratio of legal tender as between gold and silver," is the language.

Mr. Morgan.  Very good; "legal tender as between gold and silver."  That excludes the greenback, so that if these nations should come into the conference we should be compelled as a matter of courtesy and deference to them to say that the legal-tenuer notes of the United States should not be considered in the arbitrament or decision.  Those notes would be entirely excluded.

Mr. Allison.  It is not with a view of saying to this country what shall be a legal tender here;  it is only saying that whatever nations adopt this relation if they shall constitute gold and silver legal tender shall have so many grains of gold and so many grains of silver at the relation of 15½ to 1 or 16 to 1 or 17 to 1, as the case may be.  It does not affect the legal tender at all.

Mr. Morgan.  Now, the question of legal tender has no reference to this subject at all.  It is the question of relation between the value of gold and the value of silver, compared the one with the other.

Mr. Allison.  As money.

Mr. Morgan.  As money, and not as legal tender.

Mr. Allison.  Legal tender makes money.

Mr. Morgan.  No, it does not, because we have a great deal of money in this country to-day that is not legal tender.

Mr. Allison.  Circulating ?

Mr. Morgan.  Circulating as money that is not legal tender, a great deal of it.  There are many Spanish dollars that were formerly legal tender, Peruvian and Mexican dollars that were formerly legal tenders, that circulate as money to-day in the United States which are not legal tender.  If the amendment is to be adopted the language of it certainly ought to be changed, because the United States of America ought not to admit the arbitrament of foreign powers in any respect whatsoever in the regulation of that which shall be a legal tender in the solution of debts or the payment of debts between its own citizens.

Mr. Butler.  Then my friend will permit me to ask why does the United States ever make any commercial treaty with foreign powers ?

Mr. Morgan.  Because they relate to commercial affairs, and are not for the purpose of regulating internal affairs.  Now, the doctrine of legal tender and the laws regulating legal tender in Italy, in Switzerland, in Germany, in France, and in tne United States are local laws.  They are not international laws.  The United States of America, in this Congress by the concurrent action of the two Houses, has determined that a certain commodity, if you please, is allowed to be paid in the discharge of the interest-bearing obligations of the United States;  that is to say, that which was coin of the standard value of the 14th of July, 1870.  That has not any reference at all to legal tender.

Mr. Allison.  I will say to my friend that if he desires it and this amendment will be thereby more acceptable to him, I am quite willing to strike out the words "of legal tender as;"  so as to read : "to adopt a common ratio between gold and silver for the purpose of establishing, internationally, the use of bimetallic money."

Mr. Morgan.  Mr. President---

Mr. Edmunds.  If the Senator from Alabama will allow me, will the Senator from Iowa also be willing to strike out that provision which limits this conference to a double standard and to allow it to consider the expediency of a single standard ?

Mr. Allison.  That I cannot consent to do.  That is the very thing we are struggling for here now and I do not propose to treat it away.

Mr. Edmunds.  Is it treating it away to be willing to talk about it ?

Mr. Allison.  I think so.

Mr. Edmunds.  I think so too, because you cannot stand on the reason of it.

Mr. Morgan.  Now, Mr. President, the Senator who offered the amendment is willing to change it so as to strike out the legal-tender feature and to accommodate the amendment so as to set forth the relation between gold and silver;  that is to say, how many ounces of silver are worth an ounce of gold.

Mr. Edmunds.  That amounts to the same thing as legal tender.

Mr. Morgan.  No, because the Senator from Vermont will remember that we have made that in the United States a legal tender which is neither gold nor silver but a mere promise to pay, and if Italy or Switzerland or France can interfere with our local interests so as to prescribe to us a rule whereby we are prohibted from using our legal tender as the solvent of debts between our own citizens, then have we not permitted their intervention in our local affairs ?  I am perfectly willing to have all due respect to foreign countries in reference to those transactions in which we have corresponding interests, so that they shall know and we shall know what are the values of the different interchangeable coin currencies, if I may use the expression, between the various countries;  but I am not willing that Italy or Belgium or any other foreign country shall come to the United States and interfere in any respect whatsoever in prescribing to us what shall be a legal tender in solving debts between individuals in the United States.

Mr. Allison.  But I will strike that out to please my friend.

Mr. Morgan.  Very good;  then I have accomplished that much by the few remarks I have made.

Mr. Edmunds.  But the Senator from Alabama will allow me to suggest that if you strike that out, I think it leaves it the same thing as it respects the two coins.  I am not now speaking of what each government may make a legal tender outside of these two metals;  but in respect of the two metals, if you agree by a conference to have them bear a certain relation to each other, it results in effect in making them a legal tender on that standard if you carry out your conference, whether the word is in or out.

Mr. Morgan.  If that should be so, we might have a standard of copper and nickel, and consult the nations how much nickel should be a legal tender for under $5 or copper a legal tender for under twenty-five cents.  The truth is that it is an abdication of that sort of authority, and power which we ought to exercise over our own affairs without reference to foreign consultation upon the subject.

Now, there is a purpose declared in this amendment, and I have always understood that the purpose of law when explicitly declared in the body of the law was the controlling influence in its construction. Here is a distinct and emphatic purpose declared in the body of this amendment.  What is it ?

For the purpose of establishing, internationally, the use of bimetallic money and securing fixity of relative value between those metals.

That being the real and the prominent purpose of the amendment and of the convention that is proposed to be called between us and the Latin union and such other states as the President may select, to establish now internationally the use of bimetallic money, why should we leave that great purpose, which I confess is a legitimate purpose of governmental action, and come down to the question of regulating in Italy, Belgium, or elsewhere, and in the United States, corresponding arrangements in reference to the legal-tender value of silver or coin in our own country ?

The amendment is involved, difficult, hard to be understood, and incapable of execution --these "reverend seigniors" will allow me to make use of that expression-- in any convention which might be held between these foreign countries. When your commissioners got there to execute the purpose of this convention they would find themselves trammeled and inthralled with difficulties involved in the very language of the law itself, which they could never overcome, and never properly explain to foreign governments.  It would be a beautiful subject for a great international commission to go abroad to visit these various governments, and ask them to send their delegates to a conference to be held at the places and times mentioned in this amendment, and that we should submit to them what should be our law in reference to legal tender !

Now, with due deference to the honorable Senator who proposed the amendment, I must say that I can see no consistency and no purpose in it when we come to compare the language of the amendment with the purpose declared, to justify us in passing the amendment.  That is the only criticism I propose to make upon the language of this provision, upon what I conceive to be the conflicting parts of the different provisions in the amendment.

There is another subject, however, which stands outside of these considerations and these criticisms, which strikes my attention very forcibly;   and that is, that after we have resolved, after weeks of debate, upon certain propositions of law and certain propositions of public policy connected with the remonetization of the silver dollar of 412½ grains, we should find ourselves necessitated to go abroad to find some sanction for our conduct in the esteem and approbation of foreign countries.  If there is so much doubt hanging about the action to be taken by the Senate on this occasion and in reference to this great subject as that we hesitate to adopt it without reluctance and without finality of purpose, then we ought not to adopt it.  If, after we have adopted an international monetary system, including within the currency of this country gold, legal-tender notes, and silver dollars of 412½ grains, including further the subsidiary coins of this country, there is so much doubt resting on our action that we must immediately urge on the President, in his discretion, to call in such nations as he may think proper, to consult and confer with us upon the propriety of our conduct, then it is time that the Senate had halted and paused until it considered well and maturely its own action in the premises.  I have no such embarrassment in my own convictions, allow me to say.  I will not urge these convictions on the Senate of the United States as the convictions of a man learned and skilled in finance;  and I have but one appeal to make besides those legal rights which God has given me to pass on subjects that come before my attention.  I allude to that appeal which was made so eloquently by my friend from Delaware, [Mr. Bayard,] the light of seventy years' experience.  I plant my feet upon the seventy years' experience in which the Amencan people have realized in every possible sense and in every possible way the utility of gold and silver combined in currency for all public and private enterprises.

Mr. Allison.  Will my friend allow me to ask him a question ?  Is it not a fact that by the misguided and mistaken legislation of 1834 silver was driven from our country ?

Mr. Morgan.  I do not think it was driven from our country;  but I know this, that if silver has ever been driven from our country its place has been supplied by a currency of equivalent value, and the people of the United States have suffered nothing by the deprivation.  But I do know, Mr. President, that in times past the lawmakers of the United States have found themselves compelled, on one occasion if not more, to debase the silver coinage in order to retain it on this continent.  They have been compelled to make the subsidiary coins of this country of less actual standard value than what I may call the unit so far as respects silver, and they have been compelled to do that in order to keep among the people of the United States that coin which was absolutely essential to the discharge of the current business of the common poor people of the land.

If it be necessary in the policy of the United States Government to debase the subsidiary coins or to lower them in value in order to keep them in the United States, is not that an argument which statesmen ought to regard when they come to consider the wants of this people ?  Fractional currency printed on the printing-press was not known until during or since the beginning of the late war.  I am not prepared from personal experience to state the very hour or the very day when fractional currency from the printing-press in the United States first came into circulation as a substitute for silver coin;  but whenever that may have been, or whatever may have been the occasion for bringing such currency to the use of the people, it is a mere argument to show that the Government felt itself bound to supply those who deal in small amounts of money continually day by day and hour by hour with a circulation suited to their convenience and necessities.

I have not been able from my experience, I have not been able otherwise than by reference to the history of public affairs in the United States, to determine that silver money has been always acceptable among the common laboring people of this country, and that when it was driven out by the exigencies of public affairs the Government always found it necessary to make some substitute therefor.  But I do know that silver money has been of such common acceptance as that the common people of the country --and by this I mean the daily laboring people of the country-- have been supplied through the wisdom of the Government either by subsidiary coins of reduced value or by the substitute for them called stamps or fractional currency, and the Government has always found it necessary to supply this sort of coin or currency to meet this sort of demand.

Now, Mr. President, what does this all argue ?  It argues simply that there is a demand in this country among the common laboring people, who toil day by day and who earn to-day what they have to expend to-morrow, there is a common impression, a belief, a faith among them that silver coin is necessary for their comfort, their maintenance, their support, and their daily use.  That is what it argues.  If this has been the case in reference to the wants of the great populace of this country, is there any occasion for us to deny to them this coinage, and deny to them this coinage of equal value, of actual metal, with the round dollar authorized to be coined by the United States of America ?  I see every reason why it should be done, why these people should be supplied with coin.  Sir, I will venture one more expression in the presence of the learned gentlemen who surround me, some of whom are called doctrinaires, some of whom have great experience in public affairs which I cannot at all boast, I will venture in their hearing this idea in connection with the subject before us:  It has been urged on the floor of the Senate time and again that the best unit of value was silver, and not gold.  Without entering into a learned disquisition based upon statistics with regard to this matter, I will undertake to present this simple proposition in connection with the subject:  unless silver is overproduced, unless there is too much of it, unless it is coming from the bowels of the Earth too rapidly for the convenience of mankind, unless it has been demonstrated here that too much silver is being produced by the labors of those men who toil two thousand feet beneath the earth, so beautifully and eloquently represented by the Senator from Nevada, unless these things be so, then the unit of value is that unit which reaches to one hundred cents in the dollar and above one hundred cents in the dollar.  It is that unit which you can take at one hundred cents in the dollar and divide into decimals and bring down to five cents;  so that, when a laboring-man has a five-cent piece in his possession and it is laid in the palm of his horny hand, made so by the toil of his life, a breath of wind will not blow it into the air.  The honest, natural, indispensable unit of value is that which was ordained in the beginning of our Government and has been sustained from the beginning of our Government down to the time that great capitalists desired to use more money power to absorb and control the property-owners of the country, the silver unit of value, which may be divided into decimals and made convenient for the handling of those men who labor day after day for the sopport of this entire country.

I do not desire to go abroad to ask foreign nations what they will do in establishing a proper unit of value, or a proper standard of value either, for any part of the currency of the United States, whether it be gold or whether it be silver.  Is there anything within the reach of the possibilities of human knowledge and human exertion that cannot be accomplished by the enterprise and wisdom and intellectual power of the American people ?  You, sirs, have proved your power in this world by one demonstration which centuries will pass away without affording to this country, or to any other nation in this world, an opportunity to prove.  You have proved the power of a free, constitutional, liberal Government in the maintenance of the rights of States and of individuals amid the struggles of a war, the like of which has never been seen on any other continent or in any other age.  You have demonstrated that the greatest power that is possessed by any people in the world is that power of liberal constitutional Government which is possessed by the American people.  We have suffered by it, but we come to acknowledge the authority and the grandeur and the splendor of that authority erected in the Constitution of the United States, the like of which is not to be found in any other government among civilized men in this or any other age.

Now, sir, having demonstrated this power, this capacity, this capability, this moral, intellectual, and political grandeur, why yield your power to foreign countries and invite them to come in here and participate with you in the administration of your local affairs ?  Sir, you surrender the grandeur of the American character when you resort to schemes and expedients like these.  Let me conjure you, Mr. President and Senators, that we should now adopt, South, North, East, and West, that grand idea of American independence and American power, intellectual, moral, and physical, which is the result of the experience of the past and the view of the capacities of the present.  I do object, in common with the Senator from North Carolina, to foreign alliances, foreign entanglements, and foreign associations.

Mr. Maxey.  Mr. President, I find myself compelled to differ with the action of an able committee which has deliberated long and reported to the Senate the result of its deliberations.  I do so with very great diffidence;  and yet, believing as I do in a strict construction of the Constitution of the United States, I find that it is impossible for me to agree with the committee in this amendment.  The Constitution reads:  Congress shall have the power "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin."  Congress shall have the power.  The Constitution contemplates that the act of judgment in regulating the value of coin is to be exercised by Congress and not by foreign powers;  and yet, Mr. President, this amendment declares, "that immediately after the passage of this act the President shall invite the governments of the countries composing the Latin union, so called, and of such other European nations as he may deem advisable, to join the United States in a conference to adopt a common ratio of legal tender as between gold and silver."  Does not the Constitution contemplate that Congress shall adopt that "common ratio" between gold and silver in the exercise of its own unrestricted judgment ?

Mr. Allison.  Will the Senator yield to me a moment ?  I call his attention to the fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth lines.

Mr. Maxey.  Yes, sir.  I will come to them before I get through.

Mr. Allison.  Certainly, they leave the whole question to Congress.

Mr. Maxey.  The Constitution of the United States declares that Congress shall coin money and regulate the value thereof.  In regulating the value of that money thus coined it adopts and regulates the "ratio between gold and silver."  If Congress adopts the ratio, it does so upon its own judgment, and it cannot be controlled and should be wary of influence, in the exercise of that judgment, by any foreign power.  I grant you that we should have a right to send out a commission to gather information and lay that information before Congress for its action;  but do we not know that the Latin union, which is specially called for in this amendment, when it had its convention, adopted a ratio between gold and silver, and each of those nations was bound by the ratio thus found ?  I ask the Senator if he desires the United States Government to enter into a combination with any nations on this Earth whereby the United States will be bound to abide by the ratio thus formed by foreign nations until they in a cougress of nations shall make a different ratio.

Mr. Allison. Surely not.

Mr. Maxey.  Very well.  Then if you do not intend to do that, this amendment means nothing, because you do ask that the President of the United States shall invite the Latin union and such other countries of Europe as he deems advisable "to join the United States in a conference to adopt a common ratio of legal tender as between gold and silver."  What for ?  "For the purpose of establishing internationally the use of bimetallic money and securing fixity of relative value between those metals."  Sir, it is the Congress of the United States that has the power to regulate the value between these metals, and whenever Congress goes into such a conference as this, if it is to be bound by it, it abdicates the power which the Constitution confers upon Congress.  If it is not to be bound, then these nations, if notified of that fact, would enter into no convention with us.  So that at last the proposition results in this:  the President is to invite the Latin union and such other European nations ss he may deem advisable to join the United States in a conference to adopt a common ratio between gold and silver, for the purpose of establishing internationally the use of bimetallic money and securing fixity of relative values between these metals.  It is true, as the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Allison] says, these commissioners are to be appointed by and that they report their doings to the President, "who shall transmit the same to Congress."  The object of the amendment, it will be observed, is two-fold:  First, to establish internationally the use of bimetallic money.  So far so good;  but, second, to secure "fixity of relative value between these metals."  Now, that is the exact duty of Congress.  How can any conference with other nations result in international use of bimetallic money "and fixity of relatire value between these metals" without all the nations engaged agreeing to be bound by it ?  If bound, does not Congress, however its action may be covered up by legislation, really designed to carry out the agreement, virtually abdicate its power to coin money and regulate the value thereof ?  If all are not bound then the whole movement is an abortion.

Mr. Sargent.  Allow me to call the Senator's attention to a clause of the Constitution.  I understand the Senator to be making a constitutional argument.  I should like to call his attention to a clause of the Constitution in connection with that on which he has commented.  It says Congress shall have power "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coins, and fix the standard of weight and measures."  Further on it says "to establish post-offices and post-roads."  At this very session we have made an appropriation for our delegates to attend an international congress to regulate post-offices and post-ronds, to regulate the transmission of mails across this continent, to regulate the price that shall be paid on our letters deposited in this cnuntry going to foreign countries.  Also they have power to regulate in reference to money-order offices, everything incidental to or connected in any way with post-offices and post-roads, which by the argument of the Senator are exclusively conferred upon the Congress of the United States by the Constitution.

Mr. Maxey.  The law to which the Senator from California refers, and for the carrying out of which he says an appropriation was made, is not familiar to me.  It was passed, as I understand, several years ago, and I never had occasion to examine, but if Congress ever agreed that the rates of postage for this country, for England, for France, for Austria, &c., or by the parties whoever they were, were fixed by international agreement by which we are bound, it was an unwise agreement.  If I understand this matter to which the Senator refers as anillns- tration, it aml tbe point I am·cousidering are not on t.be same footing; · an'd yet I tl.Jink if we a~reed with other nations to limit directly or indirectly the constitutiOnal power of Congress over the matter of }lOSt-offices and post-roads we would do an unwise thing.

Mr. Sargent. Tl.Jat is exactly what we have done. Mr. MAXEY. Not at an, as I understand it. , Mr. Sargent. And by treaties wo make them binding. Mr. MAXEY. We do not propose to regulate them by uniform postage here und there, and to continue this regulation until other nations agree. If we have done so we have done wlJat we ought not to have done. Mr. Sargent. We regulate it by conference with them, by agree- ment with them. · Mr. MAXEY. I undertake to state tlJat the postage will continue to bo regulated by the Congress of the United States by law. Now, as I stated- before, Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. If the regulation of the value of this coin is not to be in this Congress of the United States, but is · to bo in a, convention of states-:t.nd by the word ''states" I mean · nations-then, in order that that may have any forco or effect what- Iever there must be some permanency ~ncl some power in that con- gress of nations to make this regulation thus fixed offccti ve. How can that be done f Only as was done in the Latin union, when each one of tllose nations which went into that combination agreed to abide by the regulation thus fixed, and not to issue any more coin or :10y different coin f1·om that agreed on by the union. 'l'ben yon would get the United States into the condition that Congress does not" coin money and regulate the value thereof," but you confer that great power on a congress of foreign nations, into which we go as an agree- ing party. But to show whether it amounts to anything or not, do we not all know that, when that conference was gone into, the Latin union was organized, and they invited Great Britain to go into it, and the twenty-franc piece was agreed upon as the gold coin T Did Englaml agree to it f No, sir. \Vhile assenting that the arrangement was wise England refused to become a party. She refused to surren- der her right to coin her sovereign. She kept her sovereign and her pound note. · ·Now, there is a perfect anu absolute inconsistency, it occurs to me, in this whole position. The five-franc piece would make the dollar, according to the Latin m1ion, a dollar of 400 grains. Gentlemen who will sn pport this proposition of the Finance Committee tell you, some ot' them, that it will require 430 grains to make a good dollar; others, 425 grains to make a good dollar; other8, 434 grains; and I do not remember whether they go further than that; and yet every one of those gentlemen will vote for this propositjon, which, according to the opinion of the Senator from Iowa, will bring down the dollar !rom 412t grajns to 400 grains. Mr. PADDOCK. I should like to inquire of my friend from Texas if be does not admit that it would bo to the advantage of this conn- try, m!it would be to the advantage of every other commercial coun- try, if there could be a uniformity of standard f Mr. MAXEY. Undoubtedly, yet the fact exists t.ha.t coins, weights, anti measures of different nations have always differed. The l!'reuch havo the kilogram. Am we to be bound by that T We have here the troy weight and the avoirdupois weight. The Spanish have the vara. Are we governed in our yard-stick by that T And so I think as these coins, weights, and measures of different peoples are those they are accustomed to they will be apt to retain them. Mr. PADDOCK. I ask a plain, straightforward question. Would it 11ot be advisn.ble, if we could do so, to have a uniformity of stand- ard fixed among the commercial nations T Would it not be to our advantage T Mr. MAXEY. Of course it would be a very great thing, if it could be done, as I think it never will be, and numerous abortive efforts strengthen tbis belief. Mr. P .ADDOCK. If it would be advisable is it not worth the effort to try t

Mr. Maxey. Efforts have been made time and again. You might as well talk about having all nations speak the same language, of hav- ing every nation use the same pound weight, the ~:~arne yard-stick, a.s to talk about regulating nations about their coin. Every nation t.hat has any independence of character about it has its own standard of weights and measures, its own standard of coin, and the Constitution of the United States contemplates that we shall coin money and reg- ulate the value thereof. In 179-2, when the fathers who made the Constitution were living, did they in that Congress of 179'2 call to their aid the wisdom of Europo to tell them how many grains they should put in their silver dollad Did they again in 1834 f Did they again in 1837 or in 1853 when the coina~o Jaws were reorganized after the grand flood of ~old had come from California and Australia and the Ural .Mountains T Did ourprede- ce~sors then call on foreign nations to tell us how much gold to put in the golcl dollar or silver in the silver dollar! Not at all. Congress diu not so far as I know ask of Europe the privilege of trying to dethrone silver in 1873. They do not seem to have called upon Europe, or heav- ily on their own judgment. But., as I was going to state, weto-dayowe a vast amount of money which we have promised to pay in a dollar of 412t grains. It matters not what sort of an arrangement you make in a conference with ot.ber nations, that debt ha~ to be paid in dollars of 4121- grains. Thus yon would have two classes of legal-tender money, one operatin~ on debts already created, the other operating in jut!tro, which would be a very great inconvenience. But it is said by Senators who will vote for this amendment that we are trying to make ninety-two cents pay ono hundred cents. If 412t grains is only equal to ninety-two cents, 400 grains is not so much. Yet they support a. measure which the Senator from Iowa. hopes will result in a. four-hundred-grain dollar.

Mr. President, the proposition we have before us has nothing to do with international conferences, but is a substantive, distinct proposition. What is it ? That we shall restore our coinage laws to where they were before this strange, mysterious process was gone into whereby the silver dollar was eliminated from the coinage of the country. We want to put it back where it was. Let us do that. Then hereafter, as a substantive and distinct proposition, if it may be important to consult with other nations in the direction of uniform coinage, it may be done; but it has in my judgment no business here. It may be said that this commission is duly designed to gather up information, which seems to be the view of the Senator from Iowa, for the purpose of laying before Congress, for Congress to act on, the phraseology of the amendment I think will not limit the object to merely gathering information, but, as was remarked by the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. Bayard,] and it does seem to me that was a wise remark, having agreed to pass the bill to coin a dollar of 4l2½ grains, we are now simply locking the stable-door after the horse is ~to len. After we establish a standard by law, then, having established that standard, we invite other nations to come forward to say whether or not we have acted wisely in that and why cannot we better do t.his after we have seen tho effect of our legislation in restoring the old silver dollar f It wonlcl be an intimation to the whole world should we pass this amendment that we doubted our own wisdom, onr own judgment, and· perhaps our own honesty in making the dollar as we have made it; and for the reasons I have given, diftering as I do from the committee wit.h all deference, because it is never pleasant to me to differ with an intelligent committee, I am compelled, from my views of right of the Constitution and of the true ancl sound policy of t.his Government, to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Allison. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent now that at eleven o'clock the debate on these amendments may be confined to five minutes, applying the usual rule in reference to five minutes' debate.

The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Iowa asks unanimous consent that the remaining debate on the bill and amendments in Committee of the Whole be confined to five minutes.

Mr. Morrill.  I object to it on all amendments.  I do not object to debate being curtailed on this one.

The Presiding Officer.  The Chair will state the request again.  The Chair thinks the Senator from Vermont misapprehends the request.  It is not that debate be now closed, but that the length of speeches hereafter be limited to five minutes on each amendment.

Mr. Edmunds.  To that I object.  I do not intend to have some body when this operation turns out to be disastrous to every honest man in the country, tell us hereafter, as we are told now about the action of 1873, that it was hustled through and people did not have an opportunity to understand it.

Mr. Allison.  As to the objection made by the Senator from Vermont, this question has only been debated about three months, and I think it might be open to that objection after some time perhaps. [Laughter.]

Mr. Edmunds.  It might.  I have no doubt in three or four years we should hear the Senator from Iowa saying that the thing was not perfectly understood, that debate was choked off. [Laughter.]

Mr. Allison.  I will say that now to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. Edmunds.  I think the Senator is quite right.  I doubt if it is understood. [Laughter.]  I judge by the votes.

Mr. Allison. Surely the Senator from Texas, who has just spoken, totally misapprehends the effect of the amendment under consideration.

Mr. Edmunds. The more reason for debate.

Mr. Allison. He thinks the provision for appointing three commissioners who shall cross the ocean will bind this great nation to a standard of va1uo for all fnture time, whereas all we propose is that these three men shall confer with other bimetallic nations and report to Congress l and until Congress acts of course nobody is bound. The PRE!::!IDING OFFICER. The qu~tion is on the amendment, upon w hicb the yeas and nays have been ordered. Mr. Edmunds. I shall vote against this amendment not upon the groond that it is not proper t.o have a conference-! think the Senator from Iowa is entirely right about that; the constitutional objection to my mind is untenable-but this conference is limited on our part in advance to tbe question of adjusting a bimetallic standard. There is no authority to consider the fitness of establishing for all these nations a common unit of values in one metal, be it silver if yon like it better, or gold ii you like that better; but the commission is tied up; the matter is decided in advance so far as it affects tho interests of the 1)eople of this country and those oi others, to this thing of a double standard of value, which the experience of this country and every other ·has shown from the beginning to be only fraught with disaster to everybody that engages in it, because under a louule standard one metal will constantly depart from the other and therefore constantly cheat and wrong somebody. Mr. CHRISTIANCY. Mr. President--

Mr. Allison. Before the Senator from Michjga,n proceeds, I ask him to yield to mo till I offer a modification of the amendment by striking ont in lines 5 and 6 tho words "of legal tender as." I want to arrange this amendment so as to secure the support of my friend :from Alabama, and therefore I hope there will be no objection to striking out those words. The PRESIDING OffiCER. Is there objection to the modifica. tion 1noposed by the Senator from Iowa f The Chair bears no objection1 and tho amendment will be so modified. The Senator from Michigan. Several SENATORS. Let us vote. 'l'lle Secretary proceeded to call the roll. Mr. PAD DOCK. I would suggest that the Senator from Michigan [Mr. CHRISTIA...~CY] had the floor before the roll-ca.ll commenced. Tho PRESIDLl..iG OFFICER. The Chair recognized the Senator from Michigan. He gave way to the Senator from Iowa and after tho Senat-or from Iowa concluded the Chair announced that the Sen~ tor from Michigan [Mr. CllRISTIANCY] was entitled to the floor. lie was pot then in his seat. Mr. CHRISTIANCY. I did not hear the Chair. .

The Presiding Officer. The Senator was not then in bis scat, and the Chair dil not perceive that he was in the Chamber. Mr. DAVIS, of West Virginia. The roll-call has commenced. Mr. CONKLING. Regular order.

The Presiding Officer. The regu]ar orderis to complete the calling of the roll. The Secretary continued the calling of the roll. Mr. Eaton, (when his name was called.) I vote "yea" with tho privilege of moving my amendment. Mr. GORDON, (wl1en Mr. HILL's name was called.) I desire to state again that my colleague [Mr. HILL] is paired with the Senator from 'l'ennessee, [Mr. HARRIS.] My colleague, if here, would vote "yea," in aU probability. The roll-call having been concluded, the result was announcedyeas 40, nays 30 ; as follows: YEA.S--40. Allison, Anthony, Barnum, Bayard, Blaine, Burnsitle, BnUer, Christlancy, Vonkling, navis of Dlinois, Da.we!l, Kellogg, Kernan, Kirkwood, Lamar, Cameron of Pa.., Cameron of Wis., Chaffee, Dorsey, Eaton, }'err:v, Hamlin, Honr, Howe, Armstrong, Dennis, Bailey, Edmunds, Beck, Eustis, llootb, Garland, Cockrell, GQrdon, Coke, Grover, Conover, Hereford, Davis of West Va., Ingalls, :McMill:m, McPherson, Matthews, Mitchell, Morrill, Oglesby, NAYS-30. Jolmston, Jones of Ftorlda, Jones of No'\"ada, :McCreery, McDona1d, Maxey, Merrimon, Morgan, ABSENT-{!. Paddock, Eruulolph, Rollins, Sargent) Saunders, Teller, Wadleigh, Wallaoo, Whyte, Windom. Ransom, Saulsbury, Spencer, Thurman, Voorhees, Withers. Bruce, Hill, Plumb, ShAron. lillnis, Patterson,

So the amendment was agreed to.

The Presiding Officer. Aro there further amendments to be proposed in Committee of the Whole ?

Mr. Edmunds.  Suppose the legal effect of the contract should be by a just and lawful implication that it happens that these bonds that my friend refers to are payable in gold, does he mean to repudiate that obligation ?

Mr. Edmunds.  The Senator, then, says that he does not mean to repudiate any implied contract existing by force of the circumstances and the state of the law, but he only means to say that it shall not be carried into effect ---that is all--- so that if in a suit in the Court of Claims, where a suit may be brought I suppose, and appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States on one of the bonds issued since 1873 it should be decided that those bonds are payable in gold, the Senator now means to say that they shall not be payable in gold.  Well, that may be honorable in the western sense, but I do not see it.

Mr. Edmunds.  That must be so, Mr. President.  Then I say that it cannot be honorable in the western sense if the legal construction of what has taken place is to make the force of the contract between ourselves and our creditors or between private debtors and creditors that the debt is payable in something beside the silver dollar of 412.5 grains.  To say that unless that is declared in words in the contract, such a contract shall be payable in these dollars is just as gross a repudiation as anything can be.  But the Senator is evidently not willing to trust the Supreme Court of the United States to interpret the laws as they stood when these bonds were issued and these private contracts were male.  He chooses by an edict of Congress to declare that unless the very letter of the contract without any regard to its spirit or legal effect provides for a payment in gold or in whatever else it may be, then we by this force of our will declare that it shall be payable in what we choose now to say.  That is the effect of it.

Mr. Thurman.  Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana only makes more certain what the bill already declares.  As to the objection made by the Senator from Vermont, that has been determined by more than two-thirds of each branch of Congress.  Each branch of Congress has determined that it is not a violation of pubhc faith or of the legal obligation of the Government to pay the public creditor in dollars of 412½ grains.  That I think for the present purpose settles that question, and the amendment of the Senator from Indiana only makes more certain, only frees from ambiguity the provisions of this bill.

Mr. Sargent.  I think the amendment proposed by the Senator from Indiana gives more point to the objection that I made before relating to coin certificates and certificates for bullion bars.  The statute as I read it, does not in express terms provide that they shall be redeemed in gold coin.  It does not mention the kind of coin in which they shall be redeemed.  The strong implication is that as the Government received gold coin and bullion, they shall be so paid.  This draws the line so closely that, unless expressly stipulated in the contract and that contract must have express warrant of statute, they shall not be so paid.  For that reason I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Daves.  I should like to inquire of the Senator from Indiana if he understands that this Government can make any distinction between its express and its implied contracts in any forum of honor in this world.

The Presiding Officer.  The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. Blaine.  I should like to ask the honorable Senator a question before he sits down, because I would certainly take his judgment on a question of honor as quick as that of any man in the country.  If the Senator has borrowed at a very low rate of interest $10,000, and he asked the lender of the money to give it to him in gold coin, for he must have gold coin, and he gave it becawe of his undoubted credit at a low rate of interest, and he only paid 4 or 4½ per cent. interest on it, would he consider himself as an honorable man, by any action of any other body, governmental or corporate, absolved from paying in as good as he got ?

Mr. Blaine.  Then would the Senator apply a lower standard of honor to the Government of the United States than he would feel bound to exercise in his own case ?

Mr. Blaine.  But the Senator will observe that there has been a good deal said, and said truly, as to the large number of Government bonds having been purchased for thirty, or forty, or fifty, or sixty cents on the dollar;  but he will admit that certainly since July 14, 1870, largely since the act of 1873, there have been $783,000,000 of United States Government bonds placed, for which $100 in gold was paid, for each one-hundred-dollar bond, and the coin was exacted;  nothing else would buy them.  We went into the markets of the world and exacted it, and we said to the lenders, "You can afford to buy these bonds at a very low rate of interest;  our credit is now outrunning that of any nation on the globe, England alone excepted, and we want you to pay gold coin and we will pay you gold interest, and you shall have back as good as you give us."  The whole world understood it so;  the Treasury Department said so;  your agent said so.

Mr. HOWE. What authority had any one to say so! Mr. BLAINE. I do not care if nobody said it. I submit, on what law of honor does the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. HowE] take the ~ound that he would borrow in gold coin and pay back something different f Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, I say I will borrow when I want to borrow, and I will pay what I agreed to pay. You must not look at the commodity I get the loan in in order to determine what I have promised to pay in.

Mr. Blaine.  I do not think the Senator from Visconsin answers quite as frankly as the Senator from Indiana did.  He states a general proposition.  He does not come square up and say that he as a man holding in his hand a loan of $10,000, which he exacted in coin and because of his great credit got at 4 per cent. interest, will, if he from any cause has the power to evade under the law its full payment, and that he has no power to declare differently for himself that the Government would feel justified in that great court which is above laws and above nations and above individuals, the court of honor.

Mr. Matthews.  We put it back.

Mr. Blaine.  Ah, but you cannot put back the same thing.  You have done what you cannot undo.  That public creditor can come face to face with you and say that when you, with your power, by your act, discredited silver, it was more valuable than what you agreed to give him, but that by your sovereign power, over which he had no control whatever, you destroyed the money >aloe of that arli:le; and after you had destroyed it, after yon had taken out its paying a.nd its purchasing power, you turn around and say," we will restore it because it is below what it was, and we will force it upon you because it is nominated in the bomV' Mr. WAD LEIGH. .Mr. President, it seems to me that the Senator fl'Om Maine has neither stated nor .the Senator from Wisconsin met the real question before the Senate in reference to the matter whicll they have been discussing. Suppose that I go to a \Visconsin farmer who has $10,000 that he wishes to invest and carry to hlm a tenthousand- dollar 4 per cent. United States bond. I say to him: "Tha~ bond is payable, principal and interest, in gold." lie examines the bond. Ho finds that the bond says it is to IJe paid in coin of a certain dale-July 14, 1870-of standard value. There is not, probably, a copy of the Statutes of the United States in the count.y in whichho lives; he knows nothing about the laws of tlle United States in reference to that matter, as nine out of ton of tho e who bought bonds did not kuow. He believes that by law it is payable in gold; he believes . ! I ( i ( \ 1878. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1093 that that is the Jaw stated in the bond itself, as he haa the right to do if I tell him that is so. Now the agents of the United States, the officials of this GoYernment, the brokers who put theso 4 per cent. bonds on the market, have told the world that they are payable in gold. They have been bought in foreign countries where the purchasers bad not access to the statutes of the United States and where they did not know what the standard coin of this country at any particular day was; and the men who thus bought upon the representations of th~ officials and agents of the United States and the bankers of the world, without contradiction from this Governmeni or any of its agentst and paid for those bonds in gold, will be swindled if they are not pai1 as the promise was made. I understood the Senator from Wisconsin to say tiiat in the case I have named, if I should induce one of his constituents to invest $10,000 in a bond of the United States, telling him that the law of the United Stat.es was that that was payable in gold, and he supposed it was and he bought it, it would not be fair and just and right to compel mo to make that good. Mr. HOWE. No, Mr. President; I should say it would be exactly right to compel him to make it good; but it would not be exactly right to compel the signer to the bond to make it good. Mr. WADLEIGH. But, :Mr. President, in this case the Government put these bonds upon the market; their agents everywhere represented that they were payable in gold; and it is a gross piece of dishonestv, it will be a gross breach of good faith fot' this powerful Government of this country', rich in resources as it is, to swin_dle anybody in the way in which this bill proposes.

Mr. Howe.  Mr. President, it will be a gross act for this Government to swindle anybody, its creditors or its people;  but the only way it can swindle the creditor is by paying him less than we have agreed to pay him, and the only way we can swindle the people is by making them pay more than they have agreed to pay.  And now, sir, I want to call the attention of my friend from New Hampshire to this one fact, that nobody makes contracts for the United States except the Congress of the United States.  The United States has no other agent to contract, and if he or any friend of his or any other officer of the Government has undertaken to contract for the Government beyond the letter which is found in the laws, he has gone beyond his jurisdiction and no more binds the Government than I could.

Mr. Beck.  I want to say this to the Senator.  Here is the case:  the Government of the United States issues to your widow this bond, dated Washington, July 1, 1877:  "The United States of America are indebted to the bearer in the sum of $50.  This bond is issued in accordance with the provisions of an act of Congress entitled 'An act to authorize the refunding of the national debt,' approved July 14, 1870, as amended by an act approved January 20, 1871, and is redeemable at the pleasure of the United States, after the 1st day of July, 1907, in coin of the standard value of the United States on said July 14, 1870, with interest in such coin from the day of the date hereof at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum, payable quarterly on the 1st day of October, January, April, and July in each year.  The principal and interest are exempt from the payment of all taxes or duties of the United States, as well as from taxation in any form by or under State, municipal, or local authority."  When you put that bond into the hand of your widow, could not she or any friend of hers understand the meaning of that language ?

Mr. WADLEIGH. I will answer my friend, the Senator from Kentucky. Suppose that in the case he names I had been an agent of the United States, of course having no lawful authority to bind the United States topa.y in goll.l, but that I had carried that bond to her as an agent of the United States and told her to her face it was payable principal and interest in gold, and had obtained from her a price accordingly-- Mr. DECK. You would have obtained it as such under false pretenses, but the United Statee would not be bound. Mr. WADLEIGH. Wait a moment. The United States takes the money obtained by that false representation and puts it in the Treasury, and it is no hardship to the United States to pay that bond in gold. They have got the money for it; they have got the price of it; they have got it by the representation of their a"cnt, and it is dishonest and a breach of good faith not to lJay it. J:ly friend the Senator from Kentucky in his private affairs would never be guilty of such dishonesty. Mr. BECK. I ask tho Senator if tho United States did not obtain it on the faith of their own law and upon the faith of tho bond that they gave to the widow; and the agent who misrepresented them was himself guilty of a great wrong in making that represent at ion, but tho principal was only bound by the contract he made, which is just a~ I have read it. Mr. WADLEIGH. I am not unaware of the law to which my friend from Kentucky alludes. Mr. BECK. I know that. Mr. WADLEIGH. But does not my friend from Kentucky know that all over this country and aU over Europe where these bonds were pnrchased tho individua.ls who purchased them understood from tho agents of the United States Government and from the officials of this Government tba.t they were pa.yable in gold t Mr. BECK. I do not. Mr. WAD LEIGH. They were advertised everywhere as pa.yable in gold.

Mr. Beck.  No;  but every man who purchased these bonds understood from the very face of the bonds, and he could not be mistaken, that they were payable in the standard coin of the United States as it existed in July, 1870, and no man could be such a fool as not to know it, and the men who buy bonds are generally men well advised.

Mr. Beck.  The Senator from New Hampshire, I suppose, will surely admit that no agent of the Government could either set aside the law or change the character of the bond as set forth in the bond itself.

Mr. Blaine.  Ah !  That is not the question.  The Senator from Ohio stated, as I said with great force, that it was the demonetization of silver that impaired its value.  I believe him.  It is quite within the power of the Congress of the United States to keep it demonetized and I am sure the Senator would agree with me that if it is kept demonetized its value will grow lower and lower.  Therefore the argument of the Senator is that, no matter what may be the descent in the value of silver by the act of Congress demonetizing it and keeping it there, yet the bondholder is bound to take that which is "nominated in the bond" utterly regardless of what we may do here to destroy his property.  If Congress has inflicted this great blow upon the value of silver and continues to inflict it, and is the only power on the face of the globe that can restore its value, then I understand the Senator from Ohio to maintain that regardless of this depreciation and regardless of this destruction by our own agency the bondholder has no claim except that which is "nominated in the bond."

The Senator from Ohio knows that I do not speak the language of mere compliment when I say I have great respect for him.  I have great respect for his ideas of honor, personal and public, and I put to him the question, taking up what the Senator from New Harnpshire said, if the United States through all its agents everywhere solicited and obtained gold, the Senator sitting at his honored desk as a consenting party knowing that was going on, conscious that every day millions and tens of millions were asked from the American people in gold coin, never issuing a protest or objection on his behalf or on behalf of another, never intimating from his great position of power and authority in this country that the people who were asked to pay gold and who have been paying gold for many years might be paid off in some other metal and that they might be paid off in a metal which the Senator himself had consented to impair---

Mr. Thurman.  What does the Senator say I consented to ?

Mr. Blaine.  You said to-day, as I understood, that you knew the bill passed, and you sat here and made no protest.

Mr. Thurman.  No, sir.  I beg pardon.

Mr. DLAINE. I understand the Senator did not make a profest. The fact is so, whether the Senator will acknowledge it or not. Now, I say that the Senator has sat here for ei~ht years and seen that go forward, and the Senator from Ohio woula. put his right hand in the fire and follow it with his left and have them both burned off before he would start an agent in the field for himself to take from the :farmers in Ohio gold coin, his agent representing all the time that thr.y should be repaid in goM coin, a.nd then turn around ancl say : "Why, my friend, there is not a word in my note about gold coiu ; to be sru'O my authorized agent said so to you; to be sure I got it, and got its full value, but when you come to read my note "-like tile small print in an insurance policy that almost covers the rascality under which the company escapes its liabilities-" when you come to read my note, or when you come to read the Government note, there is not a word about paying you back in as good as you gave, and I am ~oing to take ad vantage of it now to pay yon back in a great deal less than yon gave." The Senator from Ohio might stand here and protest until to-morrow's sun shone forth and set again that he would not do it, and I would believe him ; I know he would not do it; he 'yooll never dishonor a name that stands a~ high as his own, and I only ask him to apply to the credit and faith and honor of the Government the same measure that he applies to himself. Sir, all this uisconnting and dishonoring what the agents said and endeavoring to show that they had no authority is unworthy of being presented here, because if you give that argument its utmost scope and verge it only says that the Government was not the buyer but was simply a receiver of stolen goods.

Mr. Thurman. Mr. President, I shall not enter into any contest of dramatic performance with the Senator from Maine.  He was born an actor, and if I was born anything, I was born a plain, simple lawyer.

Mr. Blaine.  You were born an honest man, as I represented you to be.

Mr. Thurman.  But being born or at least educated a plain, simple lawyer, and being accustomed, therefore, both at the bar and on the bench as a judge to call for the facts, I now call for the facts.  I demand of the Senator from Maine what agent of this Government ever declared to any syndicate, to any man or set of men who proposed to lend money to the United States, that the bonds would be payable in gold until the present Secretary of the Treasury lately did so ?

Mr. DLAINE. If the Senator will permit me to interrupt him just there.

Mr. Thurman. Certainly. Mr. BLAINE. I think none ever did-Mr. THURMAN. True. Mr. DLAINE. Nor do I think it ever was intended that they should be limited to gold. Not at all. I go with the Senator ancl say that silYer was just as good a payment as gold at the time, bot I say also that it was the part of the Government of the United States to maintain the value of silver as much as of gold, and that when the United States itself stepped forward and by its own act impaired and largely destroyed the value of silver it has no right then to force its own depreciated currency, depreciated by its own act, on the holders of tho bonds.

Mr. Thurman.  Ah, Mr. President, then the Senator from Maine has quite given up all that he talked about of the representations of the agents of the Government that these bonds were payable in gold, and he has put it upon the ground that the United States has itself depreciated the value of silver by its demonetization.  Let me say to the Senate of the United States that this bill will bring back silver to its true value.

Mr. Thurman.  If the Senator will take his seat and possess his soul in patience I will give him another answer.

Mr. Thurman.  The Senator shall have an answer that will suit his case and that of his friends, the bondholders.  What a miserable widow of this subject is that which is presented by the Senator from Maine, that a great Government like the United States should regulate its legal tender by the question of what shall be paid in discharge of its bonds thirty years hence.  I feel almost ashamed to speak of this after the perfectly conclusive argument of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Maxey] delivered almost a month ago.  Why, sir, do you know that we might pay these bonds in British sovereigns or in French francs when they mature ?

Mr. Thurman. About the intervening interest, it is \ery true that we must pay that money according to oUT contract. Mr. BLAINE. What is the contract ?

Mr. Thurman.  To pay them in the standard coin of the United States of July, 1870.  That is all that it is;  and the idea that a great Government should regulate its legal-tender laws between its citizens, between its corporations, between it aDll foreign governments, according to what it may havo to pay thirty' years hence, is the simplest abnegation of sovereignty that I evor heard of in my life. I feel almost ashamed to say these'words after the oonclusi\e argument and demonstrat.ion of my friend tho Senator from Alabama.

Mr. Thurman. What "'280,000,000! Mr. BLAL.\fE. The sixes of 1881.

Mr. Thurman. The five percents! . Mr. BLAThTE. No, the Sen:~.tor is mistaken; the '81 sixes issued in 1861 for twenty years.

Mr. Thurman.  The 1881s are payable at the time when it was declared at their issue we would pay them.

Mr. Thurman.  We will pay them in the coin in which it was promised that they should be paid.

Mr. Thurman.  Nothing in the wide world but gold or silver coin.

Mr. Thurman.  In three years hence not your silver dollar of 425 grains, not any other man's dollar of 435 grains, not any other man's dollar of 485 grains, but the dollar of 412½ grains will pay them at par with gold.

Mr. Thurman.  No, they were not.

Mr. Thurman.  Not any such thing.

Mr. Howe.  How do you know they were paid in gold ?

Mr. Thurman.  Mr. President, I venture to say to the Senator from Maine that in 1861, when what are called the bonds of 1881 were negotiated, they were paid for in the currency that was then in the country.  At least that is my understanding.

Mr. Thurman.  They were most of them paid in bank-notes.

Mr. Thurman.  A gold basis;  when silver and gold were the basis of the currency, and whenever you demanded of a bank coin for its notes there was no coin to pay !  What was the currency ?  What do we know about the old banking system ?  What do we know about the pretended specie payments of the old banking system ?  It was very much as the old ---I will not repeat the anecdote, for it is not worthy to be repeated to the Senate;  but we know perfectly well that under the banking system we had prior to 1861, when we demanded the coin it was not there, and specie payment was a delusion.  Sir, of all the misfortunes that have ever happened to this country, the misfortune of what is called by Amasa Walker in his Science of Wealth "a mixed currency" has been the greatest, because there was under it a paper currency, nominally convertible into coin, but never in fact convertible into coin.  When the Senator from Maine says to me that the bonds of 1881 were paid for in gold, he is totally mistaken.  They were not paid for in gold.  A few more words and I am done, for I have been drawn into this discussion very unexpectedly, and very much against my will.  I do feel that of all the cries for pity and appeals for mercy and justice that have ever been offered in this country this appeal of these poor, oppressed bondholders is the most contemptible.

Mr. President, I have never indulged in demagogism.  No man ever heard me assert or say anything against the bondholders.  I have thought that they were men who loaned their money to the United States to the very best advantage.  I have thought that the United States was not very wise in accepting it upon such onerous terms.  I have thought that the legislation of the United States has given them very great advantagee.  I have thought that that legislation has enhanced the value of their bonds amazingly and added to the burden of the public debt upon the people;  but yet I have nothing of demagogism to say against tho bondholders.  I have not denounced them as "bloated bondholders" or "Shylocks."  But when they come here in the attitude of men complaining of injustice, when they come here with their hands raised and say "Oh! do us no wrong," then I must say they are the last people on Earth to utter any such appeal.  I say to my friend from Maine, and I say it for a certain reason that I will not utter because it would be hardly prudent, do not tie your chariot to the bondholders.

Mr. Windom, (at seven minutes past twelve o'clock, midnight.)  I think it is very evident that this bill will not be passed to-night.

Mr. Ingalls and others.  Oh! yes, it will.

Mr. Windom.  The question has been reopened that was discussed nearly a month under the resolution offered by the junior Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Matthews,] and there is evidently enough discussion in it to last until Monday noon.  Therefore, I move that the Senate adjourn until Monday noon. ["No!" "No!"]

Mr. Allison.  I rise to a point of order.  The Senate by unanimous consent agreed on Wednesday that this bill should be completed before the adjournment to-day, and a motion to adjourn is clearly in violation of the unanimous agreement of the Senate.

Mr. HAMLlN. If the Senator from Minnesota insists upon his mot ion I shaH be obliged to vote for it, but I want to state the reasons w b ich will control my vote. I think I was here and was a consenting part.y to the arrangement which the Senator from Iowa securerl, but I did suppose myself that there was to be an end of tho discussion. I so supposed, and under that supposition I gave my consent. Now, if we can stop this endless discussion, I shall vote against an adjonrnment; but if we are not to stop it and I was acting under a misapprehension when I gave my assent, I shall vote to adjourn as often as t.he motion is made, and I will do it because I did not understand the arrangement.

The Presiding Officer. The Chair will state with reference to the point of order, that the arrangement is not entered upon the Journal, it merely appearing in the RECORD, and is one which addresses itself to the sense of the obligation of the individual Senator, bot does not deprive the Senate of its right to adjourn under the ru1e. Mr. WINDOM. I withdraw the motion to adjourn for a moment, that I may say that I was not present when this alleged agreement was made. I know not what it is, bnt I am confident that no unanimous consent to sit out this bill would have been given bad it been understood that the original question discussed two mont.hs ago, and for fn 11 two months, should be renewed here to-night. I do not feel that there was any understanding that would cover a discussion of t.hat kind, a:ad if it is to continue, I for one shall vote to adjourn. I renew the motion to adjourn. Mr. BLAINE. Let us have an understanding to limit debate to five-minuto speeches. Mr. WINDOM. If we could have five minutes' debate upon each proposition I would be perfectly willing to abide by the agreement. Mr. Edmunds. We cannot have any five minutes' debate on this bill.

The Presiding Officer. The question is on the motion to adjourn, made by the Senator from Minnesota, [Mr. WINDOM.] The motion was not agreed to. Mr. WAD LEIGH and Mr. McDONALD addressed the Chair. !t1r. WADLEIGH. I will detain the Senate but a moment. My friend, the Senator from Ohio-- Mr. JOHNSTON. I call the SenatorfromNewHampshire to order. The Senat-or has spoken more than once upon the amendment. I ask the Chair to enforce the rule. Mr. Sargent. Is there any such rule f Mr. Eaton. Not on this question. Mr. JOHN~TON. Yes, sir, on this question.

The Presiding Officer. The Chair sustains the point of order. Mr. WAD LEIGH. I move to indefinitely postpone the bill.

The Presiding Officer. The Senator from New Hampshire moves that the bill be indefinitely postponed. Mr. WINDOM. I raise the point of order on the motion of the Senator from New Hampshire, that it is not in order under the agreement. Mr. Edmunds. Ob, yes, it is. • Mr. ·wiNDOM. To indefinitely postpone the bill f Mr. Edmunds. Certainly; that disposes of the bill. Mr. WINDOM. If it can be disposed of in that way I have no objection.

The Presiding Officer.  The Chair now thinks that the Senator from New Hampshire is in order without a motion to postpone.  No other Senator rose to address the Chair except the Senator from Indiana, who had also spoken more than once upon the same amendment.

So the amendment was agreed to.

The Presiding Officer. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Morrill.] · Mr. Allison. I hope that amendment will not be agreed to.

The Presiding Officer 1mt the question on the amendment and declared that the noes prevailed. , · A division was called fori and the ayes were 12. Mr. Morrill. We wil give up the count. Mr. BUTL.ER. I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. ~:lAUNDERS. I rise to a question of order. I wish to know whetller after a division has been taken a.nd theresnltannounced b~ t.he Chair a Senator can then call for the yeas and nays. ["Yes."] I had a. case of that kind this afternoon myself.

The Presiding Officer. Although the result had been announced, the Senator from Vermont immediately demanded a division, which be did in time, and then before the vote had been ascertained 'by the division the Sl·nator from Vermont withdrew his demand for a division and the Senat>r from South Carolina immediately rose and demanded the yeas and nays. The Chair thinks under tho circumstances the call was made in time. Mr. SAUNDERS. I have no objection to the call at all, 'but it was ruled differently awhile ago.

The Presiding Officer. In the case to which the Senator ad· verts, the question had been taken, t.be result had been declared, and the Chair waa announcing the question upon another amendment when intetiilpted by a demand for the yeas and nays, and he held that the call came too late. Mr. SAUNDERS. Just as in this case, I understand, precisely, for the Chair had announced the result and then afterward a division was called for.

The Presiding Officer. The Chair did not at the time and does not now understand the fact to be as the Senator stated. Mr. Saulsbury. I should like to have the amendment reported. 'lhe PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be reported. The CHIEF CLERK read the amendment of Mr. Morrill. The question being taken by yeas and nays,resnlted-yeaa 20, nays 45; as follows : Anthony, Barnum, Bayard Burnside, Butler, Allison, Armstrong, Bailey, Beck, Booth, Cameron of Pa., Cameron of Wis., Cbaifee, Cockrell, Coke, Conover, Davis of lliinois, Cbristiancy, Dawes, Eaton, Hamlin, Hoar, YEAS-20. Kernan, Lamar, McPherson, Miwholl, Morrill, NAYS-45. Davis of W. Va., Jones of Nevada, Dennis, Kellogg, Dorsey, KirkwOod Eustis, McCreery,' FelTy, McDonald, Garland, McMillan Grover, Matthews', Hereford, Maxey, Howe, Merrimon, Ingalls, Morgan, JohnstA:ln, Oglesby, Jones of Florida, Paddoc'k, ABSENT-11. Blaine, Edmunds, Hill, Bruce, Gordon, Patterson, Conkling, Harris, Ransom, Randolph, Rollins, Sargent, Wadleigh, Whyte. Plumb, Saulsbury, Saunders, Teller, Thurman, Voorhees, Wallace, Windom, Withers. Sharon, Spencer.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I gave notice some days ago that I would offer an amendment to the bill. I propose on page 4 to amend section 1, lines 4 and 5, by striking out the words "four hundred and twelve and one-half" and inserting ''four hundred and twenty" in lien thereof. I ask that the Clerk report the amendment in its connection with the residue of the section. The CHIEF CLERK. The section if amended as proposed will read: That there shall be coined at the several mints of the uD.ited States silver dol· Iars of the weight of 420 grains troy, of standard silver. Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin. Mr. President, without going into a discussion of the pending bill, I want to say a word in support of this amendment and in explanation of the reasons which influenced me to offer it. The amendment proposes to fix the number of grains of standard silver in tho dollar at 420 instead of 412t. I am not opposed to the remonetization of silver-! am not opposed to making it a legal tender. On the 80Dtrary, I favor its remonetization, and favor making it.a legal tender to any amount. But if remonetized and made an unlimited legal tender, I submit, and in this doubtless all will con· cur, it ougbt to be done in a way that will be equally just to all per· sons nnd classes-to the laborer and to the employer; to the debtor and to the creditor; to the rich and to the poor ; to the producer and to the consumer. It seems to me this cannot be done unless the quantity of metal in t.he silver is sufficient to make the intrinsic value of that unit equal in value with the gold unit. It is claimed, I am aware, by tho monometallists that the commercial value of gold and silver is so fluctuating that it is impracticable to maintain the double standard. This opens up a broad :field for di_a.. cnssion. I will not enter it, but will assume that the quantity of metal in the gold and silver units can be so adjusted by Congress that their intrinsic value will be substantially equal. It bas been argued durin~ this debate that a full legal-tender silver dollar if worth intrins10ally less than the gold dollar will expel tbe gold dollar from circulation. This has been denied by several Senators who have spoken in favor of the bill. I think the light of experience tends to show, if it does not conclusively prove, that if debts can be paid with either one of two coins, the leiS valuable one will 'be employed for that purpose, and that the more valua'ble one will go out of circulation as money and become a mere article of merchandise. I favor a double standard, and desire to support such legislation as will secure to the country a gold dollar and silver dollar not of different but of equal intrinsic value, believing as I do that in no other way will the two metals circulate side by side. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. CHRISTIANCY] favors the double standard, and thinks the value of the two units will be properly adjusted by making the silver dollar to consist of 434 grains of standard· silver. The Senator from Maine [Mr. BLAINE] is willing to vote for a dol· lar of 425 grains. Now, while I do not feel confident that a silver dollar of 420 grains will at once take its place in the business of the country a.s the equal of the gold uollar, there are many reasons for "believing U will uo so and it is of course perfectly obvious that it is more likely to reach that placA than is a lighter dollar. Tho trn.de-dollar of 420 grains, which is not a legal tender, is todo. y worth from ninety-seven to ninety-eight cents in New York. The people are acquainted with this coin, and many persons, esteemed high a.uthority on financial questions, insist that if the trade-dollar were made an unlimited legal tender its commereial val no woulu be so appreciated by the increased demand thereby created for it that it would circulate side by side with gold. If this be so, the dollar proposed by tJ1is amendment is large enough. I incline to the opinion that tho trade-dollar is as low a standard as can safely be adopted at this time, and hence I proposed and shall voto for this amendment. I assume, but will not now st.op to argue, that the gold dollar and tho silver dollar ought intrinsically to bo of the samo value. I am not unmindful that the correctness of this assumption is questioned by many and positively denied by not a few. If it wcro true that the depreciation in the value of silver since 1873 was caused solely by tho lemonetization of that metal by the United Statee, I would not have offered this amendment, but would willingly vote for tho dollar proposed by this bill; that is, for a dolln. rcontaiuing 412tgrains. But !think it baa been conclusively shown dnring this discussion that many causes have combined to depreciate silyer dnring tho last fivo or six years. I will state some of these canses: first, tho demonetization of silver by the German Empire in 1871; second, l>y the United States in 1873; third, by the Scandinavian states in 1~4; fourth, the refusa.l of Holland in 18i5 to ~oin silver on privat-e a-ccount; fifth, the refnsal ol Switzerland in 1875 to coin silver at all; sixth, by the refusal of the French Republic in 1876 to coin silver for private persons; seventh, the closing of the mints of Spain in 1876 against private depositors, and a declaration by the Spanish government of its purpose to lemonetize silver for all sums above $2t:!, as soon as practicable; eighth, the action taken by Holland looking to the adoption of the single gold standard; and last, but not least, the greatly increased production of silver in the United States. The amount of silver produced in the United States in 1873 was, in round numbers, (and it is not necessary for my present llUrpose to be ex~ct in this matter,) $23,000,000; tho amount produced in 1877 was largely in excess of th:s sum. The causes which produced the decline in the value of silver st.Hl continue, and are likely to continue indefinitely. It is then, I think, probable that the present chasm between the value of gold and silver, instead of closing up, will continue stationary, if it does not grow wider and deeper. Can it t.hen be successfully cont-ended that the silver dollar of 412t grains, which in 1873 only slightly exceeded in value the gold dollar, can now be made equal to it by the remova.l of only one of the many causes which have operated since 1873 to depreciate the value of silver? Up to this time the coinage of the trade-dollar has been $30,710,400; the coinage of the dollar of 412t grains from the establishment of the 1\fint has been only $8,045,838. . We cannot., I claim, have two silver dollars of different values. If the 41'li grain dollar is brought to par by making it a legal tender, the trade-dollar, containing more metal, will be worth more than par and will go out of circulation. Thus over thirty millioll8 will be withdrawn from circulation and the currency fnrthen. contracted to that extent. It can of course be recoined, but with our present mint capacity such rccoinage will require nearly one year. When this amendment was submitted some time ago, before the debate had progre.~ed as far as it now has, I was inclined to the opinion that it would be accept-ed as a fair and reasonable compromise. I now ask for the yeas a1H;l nays upon the amendment, and the result of the vote will show how much, if at all, I erred in that opinion.

Mr. Allison.  I rise again to ask unanimous consent that the five-minute rule may be applied in Committee of the Whole.  I think we have reached a point where perhaps we can all agree to it.

The Presiding Officer.  The Senator from Iowa asks unanimous consent---

Mr. Paddock.  I hope there will be no such agreement.  ["Yes!" "Yes!"]

The Presiding Officer.  The Senator from Iowa asks unanimous consent that further debate on this bill may be under the five-minute rule.  Is there objection ?  ["No objection."]  The Chair hears no objection, and it is so ordered.

Mr. Paddock.  I do not think it is necessary to enforce any such rule, and I shall object.

Mr. Anthony and others.  The objection is too late.

continue