Issue of Silver Coin.

Mr. Frost introduced a joint resolution (H.R. No. 109) for the issue of silver coin;  which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency, and ordered to be printed.

Issue of Silver Coin.

Mr. Payne.  I ask unanimous consent to submit a report from the Committee on Banking and Currency upon a resolution that was referred to it yesterday in regard to the issue of silver coin.

The Clerk read the report, as follows:

The Committee on Banking and Currency, to whom was referred House resolution No. 109, report the same back with the following amendments.

The Speaker pro tempore.  The Clerk will read the resolution with the amendments in it as reported.

The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury, under such limits and regulations as will best secure a just and fair distribution of the same through the country, may issue the silver coin now in the Treasury to an amount not exceeding $10,000,000 exchanged for an equal amount of legal-tender notes, and the notes so received in exchange shall be re-issued only upon the retirement and destruction of a like sum of fractional currency received at the Treasury in payment of dues to the United States, and said fractional currency when so substituted shall be destroyed and held as part of the sinking fund, as provided in the act approved April 17, 1876.

Mr. Holman.  I wish to reserve the point of order upon that joint resolution until it has been read as it was offered, so that we may see what the amendments are.

The Speaker pro tempore.  The Clerk will read the resolution as originally offered.

The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury, under such limits and regulations as will best secure a just and fair distribution of the same through the country, may issue the silver coin now in the Treasury in redemption of an equal amount of legal-tender notes, and the notes so redeemed shall be re-issued only upon the retirement of a like sum of fractional currency, and said fractional currency when so substituted shall be destroyed and held as part of the sinking fund, as provided in the act approved April17, 1876.

Mr. Holman.  Without withdrawing the objection, I trust the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Payne] will, if the joint resolution comes before the House, allow a motion to be made to strike out that portion of it which provides that the legal-tender notes shall not be issued until a corresponding amount of fractional currency shall have been canceled.

Mr. Payne.  I think a brief explanation will remove any objection to the joint resolution.

The Speaker pro tempore.  Is it understood that there is any objection to the consideration of the resolution ?

Mr.  Holman.  I reserve the right to object until the explanation is made.

Mr. Hewitt, of New York.  Will any gentleman be at liberty to object after the explanation ?

The Speaker pro tempore.  The objection is reserved until the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Payne] shall have explained the joint resolution.  That is understood.

Mr. Payne.  The difficulty in the way of the Treasurer in putting in circulation the silver coin now on hand, amounting to some $14,000,000, is that a sort of panic has arisen and the fractional currency is commanding a premium of from 3 to 3½ per cent. in different parts of the country.  The process is so slow of exchanging the fractional paper for coin that the supply is not sufficiently rapid to meet the demands of business all over the country.

Now, with a view of expediting the distribution of this silver coin more rapidly than it can be accomplished now, it is proposed that an amount not exceeding $10,000,000 of the silver coin in the Treasury may be exchanged for legal-tender notes under such rules as will secure a fair and just distribution throughout the various parts of the country, and that these legal-tender notes thus deposited with the Treasurer for silver coin shall be retained as a specific fund for the redemption of a like amount of fractional notes as they may come into the Treasury in the course of business.  That is the whole purport of the resolution.  It was drawn in accordance with the suggestions of the Treasurer of the United States to meet this exigency and it is proposed that it shall continue until the whole amount of legal-tender notes thus deposited as security for silver coin shall have been redeemed by bringing into the Treasury an equal amount of fractional notes, and those fractional notes are to be retired and canceled, at which time the legal-tender notes will be paid to whoever is entitled to them.

Mr. Hewitt, of New York.  I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Ohio who reports this joint resolution whether he regards the provision in the resolution for keeping the $10,000,000 as a specific fund, as he himself has stated it, to be sufficient to accomplish that object ?  I see that they are not to be re-issued until the fractional currency is destroyed.  Is there anything to prevent this $10,000,000 of legal-tenders from going into the general fund of the Treasury in the same way that the legal-tender notes now deposited for redeeming the national-bank circulation go into and form part of the common fund, not to be paid out again, as I think the law requires, but which in fact are paid out for the purposes of the Government ?  Can this $10,000,000 of legal-tenders be used to defray the ordinary expenses of the Government, or will it be put in a fund by itself and not a dollar of it be touched except for the purpose of retiring and canceling so much fractional currency ?  It seems to me that this joint resolution is not specific enough on that point.

Mr. Payne.  That is a very long question.

Mr. Hewitt, of New York.  That may be;  but I only wanted to make myself understood.

Mr. MacDougall.  I move that the House now adjourn.

The Speaker pro tempore.  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Payne] is occupying the floor.

Mr. Payne.  In answer to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hewitt] I beg to say that this joint resolution provides that this $10,000,000 of legal-tender notes shall not be re-issued except upon the retirement of an equal amount of fractional currency.  It does not provide that the Secretary of the Treasury or the Treasurer of the United States shall not commit a breach of trust, or a penitentiary offense.  It merely provides that he shall not re-issue these legal-tender notes until a like amount of fractional currency is retired and destroyed.  It did not occur to the committee that it was necessary to make any further provision against a breach of duty on the part of an officer of the Government.  The joint resolution does clearly provide that $10,000,000 of silver coin may be exchanged for an equal amount of legal-tender notes, and that those legal-tender notes shall be re-issued whenever a like amount of fractional currency is brought into the Treasury and canceled and destroyed.

It is intended to provide an immediate accommodation to the public;  a relief from an imposition now practiced, perhaps necessarily arising from the deficient amount of fractional currency in the country.  It proposes to relieve the people of the country to the extent of at once giving them $10,000,000 of silver change.  That is all there is of it.

The Speaker pro tempore.  Is there objection to the consideration of this joint resolution at this time ?  It cannot be entertained except by unanimous consent.

Mr. Blount.  I object.

Mr. Townsend, of Pennsylvania.  I hope the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.  Blount] will withdraw his objection.

Mr. Blount.  I insist upon my objection.

The Speaker pro tempore.  Objection is made, and the joint resolution is not before the House.

Silver Coin.

Mr. Payne.  I am instructed by the Committee on Banking and Currency to report back the joint resolution (H.R. No. 109) for the issue of silver coin, with Senate amendments, and to recommend concurrence in the amendments;  and upon that I move the previous question.

The Speaker pro tempore.  The Clerk will report the Senate amendments.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amend the bill in line 4 by striking out the word "now" after the word "coin;"  so that it will read: "the silver coin in the Treasury."

Add the following section:

Sec. 2.  That the trade-dollar shall not hereafter be a legal tender, and the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to limit from time to time the coinage thereof to such an amount as he may deem sufficient to meet the export demand for the same.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered;  which was on concurring in the Senate amendments.

Mr. Payne.  I ask for separate votes on the amendments.

Mr. Fort I ask that the joint resolution be read in full, as proposed to be amended by the Senate.

The Clerk read as follows:

That the Secretary of the Treasury, under such limits and regulations as will best secure a just and fair distribution of the same through the country, may issue the silver coin in the Treasury to an amount not exceeding $10,000,000, in exchange for an equal amount of legal-tender notes;  and the notes so received in exchange shall be kept as a special fund, separate and apart from all other money in the Treasury, and be re-issued only upon the retirement and destruction of a like sum of fractional currency received at the Treasury in payment of dues to the United States;  and said fractional currency, when so substituted, shall be destroyed and held as part of the sinking fund, as provided in the act approved April 17, 1876.

Sec. 2.  That the trade-dollar shall not hereafter be a legal tender, and the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to limit from time to time the coinage thereof to such an amount as he may deem sufficient to meet the export demand for the same.

Mr. Landers, of Indiana.  I move to reconsider the vote by which the previous question was ordered on this joint resolution.

Mr. Kasson.  If the Chair will recognize me for the purpose, I will move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Mr. Randall.  I think we ought to have an hour's discussion on this joint resolution, if members desire to be heard upon it.  Notwithstanding the previous question has been ordered, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Payne] reporting it is entitled to an hour.

The Speaker pro tempore.  There can be no debate on the motion to reconsider the vote by which the previous question was ordered.  The previous question itself is undebatable, and a motion to reconsider a vote upon an undebatable question is not debatable.  After that question shall have been disposed of, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Payne) will be entitled to an hour for debate upon the original joint resolution, if he claims it.

Mr. Landers, of Indiana.  My object is merely to offer an amendment.

Mr. Thornburgh.  I raise the point of order that the first question must be upon the motion to reconsider the action of the House sustaining the call for the previous question, and that there can be no debate pending that motion.

The Speaker pro tempore.  By unanimous consent the motion to reconsider may be considered pending while the debate goes on.

Mr. Kasson.  If the Speaker entertains at this stage a motion to reconsider the previous question, then I ask the gentleman from Ohio [.Mr. Payne] to move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. Randall.  If the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Payne] moves to lay the motion to reconsider on the table and that motion is carried, will he allow any discussion during the hour to which he is entitled, having reported this joint resolution.

Mr. Payne.  I had not proposed to discuss the matter.

Mr. Landers, of Indiana.  I withdraw my motion to reconsider.

Mr. Randall.  This joint resolution ought to be explained by the gentleman who has charge of it;  the House is entitled to some explanation upon so important a question as this.

Mr. Payne.  I will explain the joint resolution and amendments if gentlemen desire it.

Mr. Randall.  Other gentlemen may desire to be heard.

Mr. Landers, of Indiana.  Will the gentleman from Ohio yield to me for a question ?

Mr. Payne.  I cannot yield now.  I am under obligations to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lord] not to take up more time than is absolutely necessary in the consideration of this subject.

Mr. Conger.  Does the gentleman call for a separate vote on the amendments of the Senate ?

Mr. Payne.  I propose to withdraw my call for a separate vote.

Mr. Conger.  Then I renew it.

Mr. Payne.  When this joint resolution was originally drawn up there was a propriety in inserting the word "now," for at that time there was more than $10,000,000 of subsidiary silver coin in the Treasury, and it was supposed that the issue of $10,000,000 would be fully met by the surplus coin then in the Treasury.  When the joint resolution reached the Senate the amount in the Treasury had been reduced below $10,000,000;  hence the propriety of striking out the word "now."  That is all there is in the first amendment.  The second amendment has relation to the trade-dollar.  I suppose it is generally understood by the House that the trade-dollar is local in its importance.  It is made a legal tender all through the country to the amount of $5.  The trade-dollar, although containing more silver than two half dollars of the subsidiary silver coinage, is worth less in the market than two half dollars.  The complaint comes from the Pacific coast, and they ask that the legal-tender property of the trade-dollar shall be taken from that coin.

I ask the Clerk to read a communication from the Director-General of the Mint to the chairman of the Committee of Finance of the Senate, which led to the adoption of this additional section by the Senate.

The Clerk read as follows:

Treasury Department,
Washington, D.C., June 21, 1876.

Hon. John Sherman,
United States Senate.

I recommend that the last section of the twenty-million silver House bill, which provides for the repeal of the legal tender of trade of dollars and places the issue of that coin under the control of the Secretary of the Treasury, be made an amendment to the ten-million silver-coin House bill to be considered in the Senate today.

It is important that the status of the trade-dollar should be altered as proposed before July 1, otherwise we shall be embarrassed in getting out the necessary amount of subsidiary coin.

H.R. Lindeman.
Director of the Mint.

Mr. Payne.  I wish merely to add that this additional section, in the precise words employed here, has already passed this House as the third section of what is known as the Randall bill, the first two sections of that bill providing for an increase of the subsidiary silver coinage to the amount of $20,000,000.  This section, word for word, is the third section of that bill, and has already been adopted by the House.  I think there can be no further explanation needed, and therefore I ask a vote on the Senate amendment.

Mr. Randall.  I would like a little time on this bill.

Mr. Payne.  If I was not trespassing already upon the courtesy of the gentleman who gave way to me, I would be glad to yield.

Mr. Randall.  As the gentleman obtained the floor by courtesy, I hope he will exercise courtesy toward others.

Mr. Payne.  How long does the gentleman desire ?

Mr. Randall.  Not many minutes.

Mr. Payne.  I will yield to the gentleman, without giving up my right to the floor.

Mr. Randall.  I regret that the Committee on Banking and Currency have not seen fit to incorporate into this bill the three sections of the bill originally introduced by me and passed by the House.  They have taken the third section;  and that is well enough in its way.  In fact this bill, so far as it goes, is in my judgment all right;  but the committee ought to have taken action as to the whole subject of subsidiary silver coin, so that we shall be enabled when we leave here at the close of this session to feel an assurance that those who administer the mint laws will be able under our legislation to provide the people with sufficient subsidiary coin to answer the purposes of business, without increasing the permanent debt by the purchase of more silver.

If this bill is passed and no other measure on the subject be adopted, the Government will have to supply the subsidiary coin by the purchase of silver under the original resumption act, which authorized the increase of the public debt for that purpose;  or else we must have legislation such as is embraced in the first two sections of the bill to which I have alluded, so that the Government may with money in the Treasury purchase bullion and issue it as resulting coin to the people.

Now, there ought to be in this country as much as $50,000,000 of subsidiary coin to take the place of the fractional currency.  Unless the gentleman from Ohio and his committee --the Committee on Banking and Currency-- will adopt some measure to insure an adequate supply, we shall encounter great difficulty.  This bill provides temporary relief, so that silver may be gotten into circulation, and as I said before, so far as it goes it is well.  But the Committee on Banking and Currency, before we leave here, must do something whereby the public from this time forward will have furnished to them gradually a sufficient amount of silver coin for all business purposes in substitution of the fractional currency, which is now being rapidly worn out.

Mr. Wike.  I would remind the gentleman that this House has already passed such a bill, and it is now under consideration in the Senate.

Mr. Randall.  I know it;  but the Senate halts there, and I will tell you why, for we may as well look this thing right in the face.  This bill is a measure somewhat in the interest of contraction;  at least that is the comfort drawn from it by the "hard-money" men.  The other --the bill which I introduced-- was regarded as looking in the other direction.  Now, for one I desire that the question of resumption of specie payments shall not be connected at all with the question of substitution of silver subsidiary coin for fractional currency;  and, with due respect, I think the Senate ought to allow us to settle the question of such substitution without reference to any effort on their part to force greenbacks out of circulation.  If the Committee on Banking and Currency had incorporated in this bill the two sections to which I have referred, we should have kept the subjects distinct.  We should have supplied an adequate amount of subsidiary coin for all the purposes of trade, for retail business of every description;  and we should have reserved the resumption question as a distinct matter.  That question ought not to be mixed at all with this legislation;  it is not the same character of question.

I hope, therefore, that the gentleman's committee will adopt some measure to meet the exigencies of the case, so that we shall not go away from here until this question of supplying the adequate amount of subsidiary coin shall have been settled.  This section has to me the appearance of yielding on the part of the House --and yielding entirely and exclusively to the caprice or the judgment perhaps of the Senate-- upon that question of an increase of subsidiary coin.  The Senate, so far as I can draw conclusions from the speeches of members of that body, is not disposed to give any additional subsidiary coin unless it takes out of circulation an equal amount of greenbacks.  That is the conclusion to which the remarks of Senators, in my judgment, clearly point.  I desire, therefore, that we shall speedily have reported from the Committee on Banking and Currency some measure which will not leave the country, after we have gone away from here, without any fractional currency or subsidiary coin.

Mr. Payne.  I yield three minutes to the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. Kasson.]

Mr. Kasson.  Mr. Speaker, I will detain the House but a moment upon this question;  and I am very glad that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has relieved us from the necessity of occupying much time, as he really does not oppose this bill.  The acting chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency [Mr. Payne] has stated in a few words the whole purport of the bill.  There is but a single word left out that the House has not already acted upon, and the omission of that word is in the very direction that the gentleman from Pennsylvania desires.

For myself and other members of the committee, I can only say that this prompt action on its part is designed for the express purpose of assisting in reaching the result which the gentleman from Pennsylvania desires and which I desire;  that is, to provide the requisite amount of "change" for the people who so much need it.  Letters come to us from all the Northwest imploring us to hasten this matter of supplying the people with "change."  We have stopped issuing fractional currency, and there is not "change" enough.  I differ from some others, I suppose, on my side of the House in the opinion that the country can easily absorb $50,000,000 of subsidiary coinage and a deficit still remain, owing to the disposition to save more carefully this solid money than to do the same with paper which merely represents it.

But, sir, all this will connect itself with other bills.  I rise to say that the committee has recommended concurrence in these Senate amendments because the principal one has already passed the House and the second helps us to a prompter disbursement of this subsidiary coin which we have in the Treasury.  That is the only effect of this bill.

Mr. Randall.  I move to concur in the amendment of the Senate with an amendment which I ask the Clerk to read.

The Clerk read as follows:

Add to the amendment of the Senate the following:

Sec. 2.  That, in addition to the amount of subsidiary coin authorized by law to be issued in redemption of the fractional currency, it shall be lawful to manufacture at the several mints, and issue through the Treasury and its several offices, such coin to the amount of $20,000,000.

Sec. 3.  That the all silver bullion required for this purpose shall be purchased, from time to time, at market rate, by the Secretary of the Treasury with any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated;  and the resulting coin may be issued in the ordinary disbursement of the Treasury;  but no purchase of bullion shall be made under this act when the market rate for the same shall be such as will not admit of the coinage and issue as herein provided without loss to the Treasury;  and any gain or seigniorage arising from this coinage shall be accounted for and paid into the Treasury, as provided under existing laws relative to the subsidiary coinage:  Provided, That the amount of money at any one time invested in such silver bullion, exclusive of such resulting coin, shall not exceed 1,000,000.

Mr. Randall demanded the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken;  and it was decided in the affirmative--- yeas 110, nays 45, not voting 134;

So Mr. Randall's amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

The message also announced that the House had disagreed to the first amendment of the Senate to the joint resolution (H.R. No. 109) for the issue of silver coin, and had agreed to the second amendment of the Senate to the resolution, with an amendment;  in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

The President pro tempore.  The question is on the motion to refer the House joint resolution No. 109, with the amendments of the House of Representatives to the amendments of the Senate, to the Committee on Finance.

The motion was agreed to.

Issue of Silver Coin.

Mr. Sherman.  I am directed by the Committee on Finance, to whom were referred certain amendments by the House of Representatives to the amendments of the Senate to the joint resolution (H.R. No. 109) for the issue of silver coin, to report them back and ask that the amendments of the House to the Senate amendments be non-concurred in, and that a committee of conference be asked on the part of the Senate upon the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.

The President pro tempore.  The Senator from Ohio moves that the Senate disagree to the amendments of the House to the amendments of the Senate, and request a conference.

The motion was agreed to.

By unanimous consent, the President pro tempore was authorized to appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate, and Messrs. Sherman, Boutwell, and Bogy were appointed.

The message further announced that the Senate insisted on its amendments disagreed to by the House to the joint resolution (H.R. No. 109) for the issue of silver coin, and agreed to the conference asked for on the part of the House on the disagreeing votes thereon, and had appointed Mr. Sherman, Mr. Boutwell, and Mr. Bogy as managers of said conference on the part of the Senate.

Silver Coin.

Mr. Lawrence.  I now yield the floor to my colleague, [Mr. Payne,] and give notice that I will yield to no other business unless of a public and urgent nature.

Mr. Payne.  I wish to take up from the Speaker's table joint resolution (H.R. No. 109) for the issue of silver coin, which comes back from the Senate with a request for a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, which I hope will be agreed to.

Mr. Fort I should like to know what the difference between the two Houses is.

The Speaker pro tempore.  The Clerk will read the resolution of the Senate.

The Clerk read as follows:

In Senate of the United States, July 1, 1876.

Resolved, That the Senate insist on its first amendment to joint resolution (H.R. No. 109) for the issue of silver coin disagreed to by the House of Representatives, and disagrees to the amendment of the House to the second amendment of the Senate to said joint resolution, and ask a conference of the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.

Ordered, That Mr. Sherman, Mr. Boutwell, and Mr. Bogy be conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. Payne.  I move that the conference asked for on the part of the Senate be agreed to.

The motion was agreed to.

The message further announced that the House insisted upon its disagreement to the first amendment of the Senate to the joint resolution (H.R. no. 109) for the issue of silver coin;  insisted upon its amendment to the second amendment of the Senate to the said resolution disagreed to by the Senate;  agreed to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and had appointed Mr. Henry Payne of Ohio, Mr. Samuel Randall of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Franlin Landers of Indiana, managers at the conference on its part.

Silver Coin.

Mr. Payne [Henry B Payne, November 30, 1810 - September 9, 1896, Ohio, D; studied law, admitted to the bar;  took Pendleton's seat].  I present the following report:

The Clerk read as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments to the joint resolution (H.R. No. 109) for the issue of silver coin having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend, and do recommend, to their respective Houses, as follows:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the first amendment of the Senate to said joint resolution, and agree thereto amended, as follows:

In line 4 strike out the word "now" and insert "at any time."

And the Senate agree to the same.

That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House to the second amendment of the Senate to said joint resolution, and agree to a substitute for said House amendment, as follows:

Add to the second amendment of the Senate the following:

Sec. 3.  That in addition to the amount of subsidiary silver coin authorized by law to be issued in redemption of the fractional currency it shall be lawful to manufacture at the several mints and issue through the Treasury and its several offices such coin to an amount that, including the amount of subsidiary silver coin and of fractional currency outstanding, shall in the aggregate not exceed at any time $50,000,000.

Sec. 4.  That the silver bullion required for the purposes of this act shall be purchased, from time to time, at market rate, by the Secretary of the Treasury, with any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated;  but no purchase of bullion shall be made under this act when the market rate for the same shall be such as will not admit of the coinage and issue, as herein provided, without loss to the Treasury;  and any gain or seigniorage arising from this coinage shall be accounted for and paid into the Treasury, as provided under existing laws relative to the subsidiary coinage:  Provided, That the amount of money at any one time invested in such silver bullion, exclusive of such resulting coin, shall not exceed $200,000.

And the House agree to the same.

H.B. Payne,
Samuel Randall,
Managers on the part of the House.
John Sherman,
George Boutwell,
Louis Bogy,
Managers on the part of the Senate.

Mr. Payne.  Mr. Speaker, I presume that the House understands the questions that are involved in this report.

Mr. Landers, of Indiana.  Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this report, and I merely want information as to the action that will be taken in regard to it.

Mr. Payne.  The gentleman from Indiana asks me not to move the previous question, so as to enable him to move that the House non-concur in the report.  If I understand it the question will be on concurring, and a failure to concur would be a non-concurrence.  A motion, therefore, to non-concur is unnecessary.

The Speaker pro tempore.  The result in either case will be the same.

Mr. Payne.  It will be remembered by the House that the first resolution upon this subject passed by the House was one simply for the distribution of the silver coin that had accumulated in the Treasury in anticipation of the ingathering of the fractional notes, for which, under law, silver coin was alone exchangeable.

That resolution went to the Senate, having in it the word "now."  That appeared to confine the application of it to so much subsidiary silver coin as was at that time in the Treasury.  The Senate amended that by striking out the word "now."  That was the first amendment.

It will also be remembered that in the mean time, on the recommendation of the Committee on Banking and Currency, the House had passed what is known as the Randall bill, a bill which provided that an additional amount of subsidiary silver coin should be manufactured at the mints --I mean in addition to what the previous law authorized, which was limited by the amount of fractional currency outstanding-- to the amount of $20,000,000, and providing a bullion capital, so to term it, of $1,000,000, the use of which was supposed to be necessary in order to carry out this additional coinage.

There was a third section to that bill which provided that the "trade-dollar," so called, which under the present law is a legal tender to the amount of $5, should be deprived of its legal-tender quality.  That was the third section of what is known as the Randall bill.

The Senate amended this specie-distribution resolution by adding a section to this clause in regard to the "trade-dollar" depriving it of its legal-tender quality, and then the original resolution was returned to the House with those two amendments, the first striking out the word "now" and the second adding to it a clause depriving the "trade-dollar" of its legal-tender qualities.  To the first amendment the House non-concurred;  that is, as to striking out the word "now."  In the second amendment they concurred, but adding an additional amendment which embraced the two first sections of the Randall bill, namely, providing for the issue of $20,000,000 additional subsidiary silver coin and providing a capital of $1,000,000 to carry it out.

In addition to that there was added to it as a proviso the proposition of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Landers] I have the words before me and will read them:

And provided further, That the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to authorize the coinage of a standard silver dollar of the same weight and fineness as that in use January 1, 1861, and that said dollar shall be a legal tender in payment of all debts public or private.

To that amendment the Senate disagreed, and hence the committee of conference upon the disagreeing votes.

The committee have agreed with reference to the first amendment striking out the word "now," and in order to remove all ambiguity of expression they have agreed to substitute for the word "now" the words "at any time," so that the resolution will simply and distinctly provide that to the extent of $10,000,000 the subsidiary silver coin in the Treasury at anytime hereafter may be distributed throughout the country on the security of an equal amount of legal-tender, but these legal-tender notes are to be held in the Treasury until the fractional currency coming into the Treasury shall equal the amount of the subsidiary coin issued.  To that I apprehend there can be no objection on the part of the House.

As to the second proposition, so much of it embraces the two sections of what is called the Randall bill, the committee of conference have agreed to a substitute substantially confirming what the House desired in regard to that bill.  The committee, however, instead of providing that this increased issue may be 20,000,000, thought it would be better to provide that the amount of fractional currency outstanding, including both paper and subsidiary silver coin, should at no time exceed fifty millions, it being believed that is the limit to which the necessity or wants of the country will reach for the next one, two, or three years.  They also reduce the amount of bullion capital, so called, from one million to two hundred thousand dollars, and that provision it is believed should be satisfactory both to the House and to the Senate.  It is satisfactory to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Randall] who introduced the bill.

That the House may understand the precise change made in the two respects to which I have alluded, by the substitution of $50,000,000 in place of 20,000,000 as the highest limit of this additional coinage, and the reduction from $1,000,000 to $200,000 of the "bullion capital," so called, I will ask the Clerk to read again the substitute for the House amendment to the second amendment of the Senate.

The Clerk read as follows:

Add to said second amendment of the Senate the following:

Sec. 3.  That, in addition to the amount of subsidiary silver coin authorized by law to be issued in redemption of the fractional currency, it shall be lawful to manufacture at the several mints and issue through the Treasury and its several offices such coin to an amount that, including the amount of subsidiary silver coin and of fractional currency outstanding, shall in the aggregate not exceed $50,000,000,000.

Sec. 4.  That the silver bullion required for the purpose of this act shall be purchased from time to time at market rate by the Secretary of the Treasury with any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated;  but no purchase of bullion shall be made under this act when the market rate for the same shall be such as will not admit of the coinage and issue as herein provided without loss to the Treasury;  and any gain or seigniorage arising from this coinage shall be accounted for and paid into the Treasury as provided under existing laws relative to the subsidiary coinage:  Provided, That the amount of money at any one time invested in such silver bullion, exclusive of such resulting coin, shall not exceed $200,000.

Mr. Reagan.  As this report has not been printed, I desire to ask a question for information.  As I understand it this silver is to be purchased by legal-tender notes, and those legal-tender notes are to be held as a separate fund until fractional notes to that amount are taken up.

Mr. Payne.  If there shall be $6,000,000 or 10,000,000 of increased coinage of subsidiary silver, the bullion for that purpose is to be purchased by the use of this $200,000, and the coinage of that bullion and the seigniorage to be covered into the Treasury will have no connection whatever with the fractional notes or with the legal-tender notes.

In this connection I wish to state a fact of some interest to the House.  The Senate had contended in their discussions, and had virtually decided, that they would not permit any increase of this subsidiary silver coinage unless for every dollar of such increased coinage put in circulation a dollar of legal-tender notes was surrendered and canceled.  But the Senate have not insisted upon that before the committee of conference, and have yielded.  There is therefore no connection whatever between the subsidiary silver coinage and the legal-tender notes.  If there should be six millions, or eight millions, or ten millions of dollars of increased silver coinage issued under this law, there will be no corresponding reduction of legal-tender notes in consequence of that issue.  That point was yielded by the Senate, and most gladly accepted by the conferees on the part of the House.

I apprehend there will be no difficulty on the part of the House in yielding a ready assent to these amendments.  In regard to the other provision, relating to the silver dollar, we were unable to agree, except that a majority of the conferees on the part of the House and and the conferees on the part of the Senate agreed to drop from this bill all that related to the silver dollar.  I will explain in a very few words so that it may be understood.

It will be remembered by the House that early in the session a bill was passed which recognized the old silver dollar of 1861, as a legal tender to the amount of fifty dollars.  That bill was amended in the Senate by reducing the amount for which it should be a legal tender to 20.  It has since transpired that it is exceedingly doubtful whether a measure could be passed through the Senate that will recognize this old silver dollar as a legal tender for more than $5.  It is an ascertained fact that no bill can pass the Senate that will recognize it as a legal tender beyond $20.  We were therefore met in conference with this stubborn fact: that if any provision was to be made in regard to the remonetizing, so to speak, of the old silver dollar, the amount for which it would be received as a legal tender must be reduced at least to $20, and probably to $5.

Now, the proposition introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Landers,] who feels himself unable to agree to the action of the committee of conference, was in its general terms ill-advised as a measure upon so important a subject.  I trust the House will bear with me for a few moments while I suggest some of the important features involved in the proposition to make the old silver dollar of 1861, containing 412.8 grains of silver, a legal tender in the payment of all debts, public and private.

Owing to tho remarkable decline in the price of silver within the last few months, and its more remarkable decline within the last ten days, the silver dollar of 1861 is now worth less than eighty cents in gold.  It will strike the mind of every gentleman that so extreme and sudden a change in the value of the silver dollar renders the proposition to make it a legal tender in the payment of all debts, public or private, a proposition of the most startling and revolutionary character.

I will not stop to dwell upon the want of definiteness and distinctness in the proviso as worded by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Landers,] except to say that it is wholly impracticable.  The proviso says that the Secretary of the Treasury shall be directed to authorize the issue of this silver dollar.  It does not provide any of the details which are necessary in a statute to enable an officer to carry it out.  In some way, by some general proclamation, the Secretary of the Treasnry is instructed to authorize the re-issuing of the silver dollar of 1861.

Now, right here is one very important feature, and I am only submitting these suggestions to the consideration of the House as reasons why the committee could not agree in recommending the adoption of this proposition by the two Houses.  Here is a profit of twenty cents on the dollar for every dollar's worth of bullion manufactured into coin and put into circulation.  The Government by the power of the statute authorizes the bullion, which is the private property of an individual, to undergo manufacture at the Mint, to receive the stamp of the Government, and then to have an enforced circulation at 20 per cent. above the value of the silver bullion.  Who is to have the profit of this 20 per cent. increased value ?  My friend from Indiana.  [Mr. Landers] will say that this enforced increase of value shall inure to the benefit of the owner of the bullion, and not to the benefit of the Government;  while those who look to the interests of the Government will say, and with great propriety, that this artificial or enforced increase of value to the extent of 20 per cent. given to this article of merchandise in the form of silver bullion should inure to the benefit of the Government as the power that gives this increased value;  that the benefit of this increase should go into the Treasury of the nation.  This question is not settled by the proviso of the gentleman from Indiana, and it is a very material one.

Another question is presented here.  This silver dollar is to be made a legal tender for all debts, public and private.  I grant that this comes directly to the proposition that the bondbolder for his principal and his interest shall be compelled to receive this silver dollar in payment at par.  I am not going to discuss that question here, for there is not time and this is not the occasion.  I believe myself that legally the Government has a right to coin this silver dollar and to require the bondholder to receive it in payment of his debt.  Whether it is desirable, whether it is equitable, whether it is politic is a question which needs to be discussed very seriously by this House and the Senate before such a proposition is enacted into a law.

The difficulty does not stop here.  It will be observed that this silver dollar at its present discount of 20 per cent. is worth nearly 10 per cent. less than greenbacks.  There is to-day $5,000,000,000 of indebtedness in this country the consideration of which was the legal-tender currency.  Is this House prepared to enact by law that the creditor in those obligations shall be bound to receive his pay in a currency 10 per cent. less than that which was valid when the debt was contracted ?  For, although this silver dollar was a legal tender when the bonds were given, it has not been since 1873 a legal tender in payment of anything;  so that every creditor who holds an obligation the consideration of which was legal-tender notes, an obligation contracted when silver was not a legal tender, would be compelled to receive in payment of this legal-tender indebtedess a currency 10 per cent. less valuable than that in which it was contracted and with which but for this legislation it must legally be discharged.

There are other questions arising in connection with this proposition.  I am suggesting these considerations as showing the important features of this provision, which contemplates a reduction of 20 per cent. in the currency with which debts may be discharged.  It reduces the tariff 20 per cent. the very moment it is enacted into a law.  That may or may not be desirable;  but it will occur to every one that this is a question to be considered, to be deliberated upon, to be discussed.

I venture to say that no member of this House or the Senate is today prepared to decide in this provisional, imperfect, and inconsiderate manner that this policy, to be attended with such important, vast, and vital results throughout the whole extent of the country, shall be adopted without reflection and without discussion.

There is another consideration that ought not to be overlooked.  Why has this silver dollar been out of circulation since 1834 ?  Simply because the gold dollar was relatively cheaper than the silver dollar, and for no other reason in the world.  It has not been coined, it has not been kept in circulation since 1834, simply and solely for the reason that the gold dollar, being equally a legal tender, was cheaper than the silver dollar;  and the cheaper currency always displaces the dearer.

Now it will follow that if you adopt as a legal currency a silver dollar worth but eighty cents, as compared with the gold dollar, you will drive gold out of circulation.  Within six months after a supply of silver dollars shall have been provided by the mints there will be no gold in the country.  With absolute certainty it will be excluded from circulation by the cheaper currency which this provision proposes to make a legal tender in the payment of debts.

Mr. Speaker, this is all and more than I intended to say.  I did not propose at all to introduce upon this report a discussion of the merits and demerits of the silver currency.  My individual opinion is that silver must be made a very important instrumentality in regulating the future currency of this country.  My own opinion is that during the next twelve months or two years, no subject connected with finance will press itself upon the attention of the American people and their Government so firmly and obstinately as this very question of utilizing silver or regulating the currency of the country.  All that is meant by this report is that a proposition of this sort would be attended with very important consequences and that it is premature and immature legislation, which neither this House nor the Senate nor the country without further examination and discussion is prepared to adopt.

Silver is now on the decline.  Within ten days it has gone down in London from fifty-two to forty-seven and one-half pence per ounce.  None of us can tell where this decline is going to stop.  How much further may silver be reduced in value, and how much of a depreciated standard is this country prepared to adopt as a legal tender in the payment of debts ?  My individual opinion is that Congress and the country should wait.  Perhaps the next session will enable us to determine whether silver has reached the bottom mark, whether it has acquired a stable position, whether a standard value of silver may be adopted by Congress, not a depreciated one, not one which may perhaps be rendered unstable, if not otherwise undesirable, in consequence of the rapid fall of silver, and whether we may not give to the silver dollar a value something like that of the gold dollar, thus securing stability and with it equity between creditors and debtors everywhere.

For these reasons, thus imperfectly and summarily given to the House, the committee were unable to agree to recommend any policy in regard to the silver dollar.

It was suggested (and I suppose I am guilty of no parliamentary impropriety in saying it) that, as a matter of compromise, perhaps we could agree, the two Houses might agree, on adopting this dollar as legal tender for debts to the amount of $20;  but, as the Senate unanimously insisted on not making it legal tender for duties on imports or interest on the public debt, my friend from Indiana was not satisfied by any sort of means.  Nothing less than absolute legal tender for all public and private debts, in the face of the fact that probably not a single member of the other body --but I cannot judge of that, and it is merely conjectural-- that not a single member of the other body was prepared to adopt it, and the House will readily see there was no agreement of opinion among us, for if we consented it should be a legal tender to $5 or $20, excepting as to duties on imports and the public debt, it accomplishes but very little.  A legal tender to the amount of $5 is only a provocation, and it amounts to very little.

Evidently that is not the measure of policy this House and Congress ought to adopt.  When they grapple with this great question of silver currency and the silver dollar and the making it legal tender in payments of debts, I think they should take in the whole subject, looking to the widest extent to which it may be received as legal tender for payment of debts, and consider also the question whether they will have a violation of the public faith, if not of the letter of the contract yet the spirit of the contract and the expectation of the parties to the contract.

Mr. Harrison.  Will the gentleman from Ohio let me ask him a question ?

Mr. Payne.  Be very brief;  I have already exceeded my time.

Mr. Harrison.  Has there not been an abnormal appreciation of gold ?  I use the expression abnormal not in proportion to its supply, but by reason of the demonetization of silver in European countries.

Mr. Payne.  I understand you very well.

Mr. Harrison.  Is not the debtor injured by that appreciation which has been brought about by foreign nations throwing silver out of the money of the world ?

Mr. Payne.  I understand your question.  Mr. Speaker, it will be after all but an individual opinion, an approximate opinion, and if my individual opinion is worth anything to my friend from Illinois I am very glad to give it to him.

Mr. Harrison.  It is, and I am asking you for it.

Mr. Payne.  In my opinion there has been relatively an appreciation of gold, but no one, in my opinion;  there is not a living man who can approximate an estimate of that appreciation.

Mr. Harrison.  Does not that appreciation, though, injuriously affect the debtor class ?

Mr. Payne.  Do not occupy my time, as I wish to be brief.

Mr. Harrison.  Has not that hurt the debtor class as much as the other would ?

Mr. Payne.  Not as much, but to an extent.  It is in that direction undoubtedly, but there is no standard by which you can measure the appreciation or depreciation of gold.  No financier has yet been able to find any standard by which he can tell whether, as compared with this period, five years hence, or five years after, there has been appreciation or depreciation of gold.  No discovery has been made.

Mr. Willard.  I should like to ask the gentleman a question.

Mr. Payne.  Be brief.

Mr. Willard.  I wish to ask the gentleman whether he thinks silver has depreciated from the gold standard more than the products of industry of the country ?

Mr. Kasson.  Yes, it has.

Mr. Payne.  That is opening a wide field, and a very interesting one, and I should be glad, when my time is not so brief as it is now, to enter into its discussion.  Undoubtedly that is a consideration.

Mr. Lawrence.  Will my colleague let me make an inquiry ?

Mr. Payne.  You must be brief.

Mr. Lawrence.  Does my colleague mean to say that Government bonds may be properly paid in silver dollars ?  This question is not involved in this bill, nor can it be made by an amendment, since it has been decided that the report of a committee of conference cannot be amended, but as reference has been made to the question I ask my colleague for his opinion.  I may say also that I do not believe it was wise to commence this silver resumption now, but since it has been commenced and threatens to result in a scarcity of change-money, I do not see any remedy but to continue it.

Mr. Payne.  I mean to say, in my opinion, they can be legally paid in silver dollars.  If the gentleman will refer to the famous law of 1869, about which a great deal has been said unfavorable as well as favorable, he will find there the solemn pledge of the Government given that the public debt shall be paid in gold or silver coin.

Mr. Bright.  It does not say coin;  it says coin or its equivalent [which means bank paper].

Mr. Payne.  I must be excused from going into these collateral questions, because the time is limited in which this discussion is to take place.

I merely wish in closing to say that I have not brought out these features of this policy with the view of discussing their merits or demerits now.  I think such a discussion would be out of place at present.  In a matter of such vast interest, affecting every other interest in the country, affecting its honor, its credit, reaching and extending into the future for an indefinite time, it is not the place, in the shape of a sort of rider or proviso to a House amendment or a Senate amendment to a bare, simple resolution, providing for a little distribution of silver coin, to discuss the merits of these questions.  And that was the view of the committee.  They had no desire to belittle its importance or to evade its discussion, but they thought this was an unsuitable occasion for settling this policy.

Let a bill to establish the silver dollar as a legal tender come before the House at a proper time and in proper a shape.  It has not been discussed in the House at all.  Under the previous question, on motion of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Landers,] it was adopted as a proviso to something with which it has no sort of connection and no sort of relation, except that the word "silver" may perhaps be mentioned in both.  It is for that reason, without prejudging, without forestalling an opinion on the merits of the various propositions that have been suggested, that this committee of conference have dropped this provision from their report.  At the proper time they, with others, will be prepared to discuss it.

I now yield twenty minutes of my time to the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Landers.]

Mr. Phillips, of Kansas.  Will the gentleman from Ohio, before he resumes his seat, allow me to ask him one question ?

Mr. Payne.  After the gentleman from Indiana has spoken.

Mr. Landers, of Indiana [Franklin Landers (March 22, 1825 - September 10, 1901); Indiana, D.;].  Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the arrangement that has been made as to the disposition of time allotted to this debate.  I understood the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Payne] to say that he would occupy but ten minutes.  He has now occupied thirty and parceled out to other gentlemen favoring the report so much of the remainder of the hour allotted as to allow me and my friends only twenty minutes.  It was proposed that we were to have one-third of the time.  I objected to that, and insisted we should have half.

Mr. Payne.  If the House will extend the time I should be very glad.

The Speaker pro tempore.  The gentleman from Ohio is entitled to an hour, during which he controls the floor;  and out of sixty minutes he proposes to give twenty minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Landers.]  It is within the power of the House either to extend the time, or to sustain the demand for the previous question.  It is a matter for the House and not for the Chair to decide.  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Landers] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. Landers, of Indiana.  The House can clearly see my object in introducing this amendment;  it is couched in language so plain that no man can fail to understand it.  My object is to restore the silver dollar to its proper position, the position it has occupied ever since 1792, until by the action of Congress it was demonetized in 1873.

My friend from Ohio [Mr. Payne] objects to this proposition because silver has depreciated in value, and insists that to agree to my proposition "would be a great hardship upon the creditor class."  Mr. Speaker, I want to be understood here as being disposed to give every man, whether debtor or creditor, the benefit of his contract.  The large portion of our debt has been created under the act of 1862.  That act provided for the sale of bonds.  It provided for the use of legal-tender currency and for the payment of interest on the bonds.  It also provided in what way the tariff dues should be collected.  It will be found by examining that act that the interest on the bonds of the Government was to be paid in coin.  It also provided that the tariff dues shall be collected in coin.  It provided further that the bonds should be placed on the market and sold at par for gold and silver or Treasury notes.  I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the creditors of the Government have not obtained every privilege that belongs to them under that law ?

Mr. MacDougall.  I suggest that the gentleman speak from the Clerk's desk, where he will be better beard by the whole House.

Mr. Landers, of Indiana.  I prefer to speak from my seat.  The gentleman will excuse me.

The creditors of the Government invariably took their option.  They bought our bonds with Treasury notes when they were not worth over fifty cents on the dollar !  I am not complaining of that, because it was the law;  and when a man lives up to the letter of the law there is no ground for complaint.  But the debtor class has an option in that law.  They have a right to pay those bonds and the interest on the same either in gold or silver coin.  Now it is clearly to be seen that the object of this law of 1873 was to deprive the debtor class of that right;  and it is for that right I am now contending.  I contend that the right which was taken from the debtor class by the act of 1873 should be again restored to them.

Did not that act repudiate the contract ?  Did it not say that the debtor should not have the rights that belonged to him under the contract ?  And is not that repudiation ?  It is of the same class of legislation as that of 1869.  The act of 1869 was a repudiating act.  It repudiated the contract;  and said that the bonds should be paid in coin, which under the original contract should have been paid in lawful money.  It said that hereafter they should be paid in coin alone.  And now because one kind of coin is depreciating in value this bondholding class is not satisfied with the first repudiation, but come in with a second repudiating act, and declare that such silver coin shall not be regarded as money.

The object of this amendment is to prevent this second outrage and act of repudiation.  Now, if the debtor class has a right to pay their debts in silver, will this Congress deny to them that right ?  If they have not that right and Congress should say that silver is a full legal tender, it is a question for the courts to determine, and as a matter of course they are always open to decide such questions.  From the legislation of the past it would seem that the debtor class have had no friends here.  Shall this thing continue ?  Are your constituents all creditors ?  Mine belong to both classes.

But the gentleman from Ohio dwells on the fact that silver has declined in value.  Now, when a contract has been made and parties bound by it to pay a debt either in silver or gold coin at its fixed lawful rate, I ask if it is any fault of the debtor if either of these commodities decline in value before the debt falls due ?  I never heard that question raised before.  Suppose a contract to be made to pay a debt in wheat or corn and the price fixed is the standard of a certain number of pounds to the bushel, and when the time for delivery arrives grain has declined in value, would any sensible or honest man say for that reason more pounds should be put into the bushel to pay the debt ?  There is just as much sense in one proposition as the other.  Certainly your contract is not to pay in the precious metals at what they are worth at time of payment, but to pay in them at their value when the contract was made;  and it would be as much an act of injustice to the people to change that standard as it would to the bondholder should they appreciate in value.

But I would like the gentleman from Ohio, or any other gentleman occupying the position on this question that he does, to prove to this House that silver has declined and that gold has not advanced in value.  I would like any gentleman to show how he would determine the question of value compared with each other.  We know that they are separated and apart.  Is there not just as much argument to prove that gold has advanced as that silver has declined ?  The argument that silver has declined is because in many governments, including our own, it has been demonetized.  Has not that act alone created a greater demand for gold ?  The value of all commodities is regulated by supply and demand;  if you cut off the demand for one and increase it for another, I ask if each would not be equally affected by the change.

The question now is whether or not we have a right to pay our debts in silver ?  The word coin used in all the acts authorizing the issue and sale of bonds, according to Chief Justice Chase, means "That we have two kinds of dollars;  we have one dollar a paper dollar, and we have a coin dollar, which is a piece of gold or silver of a certain degree of weight and fineness."  Again in the act of 1869, which was an act to explain what the language of the various acts relating to the issue of bonds meant.  You will find that the word "coin" means gold and silver, and it was in consequence of the use of that language that the infamous act of 1873 was passed.  I want the double standard restored, because all contracts have been made under the double standard, which has existed since the foundation of the Government.  The silver dollar that we now seek to restore was inaugurated by Mr. Hamilton in 1792, and has never been changed since that day so far as the amount of pure silver it contains is concerned, while the standard of gold has been changed at least twice.  The law of 1792 fixed the gold eagle at 270 grains.  In 1838 it was changed to 258 grains, which is the standard at this time.

The silver dollar has been changed only in the amount of alloy and not in the amount of grains of pure silver it contains.  I want gentlemen to remember that there has been more changes in the legislation of the country relating to gold than there have been in silver.  And I solemnly believe that if we restore the double standard the value of the two metals would soon be equalized.  If, on the contrary, you have but one standard, you have nothing left to use in its stead.  Under such a policy should a demand for it come from other countries, it would go there in accordance with the laws of trade, and this country would be left without a standard, and business would go to rack and ruin in consequence.  If you pass this bill making silver a full legal tender you will find, in my judgment, that in a very short time it will approximate to the value of gold.

Should the majority report be adopted, what will we have left as money ?  Gold !  Nothing but gold to measure the value of all the property of this vast country !  All its commodities and its labor be regulated by it !  While to-day there is not a dollar of gold in the Treasury beyond its demand obligations.  What then will be the condition of the debtor class ?  "I pause for a reply !"

You will find under that policy the labor of the country will come down to fourty cents per day.  The labor of the country is its wealth and its value is measured by its money.  I have passed sleepless nights fearing that this republican policy, under the dictation of certain leaders of both parties, might be carried out under the bill reported by the majority.  Our condition would be far worse than it was before the war, because then we had silver with gold in use as money.  If you deprive the debtor class of that now you will be doing them a great act of injustice.  If you countenance this act of repudiation for the benefit of the creditor class the people will hold every one of you to a strict account for so doing.

Mr. Payne.  I move that the time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Landers] be extended for ten minutes.

The Speaker pro tempore.  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Payne] has ten minutes of his hour remaining.

Mr. Payne.  I desire to use that time myself.

The Speaker pro tempore.  If there be no objection, the time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Landers] will be extended for ten minutes.

There was no objection, and the extension of time was accordingly made.

Mr. Landers, of Indiana.  It is not my object to defeat this bill.  I am in favor of all its provisions, but I am also in favor of the further provision to make the standard silver dollar a full legal tender.  I want to say to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Payne] that he is very much mistaken as to the temper of the Senate.  When he hears from the Senate on this report, I think he will find it will be voted down.  I have been assured that it will be rejected.  The Senate has discussed this question thoroughly.

Mr. Kasson.  I must remind the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Landers] of the rule which prohibits a reference to the action of the other body.

Mr. Fort.  Why did not the gentleman interpose when the honorable gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Payne] was threatening this House so terribly with the action of the Senate ?

Mr. Kasson.  Because he spoke of the conference committee, which he had a right to do.

Mr. Kelley.  He said that not a single member of the other body, referring to the Senate, were willing to adopt this measure.

Mr. Landers, of Indiana.  The Senate has discussed this measure quite fully, and some of its members most intelligently.  While it did not receive much attention there at first, it is now receiving the respectful consideration of that body, and I am satisfied what the result will be when its action is reported on this question.

Mr. Speaker, how much time have I remaining ?

The Speaker pro tempore.  The gentleman has nine minutes of the extension granted him by the House.

Mr. Landers, of Indiana.  My friend from Ohio [Mr. Payne] started out with ten minutes and consumed thirty.  However, I will yield five minutes of my time to the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Fort.]

Mr. Fort [Greenbury Lafayette Fort (October 17, 1825 - January 13, 1883); Lacon Illinois, R; studied law, admitted to the bar].  Mr. Speaker, there are many things in and affected by this bill and amendments which it might be well to discuss.  It occurs to me, however, that the principal question now before the House is whether silver should continue to be demonetized as a coin of the United States.  If I have read and understood the laws aright, up to 1873 silver coin in standard dollars was a legal tender to any amount for all debts, both public and private, and had so been a legal tender for all debts since about the year 1792.  If that be so, why was it demonetized ?  Let those who did it answer.  It will occur to every gentleman here that all or nearly all of the public debt of this country was contracted while silver in standard dollars was a full legal tender for all sums.  And nearly all the private debts of the people of this country, at least all that are three years old, were also contracted while silver in the form of silver standard dollars was a legal tender to any amount.  And as a matter of course all of such debts were legally and in equity payable in silver coin of the United States.  And no creditor of the Government, whether resident or foreign, could ask or expect his debt to be paid in anything better, and no private citizen had any right to demand anything else of his debtor up to that date.  That had been the law of our country for more than eighty years.

With this law upon our statute-books, venerable for its age and for its distinguished paternity, our Government negotiated all its immense loans and borrowed its billions of dollars with which to carry on war and conquer peace.  And in this silver coin of the standard dollar it agreed to pay the lender.  And never in any one instance did it promise to pay exclusively in any other coin.  The promise was to pay in the coin of the United States where specie was mentioned at all;  and in no instance did the Government promise to pay in any dearer or more precious metal.

In 1873 the law of eighty years' standing by which silver dollars had been made a legal tender was repealed.  How I know not;  to inquire, I have but little time.  It is enough for me to know that I was not responsible for that repeal.  The history of the passage of that most mischievous law may not be fully written, and some may hope that it never may be written;  but by some maneuver it was done.  And whether it was discussed or understood here at the time I cannot state, but I am told by gentlemen who were here that it was not.  But this I do say, Mr. Speaker, and I here emphatically declare that the people of this country were not consulted about the repeal of that important and satisfactory law.  It slipped through one House and then the other, as things sometimes do, and as I fear this, to my mind, most objectionable and pernicious measure will get through this House, for want of proper discussion and consideration.

Mr. Lawrence.  Does the gentleman refer to the act of February, 1873 ?

Mr. Fort.  I refer to the act repealing the legal-tender quality of silver in standard dollars, passed, as most bad laws do pass, near the close of the session, in February, 1873.

Mr. Kasson.  I want to remind the gentleman that it was before Congress two or three sessions.

Mr. Fort.  I ask the gentleman to search the records and see if that question was ever discussed in Congress.  No, Mr. Speaker, it was put through under the suspension of the rules at the bidding of the bondholders and, as the Congressional Globe shows, without even being read to the House.  Of course I was not here at that time, but I have examined the records, and state that, so far as they show, the House was not advised that this old, time-honored law was even to be modified, to say nothing of its being repealed by the then pending bill.

This little mischievous law, repealing the legal-tender quality of silver dollars, was stolen through Congress, as I believe, by being hidden in the body of a long bill professing only to modify the coinage laws, and was not discovered by the good men who were on guard here then.  And, Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain, that no matter what transpired here in Congress, the fact remains that the repeal of that old law was never discussed before the people.  They were never asked to give their views upon the question or consent to repealing the legal-tender quality of silver, with the payment of which they might make good almost all their promises.

Why was this repeal ?  I know not.  It certainly was not in the interest of the tax-payers.  I imagine, from the speech of the honorable gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Payne,] that it must have been in the interest of somebody else than the taxpayers.  Ay, Mr. Speaker, the story is told in a few words.  It was in the interest of the bondholders and hence it was done.  The honorable gentleman says that silver has depreciated;  that it is not honest now to compel the creditor to receive his pay in silver because it is not par with gold.  This he says would be cheating our creditors.  Dishonest, is it ?  Ah, was not silver a legal tender when he, the creditor, the bondholder, took his bond ?  Did he not then know that he might be lawfully and in honor paid in silver ?  Did he not, in taking the bond, assume and in like manner promise to take his pay in silver coin ?  I say that the tax-payer ought to hold the bondholder to his contract.

Mr. Speaker, the bargain was --because the law defining what our coin was and what its quality was was a part of the contract between the tax-payer and the bondholder-- that the debt was to be paid in the coin of the United States, either silver or gold.  We had, and in my judgment still ought to have, the option to pay in either.  We were and are a silver-producing country;  and shall we voluntarily, to our own great damage, yield to the desire of our creditors and pay them in the most costly metal, and thus virtually throw away one-half of our precious metal so far as using it as money at least goes, the certain effect of which will be to increase the value of gold and thus increase the value of our bonds, thereby enriching foreign bankers and impoverishing ourselves, and make it more and more difficult for the people to secure the desired coin, gold, with which to pay our debts.  Mr. Speaker, the position gentlemen take amazes me.

Ah, but silver has depreciated, it is said.  It is not honest money.  I wish to ask the honorable gentleman this question:  Suppose that gold should depreciate;  suppose that by the discovery of some immense bonanza in our own country or some other country gold should become so abundant as to become depreciated, what then would the gentleman do ?  Will he come in here with a bill in the interest of the bondholder, and say that as gold has depreciated, and that it is "dishonest money," and that we must not ask the bond-holder to take his pay in gold, but that we must pay him in diamonds or some other more valuable commodity ?

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. Landers.  I now yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. Bright.]

Mr. Clark, of Missouri.  Is it in order to move that the time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fort] be extended ?

The Speaker pro tempore.  That can be done by unanimous consent.  What extension does the gentleman propose ?

Mr. Fort.  I do not think that I shall require more than three minutes.

Mr. Clark, of Missouri.  I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman's time be extended for five minutes.

There was no objection.

Mr. Fort.  I am very much obliged to the gentleman from Missonri [Mr. Clark] and to the House for the courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, are we to dance to the caprice of Shylocks, and become ridiculous and run mad in trying to please our creditors, and insist on paying them more or something more valuable than we and they at the time agreed should be paid ?  Wherefore is it that gentlemen manifest so much interest in our creditors and so little in ourselves ?  They bought our bonds at greatly depreciated rates.  Our bonds have appreciated, and are worth from 25 to 50 per cent. more than we got for them.  We do not complain of that, but are willing to pay them in full in the same metal mentioned expressly and by implication in the contract.  And now that the bonds have appreciated and that gold has also appreciated, we are asked, and by our own countrymen, too, to purchase the most costly metal and pay with it, and to abandon silver --our own, most abundant product-- as money, and not ask our creditors to take it as pay, although they agreed to do so.

Sir, we all profess to be desirous to return to specie payments, do we not ?  For one, that is my earnest desire.  I may not be so very anxious about it as some of my friends farther East;  but I wish to reach a specie basis as soon as possible by the road of economy and prosperity.  I would do nothing to delay the coming of that day when a greenback shall be par.  And we all wish to pay all our demands in coin as soon as we can consistent with national prosperity.  Now I ask gentlemen to consider this question:  If we discard this vast volume of precious metal which can be coined into money, and thereby reduce our means at least one-half and thereby make it impossible to resume as soon by perhaps years, are we not then traveling from resumption, and not toward it ?  How can we resume without precious metal and what have we to gain by discarding one-half of what we have ?

Gentlemen are certainly hard to please.  The greenback is not good enough for a domestic currency because they say it is below gold.  Silver is not good enough for the bondholder because it is depreciated below gold and is not honest money.

But, Mr. Speaker, by demonetizing silver they are appreciating gold and making it more dear and still widening the margin between it and the greenback, and making it that much harder to resume, and putting off the desired day that much longer.  Are you not, gentlemen, in fact doing all you can to retard resumption, as you certainly are doing all you can to increase our debt and making it harder to pay, and placing so much more burden upon an overloaded people ?  I beg gentlemen to pause and consider.

By demonetizing silver you throw away one-half your means essential to resume specie payment.  Will some financier tell me how he expects to reach specie payments thereby ?

Ah, Mr. Speaker, I hope for no resumption by this road, and, with all respect to the gentleman, say that, in my judgment, that result will not be promoted by this measure.

In my judgment there is a conflict now pending between the debtor and creditor classes, and the creditor class has secured the first advantage by demonetizing silver, thus making bonds and other evidences of indebtedness so much the more valuable and also depriving the debtor class of that much of their means to pay.

Property may rise and fall in value, but indebtedness remains at the same amount, measured by dollars and cents.  And so it is that the creditor gains by the value of the dollar.  If that class can by any means or measure increase the value of money they increase the value of their notes and bonds, and so in this case if they can dethrone silver they reduce the volume of coin, and of course render the remaining quantity, which would be gold, by so much the more valuable.

Mr. Speaker, in my bumble judgment, the most gigantic scheme ever organized has been set on foot all over the world by the Rothschilds and others of the creditor class to double their own enormous wealth and to double the debts of the debtor class.  The promise to pay is so many dollars, and the value of the dollar doubled, and you have the result as stated.  Mr. Speaker, why is it that our countrymen, of all other people, are to be the greatest loser by this unholy scheme ?  Why is it, I earnestly ask, do they join the conspirators, and help thus to bind the helpless and aggrandize the money kings of Europe ?

Mr. Speaker, the silver dollar was the first legal-tender coin we ever had.  About the year 1792 the Hamiltonian dollar was authorized by law, and was made of the same value as the Spanish milled dollar then in circulation here.  It remained our only dollar, and it was not till long after the beginning of the present century that we had any gold coin of our own, when the coinage of the eagle and half eagle was authorized, the dollar being the unit and the standard of value all this time and up to and till the lamented repeal of its legal-tender quality.  And now it is by the wise men of our day degraded and dishonored for all sums over $5;  and I would ask, why have you left it a legal tender for any sum if it is so dishonored, so dishonest ?  I presume the gentleman will say, O well, it will do to payoff small debts;  do to pay for a day's labor;  do to pay small tradesmen with.

Ah, Mr. Speaker, if it is good enough to pay the poor hired girl for a week's work or good enough to pay the laboring-man for a day's work, is it not good enough to pay the bondholder, in as much as he agreed to take it !  Mr. Speaker, this cry of dishonest money will not do for all ears.  If it is dishonest money why will gentlemen pay it out for honest labor ?  The poor man must take it.  It is a legal tender for him;  but the rich having large amounts must have better money.  This doctrine of the distinguished gentleman, with all respect to him personally, I may be allowed to characterize as monstrous.  The purchaser of real estate or any other valuable thing must take it subject to the chances as to whether it shall rise or fall in value.  And so it should be with bonds, bills, or gold, or silver.  Congress cannot stand ready to regulate the value of one to suit the other.

Mr. Speaker, I have no prejudice against the bondholders;  none in the world.  I have none against anybody.  They got our bonds cheap;  they have made a handsome profit in their advance, and ought to be content;  and, so far as I am concerned, they must be.  I would pay them all we owe them according to the bond and the contract, and nothing more.  We have some rights reserved to ourselves and, for one, I am not willing to yield them;  not willing to pay them so many millions more than we agreed to pay.  And, more than all, I am not willing to reduce our volume of money by dishonoring all the silver we have and all our mines may produce.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if we are disposed to resume specie payments we should hold all our resources ready to subserve that end.  If we can redeem our paper currency in any kind of precious metal, is it not best to reserve the right to do so ?  Should we demonetize and discard that metal of which we have most and which our country produces ?  Let it be understood here in this House to-day that he who votes to sustain this report of this committee votes to continue demonetization of silver coin, and that he votes to deprive the Government that much of its wealth and of its ability to meet its demands, that much of its ability to redeem the legal-tender notes and pay its bonds in coin.  He who votes to disagree to this report votes, in my judgment, to retain all that we have with which we can make good our promises and votes to promote the prosperity of the country.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that our duty is plain;  that we should retain within our control every means we have to redeem the promises we have made;  and, mark you, every dollar of indebtedness which this Government owes was contracted when the silver dollar of standard value of 371¼ grains was a legal tender;  and every bond-holder who bought a bond at from fifty to seventy-five cents on the dollar took the bond with the understanding and agreement that he might be, and in all probability would be, compelled to take his pay in silver coin of the United States.  Why is it that gentlemen from the East come in here and so eagerly insist that we must pay our debts in a better and more valuable coin than that in which they were contracted to be paid ?

Mr. MacDougall.  Will the gentleman from Illinois tell us what bonds of the Government were taken at forty cents on the dollar ?

Mr. Fort The gentleman very well knows that many of our bonds were sold upon the market when gold for greenbacks was at 150, 200, and 240 in greenbacks;  but we do not complain of that.  The bonds have appreciated, and now the bondholder ought to take the same coin he agreed to take.

Mr. Kelley.  Two hundred and eighty.

Mr. Fort Yes; 280, as the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania suggests;  those bonds were paid for in greenbacks.  We are now asked to pay those bonds not in silver but in something more valuable;  they want them paid in gold.  We are told that silver is not good enough for the bondholder.  Mr. Speaker, it is singular that the Government, and in fact the debtors as a class, come out second best in all these contests;  and I doubt not that if gold should for any reason depreciate a few cents these same gentlemen would be here eloquently and persistently demanding that the Government must make good to them the depreciation, having their bond for the pound of flesh, that they must have it nearest the heart.

Mr. MacDougall.  When gold was at 240, what were greenbacks ?

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. Landers, of Indiana.  I yield now the balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. Bright.]

The Speaker pro tempore.  The gentleman from Tennessee has five minutes of the original time of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Landers.]  More than an hour has expired, and gentlemen have been speaking by consent of the House.

Mr. Bright.  Mr. Speaker, it will be impossible, within five minutes, to enter upon the discussion of this question.  I can only throw out a few suggestive thoughts.

Mr. Landers, of Indiana.  I move that the time for discussion be extended one hour, to be divided into five-minute speeches.

The Speaker pro tempore.  The Chair will state that unless the previous question is called and sustained at the close of the hour of the gentleman from Ohio, discussion may be extended indefinitely.  It depends entirely on the action of the House.  As the hour has not yet expired it is better not to anticipate it.

Mr. Bright [John Morgan Bright (January 20, 1817 - October 2, 1911); Fayetteville Tenessee D; studied law, admitted to the bar;  had 13 children].  Mr. Speaker, I will state to the House that there are some profound questions connected with the subject of the demonetization of silver, and there is great propriety in its restoration to its ancient place.  It will be remembered, sir, that there is an implied recognition in the Constitution of the United States that gold and silver should both be the standard coins of the United States.  In the analysis and discussion of this subject by the old statesmen they clearly demonstrated that the States made a surrender of the question of coinage and the regulation of the value of coins to the Government of the United States with the understanding that the double standard of gold and silver should remain with them.

And now the question is presented, Mr. Speaker, why is it that the Constitution of our country has been invaded and one of the most important rights of the States and people has been stricken down by congressional legislation ?  Was this question ever submitted to them ?  Never.  Were they consulted about it in any popular canvass ?  Never.  Then why is it when they are oppressed, burdened, tax-ridden, bled almost to death by taxation, you deprive them of one of the constitutional means of discharging their obligations to the creditor ?  What would you think, Mr. Speaker, of the guardian who intending to discharge the obligation of his ward should pay two-fold the value of that obligation when he could have discharged it for one-half ?  What would equity, what would the courts of the country say ?  They would deprive him of his fiduciary relation and substitute another who understood the relation better and would discharge the obligation fairly.

Now, it was admitted by Mr. Calhoun, by Mr. Benton, and by all the old statesmen, that gold and silver should be the currency and legal tender of the United States.  I have the authority before me, and will quote a few of them on the subject:

He (Mr. Benton) fully concurred with the senator from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun], that gold, in the United States, ought to be the preferred metal;  not that silver should be expelled, but both retained;  the mistake, of any, to be in favor of gold, instead of being against it.  Mr. Benton believed that it was the intention and declared meaning of the constitution, that foreign coins should pass currently as money, and at their full value, within the United States;  that it was the duty of Congress to promote the circulation of these coins by giving them their full value;  that this was the design of the States in conferring upon Congress the exclusive power of regulating the value of these coins;  that all the laws of Congress for preventing the circulation of foreign coins, and underrating their value, were so many breaches of the constitution, and so many mischiefs inflicted upon the States;  and that it was the bounden duty of Congress to repeal all such laws;  and to restore foreign coins to the same free and favored circulation which they possessed when the federal constitution was adopted.

He denounced this exclusion of foreign coins as a fraud, and a fraud of the most injurious nature, upon the people of the States.  The States had surrendered their power over the coinage to Congress;  they made the surrender in language which clearly implied that their currency of foreign coins was to be continued to them;  yet that currency is suppressed;  a currency of intrinsic value, for which they paid interest to nobody, is suppressed;  and a currency without intrinsic value, a currency of paper subject to every fluctuation, and for the supply of which corporate bodies receive interest, is substituted in its place. ---Senator Thomas Benton, in the Senate, March 21, 1834.

Thus it appears, sir, that when the States surrendered the power to the General Government of regulating coins and coinage it was with the implication that all the avenues of commerce should be so kept open that foreign coins should be permitted to flow in and the people should be permitted to avail themselves of that privilege;  and why is it now that foreign coins are demonetized in like manner, and you are narrowing the means of discharging the obligations of the people down to a single standard ?  Sir, it is discrimination in favor of domestic and foreign bond-holders against the tax-payers of our country.

Every State under the Constitution has the right to make silver as well as gold a legal tender.  They are equal in the eye of the Constitution.  Yet if a State should pass a law making silver a legal tender, the General Government says no, that it has the sovereign power of coinage and it will not coin silver;  that it has the power of regulating the value of coins, and it will exercise the power to exclude foreign coins;  and thus it sweeps away one of the most vital rights of the States and the people.  In this way it cuts off one of the financial arms of the States.  It is a financial mayhem of the States, leaving them with one arm instead of two to fight against the encroachments of monopolies and taxation.  This demonstrates the fact that the money power is outgrowing all the restraints of the Constitution;  it pushes through them like Job's behemoth through the snares.  The act of February 12, 1873, demonetized the silver dollar, and the amendment of the House proposed to restore it.  The Constitution, justice, equity, and honor say let the ancient coin be restored.

There is another outrage which has been perpetrated upon the people, but I have not time to enlarge upon it.  It will be remembered that on the adoption of the Federal Constitution we had no American coin.  It was all foreign, and the Spanish milled silver dollar was constituted by statute the unit of value of this country.  Will any gentleman or Representative here be kind enough to point out any statute where there is any other unit of value fixed by law ?  It is now here to be found.  Yet, in despite of all that, you have demonetized the old coin which formed your unit of value and which enabled this Government first to inaugurate its system of commerce and discharge its debts.

Not only so, Mr. Speaker, but there is another thought which I wish to lay before this honorable body, and the device which is meditated is no shallow one.  This body must understand that there is a European project now on foot, in which a certain party in the United States sympathize, that is to reach an international unification of the value and standard of coin;  and it is to make the gold coin the standard of value, and to demonetize silver.  Suppose that England, Germany, and the United States succeed in the scheme of inducing the nations to demonetize silver, what would be the result ?

Our Director of the Mint in his report for 1874, speaking of gold and silver, said:

The world's stock of precious metals is generally estimated at from ten to twelve thousand million dollars, nearly equally divided as to the two metals.

The silver coin being destroyed, it would leave the world's stock of gold coin about five or six thousand millions.  This would appreciate the value of gold two-fold by making it scarce and increasing the demand for it.  The Government of the United States and the States and our corporations being largely indebted to England and Germany, would find the burden of their debt doubled, because those, with other European nations, could not spare the gold to come and remain in the United States.  Such a project, if successful, would make the rich richer and the poor poorer.  It would deprive our people of one of the means of paying their debts --all the contracts, public and private, being payable in gold or silver.  This would be a folly only equaled by its injustice.

The people will not always remain in ignorance of the frauds which have been perpetrated against them.  In due time they will administer the proper retribution.

But my time will not permit me to extend my remarks further.  I will close by appending to my remarks an instructive and valuable article from the Cincinnati Commercial of July 8, 1876.

The Finances of France and Germany.

During the disappearance of the precious metals from circulation in this country, the old double standard was abolished by indirection.  Of course this was not done accidentally, but systematically and in the interest of the holders of securities, with the purpose of increasing the weight of debts, public and private.  The main money question before the people of the United States is, whether the double standard shall be restored.  We want resumption of specie payments, but we demand that it shall be upon the old specie basis.  Our debts were made when there were two money metals.  We do not propose to impose on the people resumption in one metal.

The debts up to 1873 were payable in coin of "gold and silver."  We propose that they shall be paid in "gold and silver."  That is fair, isn't it ?  Those who are in favor of an exclusive gold standard use the example of England.  We have referred to the greater prosperity of France under her double standard, and the existence of that standard in France has been disputed.  We have obtained exact information on this subject, and submit it in the form in which it was received:

Cincinnati, July 7, 1876.

The Editor of the Commercial:

Some few weeks ago you expressed a wish that I would ascertain and give you the exact status of silver in our sister-republic of France.  In compliance therewith I wrote to Paris and have this day received the following reply.

Yours, respectfully,
James Gilmore.
Paris, June 23, 1876.

Sir:  We can reply as follows to the several inquiries conveyed by your letter of the 2d instant.

The five-franc piece is an unlimited legal tender, and may, therefore, be employed to any extent for payments;  the smaller silver coins are of inferior fineness, and acceptance of the same cannot be enforced beyond an amount of fifty francs per each payment.

The Bank of France issues no more five-franc notes and destroys those which return to the bank in course of circulation.  The bank has at present on hand 581,278,000 francs in silver coin and bullion, 1,468,340,000 francs in gold coin and bullion.

In March, 1875, the bank held 495,000,000 francs in silver and 1,225 000,000 francs in gold, which shows that the respective increases of the silver and gold paid in have taken place in proportions which do not differ so widely as might be anticipated from the great abundance of silver.

From our previous remarks on five-franc pieces, it follows that, in case the bank resumed specie payments, these could be legally effected in silver coin, using the pieces inferior to five francs to the maximum extent of fifty francs per payment.

We will add, for your guidance, that one-fourth-franc pieces have been withdrawn from circulation, and are replaced by twenty-centime pieces.

The commercial value of gold and of silver is as follows, namely: silver of 1000-1000 fineness, 218.69 francs per kilogram;  gold of 1000-100O fineness, 3434.44 francs per kilogram.  The kilogram is equivalent.  to 32.1543 ounces.

It is on the above basis that silver and gold are quoted, with so much per cent. loss or premium.

The mint receives, however, these two metals on the following footing:  Gold, 3437 francs per kilogram;  silver, 220.56 francs per kilogram.

In consequence of the international treaties, the mint, being provided with silver for its coinage till December, 1878, does not, for the present, receive any more of this metal.

France has done well to adhere to her bimetallic money.  The financial depression and disturbances in Germany are to be largely attributed to the action of the imperial government looking to demonetizing silver.  Germany attempted to adopt the gold standard upon receiving the indemnity of France, and has thereby placed herself in great difficulties.  She is attempting to rid herself of the people's money --silver-- to the extent of 200,000,000 thalers.  Henri Cernuschi, author of Mecanique de l'echange, in a pamphlet on Bimetallic Money, describes the troublesome task upon which Germany has entered, as follows:

"Where can all this silver be sent to or what can be done with it ?  Up to the present England and the United States admit only gold as a legal tender.  Consequently, these countries cannot absorb the silver furnished by the German thalers.  France, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland --that is to say, the Latin union-- though admitting the bimetallic regime, have coalesced to prevent the Germans coming to their mints to have their thalers turned into pieces of five francs;  and to this end they have by common agreement suspended their ancient free coinage of silver.  Austria and Russia are condemned to a chronic state of paper currency;  they cannot think of acquiring the silver of Germany.  There remain China and India.  In these countries gold is not employed, as their payments are made in silver.  But they have neither heavy credits on Germany nor the rest of Europe, and are therefore not in a position to send thither large sums.  One can hardly imagine a cause for a great exportation of silver from Berlin to Pekin short of the hypothesis of a decisive battle being lost by the Germans in fighting against the Chinese, and the latter having imposed a heavy indemnity on the former.

"Moreover, we should bear in mind that if it is hard to find an outlet for demonetized silver, the purchase of the gold to replace it is no less difficult.

"London, the chief mart of precious metals, can only furnish Australian and Californian gold according to the supplies received thence.  Were the usual stock, of which the English themselves stand in absolute need, trenched upon, the result would be a terrible crisis in the British market, which would immediately react upon all the rest of Europe, bringing with it ruin and disaster.

"It is scarcely necessary to point out the gigantic losses Germany would, before causing this disastrous crisis, entail upon herself should she continue to offer heavy sums of silver and to demand heavy sums of gold.  The silver so offered would be more and more depreciated, and the price of gold would rise in a converse ratio, entailing a loss of millions to the German treasury.

"The ministry of the empire have foreseen these difficulties.  To meet them they inserted in the decree, ruling that from January 1, 1876, all payments shall be made neither in florins nor thalers, but exclusively in marks, a restrictive clause, to maintain in circulation the thalers, which are to be counted as gold, and to be each held as equivalent to three marks.

"We see from this that the imperial government wishes to secure itself time, and hopes to demonetize slowly.  But a slow demonetization is not without serious drawbacks, since it determines the exportation of gold.  Here are the reasons why it does so:

"Since demonetization has begun, silver, which is constantly offered to foreign markets, goes on falling in price, while at home the value of the thaler, this coin being a legal tender under the restrictive clause above mentioned, and appraised at three golden marks, is not depreciated.  Bankers, therefore, when they have payments to make abroad are careful not to transmit thalers.  They send gold marks, reserving their thalers for home payments.  Government buys back the gold in foreign markets, and the bankers go on exporting it.  The Treasury thus undertakes to weave a Penelope's web without any Ulysses in the distance.  Already 20,000,000 of marks have been sent abroad, the sixth part of all that has been coined.  To sum up, Germany has judged prudent not to demonetize rapidly, while the success of a slow demonetization appears highly doubtful."

Discussing the remedies for the disordered finances of Germany, the same writer says:

"Germany is not committed to the monometallic system to the extent of being unable, without a great effort, to abandon it.  On the contrary, she has never so closely approached a bimetallic regime, which in point of fact she already legally, though provisionally, possesses.  In order that bimetallism become permanent and absolute, it would suffice for her government to ordain, firstly, that the coinage of gold and silver in the public mint shall be open to every one;  secondly, that the weight of a silver mark shall be equal to one-third the weight of a thaler;  thirdly, that pieces of four or five silver marks shall be struck in order to make rouleaus of one hundred marks, which cannot be done with the existing coins of three marks --the thalers;  fourthly, that no more thalers shall be struck, and the existing ones hereafter melted down and transformed into pieces of four or five marks;  fifthly, that there shall not be under the value of two marks any more coins of low standard, and that those of five marks, the coinage of which has begun, shall eventually be called in.

"It is obvious that the application of a law to this effect would not meet with any difficulty, and it would be attended with important advantages.  The German government would be relieved of its monetary cares;  it would be no longer obliged to seek issues which do not exist for its silver;  it would not be obliged to demand more gold than can possibly be supplied;  it would avoid the losses ensuing by the continued fall of silver, and purchase of gold which goes on rising;  it would cease to fear the exportation of golden marks;  and finally, satisfied with having in the whole empire a single denominational unity, the mark, it would leave the Germans free to make use at will of gold or silver money, as was always practiced in the states of the Latin Union up to 1874.

"The coalition formed between France, Italy, Belgium, and Switzerland to resist the monetary enterprises of Germany would be at once dissolved.  The monetization of silver would be free in these countries, and there would be an end to a monetary war without precedent and without end, which is as contrary to scientific principles as to the interests of the States by whom it is waged.  The English market, and with it the continental markets, would escape from the crisis which is inevitable if the German government persists in demanding more gold than can be furnished.

"Is there an economist, banker, or statesman who can deny the reality and the importance of the advantages we have just enumerated ?"

The people of the United States are in the humiliating position of having had the double standard abolished in the dark by the gold ring;  that is to say, the people here have been deprived of one of the precious metals, and they are expected to submit, because the metal in which they have had their rights stolen from them is cheap.

We think we can trust the intelligence of the people to resist this oppression.  They can obtain valuable lessons pertinent to the case in studying the prosperity of France under the double standard and the depression in Germany resulting from the attempted demonetization of silver.  The people of the United States never had the great question of abolishing silver money referred to them.  They were deprived of their rights to silver by a juggling coinage regulation, and those who are urging the continuance of the exclusive gold standard must be of the impression that the people do not know their rights or dare not assert them.

Mr. Cox.  I do not propose to discuss this bill with reference to the proposition rejected in the conference.  That proposition spreads over a large and open sea of tempestuous discussion.  It might well engage our continuous attention for a week.  It involves not merely the demonetization, but the remonetization of silver, and all the business relations of the whole people.

I know perfectly well what the Constitution says in relation to gold and silver both in the eighth section of the first article wherein Congress has the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, and in the tenth section of the same article where it is declared that no State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender.  These constitutional clauses are sacred, and nothing in this bill derogates from them.

I cannot now enter upon that question.  It bears me away from the conference report.  Silver should not be demonetized.  No vote of mine shall tend that way.  This bill does not thus tend.

I agree with the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Payne] that legally, and I will go further, and say morally, silver is a part of the coin of this realm and should be so utilized.  This report proposes to use it properly.

But, sir, the precise question before the House now is one concerning convenience;  it is temporary;  it is not constitutional or economical in a large sense.  This report is not amendable.  You have to vote ay or no upon it.  If you vote for it, you facilitate the issue of subsidiary silver coin, so as to accommodate the people between now and our next session of Congress.  You fill the vacuum caused by the displacement of the fractional currency.  You help the people in their need and distress for "change."  If you vote it down, I suppose I speak with parliamentary propriety when I say that there is no hope of such relief at this session either in this body or the other.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to come back to the proposition before the House.  You all remember the first bill introduced here for the issue and fair distribution of the $10,000,000 of silver coin in exchange for an equal amount of legal-tender notes, or really for so much fractional currency in the final result.  That first bill, reported from the committee of which I am chairman, was intended to open new sluices for the fluent circulation of those 10,000,000.  That was the simple original bill, intended only to give facility to a prompt and fair distribution.  The various amendments made since are in fact each and all irrelevant to that bill, which had one object and only one.  To that bill the Senate made an amendment, striking out the word "now," which was well enough.  Then they added the third section of another silver bill which we passed.  It had reference to the trade-dollar, and was intended for good reasons to impair its value or demonetize it to a certain extent for certain purposes on the Pacific.  That was the bill as the Senate sent it back to the House.  Then on this bill, thus amended by the Senate, the House fixed the whole bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, as to the issue of the twenty millions of sliver coin minted out of bullion to be bought in the market on certain conditions and limitations.

Now, sir, I desire to say that a better bill than either that for twenty millions of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, or than the original ten-million-dollar bill to which the House attached the twenty-million bill, might be enacted with advantage.  I refer to the bill introduced by the gentleman who represents the Saint Louis district in Missouri, [Mr. Wells.]

This bill of the gentleman from Missouri authorizes --and I beg the attention of the House to it, for I believe it would be most acceptable when this matter shall properly come up-- it authorizes any owner of silver bullion to deposit the same at the essay office in New York, or at any coinage mint, and to receive in payment therefor subsidiary silver coin at a rate of price per standard ounce to be fixed and announced from time to time by the Director of the Mint, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.  It provides that the cost of the coinage shall devolve on the seller of the bullion, and the profit or seigniorage arising therefrom shall accrue to the Government.  So that, if that bill were a law, the Treasury would not have to go out and spend its money on hand to buy the bullion in the market;  but every man in the country who owned bullion and deposited it in the assay offices or mints should there have it coined, the Government paying nothing for the bullion and receiving pay for the coinage.  That seems to be the most sensible bill which has been introduced in connection with this subject.  But it is not now before the House.  I hope it may be considered, however, when we consider more comprehensively how best to monetize silver.

The simple question is shall we now, in pursuing the idea of making the old silver dollar a legal tender, the discussion of which has been raised by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Landers,] lose the whole benefit of the ten-million and tbe twenty-million bill which have been so carefully considered by both Houses, and so sedulously guarded by proper provisions.

I might agree with all that was said by the gentleman from Indiana.  I agree that even the bonds should be paid in silver as well as in gold.  I will not stop to argue the proposition that silver being now 20 per cent. below gold and 10 per cent. below greenbacks, that it is a good time for one class and not for another.  I will not stop to argue the relation between the debtor and the creditor class in this connection.  These matters might all be pertinent, and in my judgment the points seem well taken.  But the question now is, shall we forego passing this bill for silver change;  the ten millions and the twenty millions;  or lose the measure as matured and the consequent benefit of it to the people, because we do not by this report reach a larger relief ?

That, sir, is all that I intended to say at this time.

Mr. Landers, of Indiana.  I desire to ask the gentleman from New York one question.

Mr. Cox.  Very well.

Mr. Landers, of Indiana.  Can we not appoint another conference committee, should this report not be concurred in ?

Mr. Cox.  I should think from the indications I have seen, without referring to the Senate or saying anything that would be irregular, that such a committee would be utterly fruitless of result.  We would gain nothing by it.

Mr. Landers, of Indiana.  That is not the question;  can we not do it ?

Mr. Cox.  I suppose you could raise another conference by some management here.  I proposed to yield a portion of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Randall,] but he is not in the hall, and therefore I will yield five minutes to his colleague, [Mr. Townsend.]

Mr. Townsend, of Pennsylvania.  I rise to support the report of the conference committee.  I think it is a report that ought to be accepted by this House, and I am sure that it will commend itself to the sound judgment of all the people of the country.

I shall address myself chiefly to that portion of the report which has reference to what is called the Landers amendment, making the silver dollar of 1861 a legal tender for all debts, public and private;  and I want to say that I agree with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Landers] and the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Fort,] in the hope and desire that the national bonds of which they have spoken shall be paid according to the original meaning and intent of the contract.

Mr. Lawrence.  What is that ?

Mr. Townsend, of Pennsylvania.  The gentleman from Ohio inquires what was the original meaning and intent of the contract.  We have to gather it from the circumstances surrounding the offer and taking of the loan itself when first made.  We have to look to what the Government did;  and when we examine its acts we find them in the promises and action of the agents of the Government who had charge of the negotiation of our great loan.  The negotiation of a loan of over $1,000,000,000 was intrusted to a single house.  The house of Jay Cooke & Co. were the sole parties authorized to negotiate the loan;  they were authorized to go into the market and obtain it;  they were the recognized and responsible agents of the Government.  They went into the market;  they distributed their circulars all over the country and they assured every man and every woman who could scrape together $50 or more that these bonds which they were selling to the people were payable principal and interest in gold.  There was no time during the whole negotiation of the loan when some of these circulars dated in 1863 and distributed by their subagents were not to be found in every hamlet, every village, and every city on the continent, without objection from the Treasury Department;  and in these circulars thus sent forth in reply to the inquiry "Will the face of the bonds be paid in gold when due ?"  Jay Cooke & Co., the accredited agents of the Government, with the sanction of the Secretary of the Treasury, with the sanction of Congress, (for there was no expression of opinion or action by the Secretary or Congress to the contrary,) said:  "These bonds are called five twenties because, while they are twenty-year bonds, they may be redeemed by the Government in gold at any time after five years."

Again, in answer to another inquiry, they say that "Congress has provided that these bonds shall be paid in gold when due."  And again they say in the postscript: "Those who neglect these 6 per cent. bonds, the interest and principal of which they will get in gold, may have occasion to regret it."  I submit as a part of my remarks the entire circular.  It was an original circular emanating from their house, hundreds of thousands of which were circulated throughout the country to induce people to invest in the national loan.  It reads as follows:

---Berks County, Pennsylvania, March 20, 1863.
Jay Cooke, Esq.,
United States Loan Agent, 114 South Third Street, Philadelphia.

Dear Sir: I see by our papers that you are selling for the Government a new loan called five-twenties.  I expect to have shortly a few thousand dollars to spare, and as I have made up my mind that the Government loans are safe and good, and that it is my duty and interest at this time to put my money into them in preference over any other loans or stocks, I write to get information of you as follows:

First.  Why are they called five-twenties ?

Second.  Do you take country money or only legal tender notes, or will a check on Philadelphia or New York answer for subscriptions ?

Third.  Do you sell the bonds at par ?

Fourth.  As I cannot come to Philadelphia, how am I to get the bonds ?

Fifth.  What interest do they pay, and how and where and when is it paid, and is it paid in gold or legal-tenders ?

Sixth.  How does Secretary Chase get enough gold to pay his interest ?

Seventh.  Will the face of the bonds be paid in gold when due ?

Eighth.  Can I have the bonds payable to bearer with coupons or registered and payable to my order ?

Nineth.  What sizes are the bonds ?

Tenth.  Will I have to pay the same tax on them as I now pay on my railroad or other bonds ?

Eleventh.  What is the present debt of the Government, and what amount is it likely to reach if the rebellion should last a year or two longer ?

Twelfth.  Will Secretary Chase get enough from custom-house duties and internal revenue, income taxes, &c., to make it certain that he can pay the interest punctually ?

I have no doubt that a good many of my neighbors would like to take these bonds, and if you will answer my questions I will show the letter to them.

Very respectfully,
S.M. F.

Office of Jay Cooke, Subscription Agent, at
Office of Jay Cooke & co., Bankers, 114 South Third street,
Philadelphia, March 23, 1863.

Dear Sir:  Your letter of the 20th instant is received, and I will cheerfully give you the information desired by answering your questions in due order.

First.  These bonds are called five-twenties because, while they are twenty-year bonds, they may be redeemed by the Government in gold at any time after five years.  Many people suppose that the interest is only 5.20 per cent.;  this is a mistake:  they pay 6 per cent. interest.

Second.  Legal tender notes, or checks upon Philadelphia or New York that will bring legal tenders, are what the Secretary allows me to receive;  no doubt your nearest bank will give you a check or legal tenders for your country funds.

Third.  The bonds are sold at par, the interest to commence the day you pay the money.

Fourth.  I have made arrangements with your nearest bank or banker, who will generally have the bonds on hand.  If not, you can send the money to me by express, and I will send back the bonds free of cost.

Fifth.  The bonds pay 6 per cent. interest in gold, 3 per cent. every six months, on the 1st day of May and November, at the Mint in Philadelphia or at any sub-treasury in New York or elsewhere.  If you have coupon bonds, all you have to do is to cut the proper coupon off each six months and collect it yourself or give it to your bank for collection;  if you have registered bonds, you can give your bank a power of attorney to collect the interest for you.

Sixth.  The duties on imports of all articles from abroad must be paid in gold, and this is the way Secretary Chase gets his gold;  it is now being paid into the Treasury at the rate of $200,000 each day, which is twice as much as he needs to pay the interest in gold.

Seventh.  Congress has provided that the bonds shall be paid in gold when due.

Eighth.  You can have either coupon bonds, payable to the bearer, or registered bonds, payable to your order.

Ninth.  The former are in fifties, one hundreds, five-hundreds, and one-thousands;  the latter in same amounts, also five-thousands, and ten-thousands.

Tenth.  No !  You will not have to pay any taxes on these bonds if your income from them does not exceed $600, and on all above 600 you will only have to pay one half as much income tax as if your money was invested in mortgages or other securities.  I consider the Government bonds as first of all;  all other bonds are taxed ¼ per cent. to pay the interest on the Government bonds, and the Supreme Court of the United States has just decided that no State, or city, or county can tax Government bonds.

Eleventh.  The present bonded debt of the United States is less than three hundred millions, including the 7.30 Treasury notes;  but the Government owes enough more in the shape of legal-tenders, deposits in the sub-treasuries, certificates of indebtedness, &c., to increase the debt to about eight or nine hundred millions.  Secretary Chase has calculated that the debt may reach one thousand seven hundred millions if the rebellion lasts eighteen months longer.  It is, however, believed now that it will not last six months longer;  but even if it does, our national debt will be small compared with that of Great Britain or France, while our resources are vastly greater.

Twelfth.  I have no doubt that the revenue will not only be ample to pay the ordinary expenses of the Government and all interest on the debt, but leave at least one hundred millions annually toward paying off the debt, and that the Government will be able to get out of debt again, as it has twice before, in a few years after the close of the war.

I hope that all who have idle money will at once purchase these five-twenty year bonds.  The right to demand them for legal-tenders will end on the 1st day of July, 1863, as per the following authorized notice:

Special Notice.

On and after July 1, 1863, the privilege of converting the present issue of legal-tender notes into the national 6 per cent. loan (commonly called five-twenties) will cease.

All who wish to invest in the five-twenty loan must, therefore, apply before the 1st of July next.

Jay Cooke,
Subscription Agent,
114 South Third Street, Philadelphia.

Those who neglect these 6 per cent. bonds, the interest and principal of which they will get in gold, may have occasion to regret it.

I am, very truly, your friend,
Jay Cooke,
Subscription Agent, at office of Jay Cooke & Co.,
114 South Third Street, Philadelphia.

Mr. Kelley.  By whom ?

Mr. Townsend, of Pennsylvania.  By Jay Cooke & Co., as I said before, the recognized agents of the Government, by whose acts, recognized by the Government and Congress, we are morally if not legally bound.

Now, the objection that is made by the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Illinois is that these bonds were purchased at 40 per cent. on the dollar.  How were they purchased ?  They were purchased from the Government with the money issued by the Government, with its legal-tenders, which it had let fall from the one hundred cents which it got for them to a depreciation of forty cents on the dollar, and with which, as it appears by the circular, it invited the people to invest in the bonds.  The Government had no right to complain, and no one now has a right to complain that the Government issued bonds at a hundred cents on the dollar and took in payment its own notes, which it let fall to the depreciation of forty cents on the dollar, whereby the people who held the notes were the sufferers.  It only put those persons in a proper position who were suffering from its own inability to keep its paper promises at par.  The people had suffered that depreciation and they were entitled to have that depreciation and loss made good to them, and the best the Government could do was to give its bonds, payable at a distant day, for its depreciated legal-tenders.

Now, sir, I say that that was right and proper and according to the idea held out by the accredited agent of the Government, which was afterward followed up by the declarations, if l remember right, of Secretaries Fessenden and Chase, that the bonds were payable in gold.  That a party or a government is bound by the recognized acts of its agents is a well-known principle both of morals and of law.  A doubt, however, was started whether from the wording of the bonds they were payable in gold, and on March 18, 1869, by the first act of General Grant's administration, which was entitled "An act to strengthen the public credit," and which was intended to settle that doubt and silence cavilers, it was declared that---

the faith of the United States is solemnly pledged to the payment in coin or its equivalent of all the obligations of the United States not bearing interest, known as United States notes, and of all the interest-bearing obligations of the United States, except in cases where the law authorizing the issue of any such obligation has expressly provided that the same may be paid in lawful money or other currency than gold and silver.

This was a declaratory act, and was an express recognition of the promise that the Government agents had made, that the bonds should be paid principal and interest in gold.

But gentlemen say that the word "coin" is used in the act, and not the word "gold."  To know what was intended by the word "coin" we must look at the condition of the metallic currency at that day.

The subsidiary coins were not a legal tender beyond $5, and consequently it did not mean that depreciated currency.

The silver dollars were evidently not in the contemplation of Congress, for only $4,709,490 in silver dollars had been coined from the foundation of the Government to the year 1869.  Only $1,000 in silver dollars had been coined between 1805 and 1839.  They formed no part of the circulation;  practically they had become obsolete, and not one payment in ten thousand was made in the silver dollar, and probably not $200,000 were then in the United States.  The halves and quarters of the old standard were not contemplated, for they did not form one-tenth part of the coinage of the country, there having been coined of such only $68,679,507 up to 1853, when the new coinage was only made a tender up to $5.  The greater part of both had been exported in settlement of balances due foreign nations.  The only coin then thought of was the gold coin, of which up to 1869 there had been coined at our mints the sum of $695,891,622.  Gold was the only coin in circulation for the payment of large debts up to the opening of the war.  No one thought of anything else, no one paid in anything else who by law was required to pay in coin, for it was the easiest to obtain.  And when the act of 1869 was passed the only recollection of Congressmen of coin was gold coin, for silver had only been used for change, and gold had been the means or medium for the payment of large obligations.

I repeat it, then, that the word coin in the act of 1869 was intended to mean gold coin alone, for it was the only or uppermost idea in the minds of all when it was uttered, especially as silver coin, except for the minor transactions, had passed out of sight and out of mind;  in fact, almost all the silver coins but the overvalued subsidiary coins had left the country, and it is most likely that none of the men who passed the law had ever seen a silver American dollar.

Not to accept this report but to allow the proviso or amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Landers] to prevail would be to allow the solemn obligations of the Government to be paid off in coin worth less than eighty cents in the dollar, and give such a shock to our credit as would disgrace us in the eyes of the civilized world and depress our bonded obligations 20 per cent. in value.  It would, besides, drive every gold coin out of the country within an incredibly short space of time.  Within a week British standard silver has sold in the market at fifty-four pence sterling per ounce, equal in our currency to 92.726 cents.  This makes the value of two silver half dollars weighing 385.8 grains, 74.53 cents;  the value of the old silver dollar of 412.5 grains, 79.70 cents;  and the value of the trade-dollar of 420 grains, 81.134 cents.

Gold is at 112 premium, making the legal-tender paper dollar worth 89.29 cents.  Thus it is proposed to pay our obligations with silver dollars 20.3 per cent. below par, and worth nearly ten cents less than the paper dollar.  This would be partial repudiation.  Nay, more, it would be an imposition on the masses of the people, requiring the laborer to take less for his wages, the farmer to take less for his wheat and corn, the mechanic to take less for his work than he had contracted to receive.  It would also add to the price of every commodity that should be bought with such currency.

This depreciation in the price of silver has been effected by many causes.  The demonetization of silver by European countries, the great supply of the American mines, the selling off of the demand in India have all tended to this depreciation and greatly disturbed the proportionate values of gold and silver, which had ranged at 15½ or 16 to 1.

The weight of the gold dollar is 25.8 grains and the weight of the old silver dollar is 412.5 grains.  If three more grains were added to the silver dollar the proportion would be exactly as 16 to 1.  At the present price of silver, however, the gold dollar is to the old silver dollar as 20.7 to 1, and the gold dollar is to the subsidiary silver (two half dollars) as 21.4 to 1.  And all this difference in the proportions between the two metals has taken place within a very short space of time.

It is said, however, that gold has appreciated, and that silver has not depreciated to the extent I have named.  It may be true that gold may have slightly appreciated since the demonetization of silver by Germany and the Scandinavian countries, but there is no certain evidence that such is the case.  A small advance may have taken place in the controversy between France and Germany to obtain sufficient gold for their respective uses, but of this no one can affirm with certainty.  For a time there was a small advance given by the Bank of England for American double eagle, but from this advance the bank has receded, and there is no commodity of certain quality and steady price that indicates any such advance;  and it is beyond the power of man to say that such appreciation has taken place.  No European political economist, so far as I have observed, maintains it.  On the contrary, it would seem as if gold had depreciated in value, if the wages of labor afford any test, for wages are higher in the golden State of California in gold than in the Eastern States in legal tenders, as shown in Young's late work on Wages in Europe and America.

It may be safely said that as a practical measure we have never had a double standard in successful operation in this country.  We have tried the experiment, but it has failed.  We had to change the proportions in 1833, and then again in 1834, and again in 1853.  It is just as impossible to keep up a fixed proportion between the values of gold and silver as between wheat and corn, or whisky and tobacco.  The Rhode Island colonists tried it with their wampum-peage two hundred years ago, and failed.  The values of all these articles will depend on demand and supply and other causes, and no legislation can prevent it.  It never did prevent it and never will.

The only sound policy for any government to pursue is to have a single standard, and to use that metal for it which is most valuable in the eyes of the world.  The European governments have found that out, and are abandoning the double standard, mostly using gold, but silver only for subsidiary coins;  but legislators in this House are anxious to adopt the worn-out devices which European governments have cast aside.  There is no wisdom in this.  It is taking a step backward in financial science, and acknowledging that we cannot learn by the experience of others.  It is turning back the finger upon the dial of time.

I repeat it then, in my judgment, we should have but a single standard, and that standard should be gold.  Silver should be used only in subsidiary coins, in tokens under one dollar in nominal value, and so overvalued as not to be liable to exportation, and for the small contracts of every-day life.  I know that such a policy would not be agreeable to the owners of great bonanza silver mines, but it would conduce to the interest of the people, and would prevent them from being taxed 10 to 20 per cent. in all their transactions that might be made in silver coin.

It is said that we must utilize our silver, and that the best way to do it is to put it into coin.  By the act of 1873 we made the trade-dollar;  we gave to the mine-owner the whole seigniorage on his bullion and we coined for him one hundred and twenty-five cents' worth of coin from his ounce of fine silver when standard silver was only worth at present rates about ninety-three cents to the ounce, and allowed it to be a legal tender to the amount of five dollars.  Happily, we have taken away this special privilege by the bill in conference, ana his only use for trade-dollars is now in foreign markets.

There is no reason why the owners of silver mines should have special privileges to the disadvantage of the people, and the legal-tender quality of the trade-dollar has been withdrawn in pursuance of a sound political economy.

I need add little or nothing concerning that part of the report which adopts what is called the Payne bill.  It is a measure that relieves temporarily the scarcity of small change that has been occasioned by the hoarding of greenbacks.  The ten millions of subsidiary coin that can at once be thrown into the circulation, in exchange temporarily for the legal tenders, will be sufficient to supply the pressing demand for change, and the disposition to hoard will pass away as soon as the people see that they can get as much as they want.

The Randall bill provided for an additional twenty million of subsidiary coin to supply a vacuum that my colleague thought would exist because of the destruction of the greenbacks.  I thought when his bill was before the House that his estimate was too high by ten millions, and offered an amendment accordingly.  The principle of that amendment has been adopted by the committee.

The committee of conference has modified his bill so that the whole amount of the fractional currency and subsidiary coin shall not exceed fifty millions, a sum amply sufficient when we remember that the whole amount of fractional currency authorized by law was fifty millions, and that not more than forty-two millions and a half thereof were ever at one time in the hands of the people.

I think the report of the committee should be adopted.  It will give us an abundant supply of subsidiary coin, it will save us from a depreciated currency, and at the same time preserve our national honor as involved in the payment of our national obligations, and will show to the world that we intend to pay our debts according to the general understanding of the terms of the contract between the Government and the people, and which we have since recognized by appropriate legislation.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. Cox.  I yield for five minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Kelley.]

Mr. Kelley.  Mr. Speaker, I cannot say what I desire to in five minutes, but I can express the hope that this report may be rejected by this House as a measure involving dishonesty, discreditable to the House and the country.

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Payne] tells us that it would be dishonest to pay the foreign bondholders in silver which has so greatly depreciated, and yet this report which he sustains proposes to go on buying silver with gold-bearing bonds or money that would redeem such bonds in order to make the American people accept it when greatly debased as money.  Not valuable enough to pay the rich bondholder, says the report, but more than valuable enough to pay the farmer for his wheat and the laborer for his day's work.  It may be answered that this report does not propose to issue 5 per cent. gold bonds.  It proposes, as I have said, to buy silver with money which would buy these bonds and it leaves them outstanding.  It proposes to bring us to specie payments by enlarging our gold obligations, by adding to our gold expenditures in order to make a fractional currency of 50,000,000 for the purchase of the mere material of which we pledge the revenues of the country to the payment of $2,500,000 interest in gold annually.  But more and worse, we incur this gold indebtedness for the purchase of a depreciating commodity.

Shall we go on and bind the laboring-people, the farmers, the manufacturers, the capitalists of this country, to pay $2,500,000 annually in gold for a material out of which to make fractional currency while it is declining with the measure of rapidity indicated by these purchases ?  Can we increase our power to pay our debt by depriving ourselves of one of the great elements for its payment ?  Can we increase our resources by depriving silver of its quality of money and yet using it as a mere token coinage ?  What has depreciated silver ?  We and Germany by demonetizing it have deprived it of its use and consequently of its value.  Silver is valuable as money.  It is no longer used for plate.  Families do not have it converted into table services;  they can get white metal in forms of equal beauty and the robber will not carry them off, for he cannot melt it into ingots as he can silver.

Nickel-plating is cheaper and more durable than silver-plating.  So that, by demonetizing silver, we who own the most valuable silver mines of the world, depreciate its value and will soon close the least productive mines and will thus deprive another class of laborers of opportunity to earn wages.  We it is who are running up the price of gold, measuring the price by all our commodities, including silver.  We are running it up as rapidly as the mercury went up a few days ago in yonder thermometer, proving that our unchangeable standard is of everchanging value.

I pray you, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen, to pause.  Stand by the provisions of the Constitution.  Maintain the first dollar you ever had, and the only dollar you had until 1834.  Then other nations rated silver at 15½;  that is to say, that silver and gold bore the relation of 1 to 15½.  Gold was discovered in the Southern States, and in order to make a market for it we put silver up to 16 to 1, that other nations might thenceforth take our silver and leave us our gold.  When we put it up to 16 to 1 it was more profitable to take our silver, and it was exported, leaving gold to circulate.  In the present condition of her affairs, Germany would be compelled to remonetize silver if we re-establish our old dollar which the joint resolution of March 18, 1869, fully recognized.  We are the masters of the situation.  When we pay the German bondholders in silver dollars such as they agreed to receive, Germany, which is to-day struggling to get gold enough to maintain her credit, will remonetize her thaler and other silver coins, and our joint action will restore the old relation of 15½ or 16 of silver to 1 in gold.  The oft-referred-to resolution of March 18, 1869, is as follows, and proves our right to pay our debt, principal and interest, in silver coin:

the faith of the United States is solemnly pledged to the payment in coin or its equivalent of all the obligations of the United States not bearing interest, known as United States notes, and of all the interest-bearing obligations of the United States, except in cases where the law authorizing the issue of any such obligation has expressly provided that the same may be paid in lawful money or other currency than gold and silver.

Mr. Cox.  I now yield to the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. Kasson.]

Mr. Kasson.  I answer the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley] appealing for the rights of labor that we who sustain this report demand of this House so to provide that you shall not cheat the wages of labor at the rate of eighty cents for a dollar's worth of service by making silver an unlimited legal tender when more depreciated than paper money.  If we owe the laborer a month's wages, let him, in Gods name, have a dollar's worth of real money for a dollar's worth of labor, and let him not be, as that gentleman proposes, paid off at the rate of eighty cents.  The laborer is worthy of his hire, paid in good, sound gold money.

Now, sir, I leave that proposition against the proposition of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.  No man deals honestly by the producing interests or the labor of this country who does not propose as soon as possible to pay them good, hard money for the product or the worth of their labor;  and on that platform I have stood for years against all the clamors for inflation and all the attempts to reduce the money of the United States to the level of the money of San Domingo, where they take a market-basket full of it to market to get a dozen of eggs for breakfast.  The laws of supply and demand, say gentlemen, must regulate the value of money, whether it be gold, silver, or paper.  Where you require a laborer to take, as in San Domingo, $1,000 in money to buy his breakfast, are you increasing the value of money by increasing the demand for it ?  I regret that there is not more time to go into this whole subject, but there is not time, and I leave it.

One word in answer to the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. Bright.]  He says that we passed in 1869 that law of public credit and national faith, one of the noblest laws ever passed by Congress as the representative of the national and popular honor, without consulting the people in their popular assemblies.  Sir, at the convention at Chicago in 1868, one of the parties announced to the people of this country, and announced it in the face of those who were clamoring for repudiation, that the people of this great Republic would not repudiate but would pay their bonds according to the letter and the spirit of the contract.  We went before the people on that platform, and among others, the people of Tennessee, my honorable friend's own State, and by more than 20,000 majority the people of that State approved that platform, and the people of the whole country elected upon it a majority to this House, which, with the Senate, passed the act of 1869.  It was one of the most glorious tributes ever rendered by a republic to public virtue and public honesty.  It showed that the intelligent American people would repudiate demagogues, but would not repudiate public faith nor national honor, the two priceless jewels of om Republic.

Mr. Bright.  Mr. Speaker---

Mr. Kasson.  I have but a few minutes.

Mr. Bright.  I only want to make a correction.  I suppose the gentleman does not wish to do me an injustice.

Mr. Kasson.  I certainly do not;  and if it is not taken out of my time I will yield.

The Speaker pro tempore, (Mr. Springer.) It must be taken out of the gentleman's time.

Mr. Kasson.  Then I hope I will be allowed to go on;  and if I have done the gentleman any injustice he will have an opportunity to correct it.

Now to this report, which is before the House, it is not a proposition that leads logically to all this debate upon the legislation of past years.  There is no proposition in it to demonetize silver, to change its legal-tender quality, nor to increase the public debt.  There is a proposition in it simply to get silver small coin into circulation throughout the borders of the united States in response to earnest demands for it.  The whole purpose of the Committee on Banking and Currency and of the committee of conference, as I understand it, is to facilitate the remonetizing of small silver by providing for its more rapid coinage and distribution among the people.  There is not a clause in this report, as I understand it, that proposes to increase by one dollar the debt of the United States, whether bonded or otherwise.  There is a clause that authorizes the exchange of one kind of money for its full value in silver bullion to be coined and distributed among the people, in order to increase the stock of silver coin in circulation in the community.  That is the whole purport of this proposition.  A vote for the report is not a vote to demonetize silver, but it is a vote to remonetize it and to satisfy the demand of the whole community for a supply of silver change.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. Cox.  I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Burchard] for five minutes.

Mr. Burchard, of Illinois.  I shall vote to concur with the report of the committee of conference, although I supported the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Landers] authorizing the coinage of the silver dollar.  This dollar, issued under the law of 1792 and the law of 1837, was the unit of value and a legal tender in payment of all debts, and is a legal tender to-day unless the provision has been repealed in the revision of the laws.

Mr. Lawrence.  Repealed by the act of 1873.

Mr. Burchard, of Illinois.  I said by the revision of 1873.  I do not mean the coinage act, but the revised code of 1873.  As this report now stands it presents a proposition to authorize the issue of $50,000,000 of subsidiary silver coin.  I am for that.  If I cannot have the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Landers) and also provide for the issue of the legal silver dollar, and the committee of conference on the part of the House have only been able to secure the coinage of $50,000,000 of subsidiary silver coin, I am willing to take what I can get.  I am glad to have one conference committee report an agreement.

Mr. Landers, of Indiana.  Allow me to correct the gentleman.  I did not agree to the report.

Mr. Burchard, of Illinois.  The majority of the committee of conference did.  All legislation is the result of concession and compromise among individual members as well as between the two Houses.  Because I cannot get all that, I want I shall not decline to accept what is satisfactory to me as far as it goes.  This much I desired to say in justification of those who voted for the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana, but will now vote to concur in this conference report.

Prior to the organization of the Government, in 1786, under the Confederation, the Spanish milled dollar was recognized as the unit of account and the standard of value.  That dollar, or its equivalent, the American silver dollar of 371¼ grains of pure silver, for nearly a century continued not only the unit and standard of value, but a "legal tender in payment of all sums whatsoever."

The coinage act of 1873, unaccompanied by any written report upon the subject from any committee, and unknown to the members of Congress, who without opposition allowed it to pass under the belief, if not assurance, that it made no alteration in the value of the current coins, changed the unit of value from silver to gold.  It made the gold dollar the unit of value.  It omitted the silver dollar from the list of silver coins, although the Mint at Philadelphia was then coining the same silver dollar and had during each of the two preceding years coined more than a half million of silver dollars.

Our monetary system had adopted and was based upon both gold and silver as its standard of value.  The coins of each metal were legal tender;  those of gold had been changed.  The eagle of to-day contains 15.5 less grains of pure gold than the eagle coined from 1792 to 1834.  The silver dollar coined in 1872, under the act of 1837, contained 371¼ grains of pure silver --the identical weight of pure silver in the silver dollar established in the first coinage act passed by the Government.  The relative values of gold and silver were established by that act at 15 of the latter to 1 of the former.  The alloy was one-twelfth for gold coin and about 10¾ per cent. for silver coin.  All gold and silver coins issued from the Mint were made a lawful tender in all payments whatsoever.

It was further provided by the act of 1792---

That the money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units, dimes or tenths, cents or hundredths, and mills or thousandths, a dime being the tenth part of a dollar, a cent the hundredth part of a dollar, a mill the thousandth part of a dollar, and that all accounts in the public offices and all proceedings in the courts of the United States shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation.

The eagles were each "to be of the value of $10 or units, and to contain 247½ of a grain of pure or 270 grains of standard gold."

The dollars or units were each "to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain 371¼ parts of a grain of pure or 416 grains of standard silver;  half dollars each to be of half the value of the dollar or unit."

The acts of 1834 and 1837 changed the standard of purity for both gold and silver coins, so that gold coins were made to contain nine-tenths instead of eleven-twelfths of pure go1d, and the silver coins by the act of 1837 were made to contain nine-tenths of silver and one-tenth alloy.  The increased purity of the standard was compensated by a diminution of the weight of the silver coins, so that the dollar silver coin and the fractional parts of the dollar contained the same amount of pure silver as required prior to the passage of the act for the same denominations.  The dollar was established at the weight of 412½ grains, the half dollar of the weight of 206¼ grains, and lesser coins at the proportional number of grains that their proportional value bore to the silver dollar.  It was also provided--

That dollars, half dollars, and quarter dollars, dimes and half dimes shall be legal tenders of payment according to their nominal value for any sums whatever.

The gold coins were to consist of eagles, weighing 258 grains, and the half and quarter eagles, containing respectively one-half and one-fourth as many grains of standard gold. While silver coins issued prior to the passage of the act continued a legal tender for their nominal value only, gold coins issued after JuJy 31, 1834, remained a legal tender.

In 1853, without changing the standard of purity of coins in any respect and without changing the weight of the silver dollar or its relative exchangeable value or unlimited legal-tender power in payments, Congress provided for coining silver coins subsidiary to the silver dollar and reduced their weight. It provided for a silver half dollar of 192 grains of standard silver, a quarter of a dollar of 86 grains, as well as a dime and half-dime correspondingly reduced in value.

The silver dollar was not named and not disturbed. The coins mentioned and provided for in the act were made a legal tender for sums of $5 and less.

Thus stood our coinage and standard before and during the contraction of our present large indebtedness and at the time our outstanding United States notes and bonds were authorized and issued. The laws authorizing national loans from 1861 to 1875 provide for payment in lawful money or in coin. They promise to pay dollars. The dollar or unit was, and continued until 1873 to be, the silver dollar of 412½ grains of standard silver as well as the gold dollar of 25.8 grains of standard gold. The public credit act of 1869 was a pledge to pay the bonds in coin or its equivalent. Our dollar or unit of value, the standard for over eighty years, the silver dollar weighing 412½ grains, still "a legal tender in payment for any sums whatever," was being coined and issued by the Mint.

Did we guarantee the value ? Did we promise that if gold appreciated and silver declined we would cease to mint or use the silver dollar and pay in the more valuable metal ? Unless our legislation has depreciated or debased the coin, we are under no legal or moral obligation to pay our public debt in any coin better than the silver dollar, then legal tender and unit of value. If our legislation has caused the depreciation, we have the right and it is our duty to undo the evil.

The funding act of 1870, which authorized the refunding of $1,500,000,000 of the national debt at lower rates of interest, and under which 500,000,000 of 6 per cent. bonds have been refunded into 5 per cent. bonds, expressly provided that the bonds thus issued should be payable in coin of the then existing standard of weight and purity. The act itself excludes the idea that this coin must be gold, for a subsequent section of the act authorized the deposit of gold in the Treasury for which gold certificates by the terms of the act were to be issued payable in gold. The bonds were to be paid in coin of the weight and purity established by law; the gold certificates must be paid in gold.

The coinage act of 1873 provided for the issue of a trade-dollar of 420 grains of standard silver. It failed to provide, in fact impliedly forbade, the coinage of the silver dollar. That silver dollar still remained a legal tender for payment at its nominal value of any sums whatever.

The revisers of the code completed the work of degrading the silver dollar and overthrowing the standard of value established by our fathers. The code provides that silver coins shall be legal tender only for sums not exceeding $5.

The recognition of silver dollars as, jointly with gold coins, a standard of value and their coinage at the Mint will stay the rapid appreciation of gold now so manifest in the depressed and falling price, measured in gold, of commodities throughont the world. To restore the silver dollar is just to the public creditor, the private citizen, and, above all, to the people whose earnings must procure the coin to redeem the promise of the Government to pay its debt in coined dollars of the standard established by law when the debt was contracted.

But I do not insist upon tying this great question, this important subject of legislation, to a proposition which I also heartily favor and desire to pass, to supply a much-needed circulation of subsidiary silver coins.

The demonetization of silver in 1873 was done ignorantly, hastily, and inadvertently.  Its restoration should be undertaken carefully and considerately and accomplished after full discussion and due deliberation.  When we have secured the $50,000,000 subsidiary silver coin, we will see what can and ought to be done about the silver dollar.

Mr. Cannon, of Illinois.  Mr. Speaker, I simply desire to say that, though I favor the continued coinage of the silver dollar and making it a legal tender as it was prior to 1873, yet, for the reasons advanced by my colleague [Mr. Burchard] and others, I shall vote to concur in the conference report.

Mr. Cox.  I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Garfield] for ten minutes.

Mr. Garfield.  I can hardly conceive a situation in which the House could be brought more directly face to face with what seems to present on the one hand public honor and on the other the deepest public disgrace than the alternative propositions now presented to this House in this report.  Everything in the way of controversy hinges upon the proposed amendment of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Landers.]  It is claimed that, by the terms of the act of 1869, it would be lawful for us to pay the public debt in silver dollars such as might have been coined under the law as it stood in 1861.

Now I desire to recall to the mind of the House the letter and the spirit of that law.  After all the doubt and the turbulent excitement about what the actual obligation of the nation was in regard to the public debt, the first act of the Congress approved by President Grant made a solemn declaration designed to put all those doubts to rest.  It was declared by Congress that---

the faith of the United States is solemnly pledged to the payment---

In what ?  Not in silver, not in gold, not in coin, but---

in coin or its equivalent of all the obligations of the United States not bearing interest, known as United States notes, and of all the interest-bearing obligations of the United States, except in cases where the law authorizing the issue of any such obligation has expressly provided that the same may be paid in lawful money or other currency than gold and silver.

Mr. Landers, of Indiana, rose.

Mr. Garfield.  I decline to be interrupted.  The declaration there was that the payment of all these national obligations not specifically currency obligations was to be in "coin or its equivalent."  Now, what did Congress mean ?  What were our laws before 1861 ?  Why, Mr. Speaker, since 1834 we have had one standard, a dollar;  and we have by law embodied it in two metals, gold and silver.  But all the time, in order to have one standard, not two, we have sought to make the coins of the two metals conform to the one standard;  keeping the amount of metal in one so adjusted to the amount of metal in the other that a dollar of gold should be equivalent to a dollar of silver.  Every hour that we had a double standard it was double only on the ground of equivalency;  and when by reason of the shifting value of the two metals in reference to each other, the silver dollar and the gold dollar have varied from each other in value, Congress has undertaken to equalize them by increasing the amount of metal in one or decreasing the amount of metal in the other.  We always sought to avoid the evil of having two kinds of dollar, one worth more than the other.  And when Congress promised to pay in coin it was a promise to pay gold coin or silver coin of equal value to the same nominal sum in gold.  I cannot believe that this statement will be denied.

Congress saw a few years ago that it was going to be difficult to keep up the equality or equivalency of the dollar in the two metals;  so it dropped one of the metals, except as a subsidiary coin, and left the national standard of value embodied in the other, namely, in gold.

Now, the fact that in 1873 we adopted a device to preserve the constancy of the value of the dollar does not by any means signify that we meant to change the old obligation so that men to whom the Government owes money can lawfully be paid in money of a different value.

By monetary changes abroad and by mining developments at home it has happened that to-day, by reason of the fluctuations in the relative values of the two metals, silver has so depreciated that if it were now a legal standard of payment of all amounts the employés and other creditors of the Government could be compelled to accept seventy-nine cents as full payment for every dollar due them, and thus they would be swindled to the extent of twenty-one cents on the dollar by being compelled to receive silver rather than gold, or to the extent of ten cents on the dollar by paying them silver rather than Treasury notes.  And the most amazing feature of the case is that some good men, holding these places of high responsibility, do not see that this would be as dishonest as it would be ruinous in its results to the credit of the nation.

Let it be remembered that we are solemnly bound by the act of 1869 to pay in coin or its equivalent.  Dare any man say that we can pay in this so greatly depreciated silver and really obey the law of equivalency which was the basis and spirit of the statute of 1869 ?  He denies the principle of equivalency who proposes to pay in this silver coin.  He violates the law who violates the essential object of it-- equivalency.

If you insist on paying in silver, then I insist that your silver dollar must be equivalent to your gold dollar.  Do gentlemen consent to maintain equivalency in the two standards and then pay in silver ?  Manifestly not.  Their incentive is gone the moment they are asked to pay one hundred cents on the dollar.  Some one has said that there is an innate desire in the human mind to get a chance to cheat somebody.  A great minister once said that there were two things in human nature which when united always made iniquity complete --one was the desire to do a dishonorable thing, and the other was the opportunity to do it.  It has happened in the fluctuations of these metals that there is new a notable opportunity to cheat several millions of men by adopting the baser metal as the standard of payment, and thus accomplishing a swindle on so grand a scale as to make the achievement illustrious.

By the proposed measure one-fifth of the enormous aggregate of public and private debts can be wiped out as with a sponge.  This nation owes $2,100,000,000, and private citizens of the United States probably owe 2,500,000,000, possibly more.  At the present moment the relation of debtor and creditor in the United States involves nearly $5,000,000,000.  It is proposed by the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana.  [Mr. Landers] that at one fell stroke one-fifth of all this enormous sum shall be wiped off, repudiated, and that this process shall be called honest legislation !  Since I have been in public life I have never known any proposition that contained so many of the essential elements of vast rascality, of colossal swindling, as this.  I do not charge that such is the purpose of the gentleman;  but such, in my judgment, is the effect of the amendment proposed.

But, aside from the political ethics involved in this scheme, we should consider its effects upon the business of the country.

Gentlemen may remember the financial shock of 1837, the later shock of 1857, and that still later in 1873.  Conceive them all united in one vast crash, and the financial ruin, the overthrow of business would be light in comparison with the shock which would follow if the principle here proposed were adopted.  By a principle improperly called "Gresham's law," for it was known as far back as the days of Aristophanes, where two legal standards of value are put in circulation in the same country, the less valuable always drives out the more valuable.  Put in operation the provision now suggested, and all our gold coin will leave the country as fast as it can be carried abroad.  Do this, and a revolution in our monetary affairs utterly unparalleled in the history of our nation will follow.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Kelley,] in his remarks, gave the key to the philosophy of this proposed legislation.  "Why," said he, "what does a man want to do with silver when he can have something made of white metal that the thief will not care to steal ?"  What is the meaning of that ?  It is that he wants money so cheap and so valueless that nobody will care to steal it.

Mr. Kelley.  I was speaking not of money but of household utensils.

Mr. Garfield.  It amounts simply to the grim summary of Thomas Carlyle, the theory of "cheap and nasty," quantity at the expense of quality, glittering sham at the expense of reality.

The Speaker pro tempore.  The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. Kelley.  Does the gentleman from Ohio mean to say I speak of white-metal for money ?  If he does he will compel me to denounce his statement as false.

The Speaker pro tempore.  The time of the gentleman from Ohio has expired.

Mr. Cox.  I now yield five minutes to the gentleman from Kansas, [Mr. Philips.]

Mr. Phillips, of Kansas.  Mr. Speaker, there are several features in the bill reported from the committee which it behooves this House carefully to consider.  What I wish first to state to the gentleman from Ohio [Garfield] in order to correct what he has said is, that while he read from the statute, he did not read it all.  First it states that the obligations of the United States shall be paid in coin or its equivalent, and next that they may be paid in other currency than gold and silver in case the obligation does not require them to be paid in gold or its equivalent.

I wish to say a word further to the gentleman from Ohio [Garfield].  He endeavored to create an impression upon the House that the design was by the word "equivalent" that Congress should be compelled when silver declined to add to that silver enough to make it equal to gold, and when gold declined to add to it enough to make it equal to silver.  Read the law, and gentlemen will see that such was not its purpose.  Such is not the language, Mr. Speaker, and such was not the intention of the law.  The real design was that if the payments were made in paper or other evidences of credit or money, that it should be at their gold market-value.

What I wish to impress upon the House as a practical question involved in the bill as reported is this:  that the demonetization of silver in Europe by the four great powers has caused a decline in silver more than our production.  The production of silver in the Nevada mines by application of improved machinery alarmed oriental and other nations which absorbed it.  It also alarmed the leading nations in Europe and they demonetized it.  What was the result ?  They stand to-day on the edge of the most terrible financial crisis that ever threatened any set of nations.  And to-day where do we stand ?  We have a resumption act by which it is proposed in little more than two years to put the whole of our credit upon a gold basis;  and we propose in this bill, I say, in spite of what the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Kasson] has said, to take a step to demonetize our silver coin and to take away one of the elements of the coin of the Republic --our constitutional money, legal coin when all our debt was contracted.

It is proposed to place the whole public and private indebtedness, the whole floating debt of the country, not upon gold and silver coin, but upon a narrow basis of gold coin alone.  We have a pyramid of public and private credit on a basis of gold and silver, and now we propose to take one-seventh part of the base away.  If that be done, I say the credit of the Government, the credit of the individual, with this basis diminished from gold and silver to gold alone, will crumble in the most awful crash that ever visited a nation and shattered its credit and commerce to pieces.

The purpose of the law as here proposed, the alarming fact with reference to it, as it comes from the Senate, is that it demonetizes the old silver coin.  The gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. Kasson,] who says he wishes to pay labor not in one hundred and sixty cents for two dollars, but in two hundred cents -- to that gentleman I wish to state that he really does not propose to do anything of the kind.  On the contrary, he proposes to go to a gold basis with $5 as the lowest amount of gold coin, and this reduced, and fast reducing in value coin of subsidiary silver, halves and quarters, as a legal tender for $5 or $20 and thereby proposes to pay to the bondholder in five-dollar gold pieces, and the laboring-man not in gold coin but in silver coin at, as he says, one hundred and sixty cents on two dollars, which is the only thing in which he can be paid for his labor and the only thing in which he will be paid.  I am amazed at a gentleman of his intelligence urging such a measure with such an argument.

Mr. Speaker, there are some things in the report to recommend it.  The alarming feature, however, is that it incorporates those things steadily and persistently brought into the House in the interest of money to increase its value and always give them the highest-priced article.  You can see by the statute just read that it was not until 1869 the attempt was made by legislation to fix any coin payment in the statutes --several years after the war closed, and after the obligations were incurred.  You can see from that day, step by step, attempts in legislation to increase the value of these securities.  You can see, step by step, the destruction and demonetization of silver to destroy that constitutional coin and elevate the value of these securities by paying them in an article much higher, an article 20 per cent. higher than the old constitutional coin in which we can legally pay them.  We have it in our power now to force the remonetization of silver as coin, and thus increase its value.  It seems as if all these changes of legal standards were in the interest of the bondholder, home and foreign, and the only interest which does not seem to stir the sympathies of this House is the interest of the long-suffering taxpayer.

[Here the hammer fell.]

[Mr. Holman addressed the House.  His speech will appear in the Appendix. volume 4, part 6, page 193.]

Mr. Holman said:

Mr. Speaker:  It is urged that it is better to save the two features of the bill to which the conference committee have agreed, the one authorizing the exchange of legal-tender notes for fractional silver currency to the extent of $10,000,000, the legal-tender notes only to be re-issued when an equal amount of paper fractional currency shall have come into the Treasury and been canceled;  and the other authorizing the purchase of $20,000,000 of silver bullion for coinage into fractional currency --neither of which, in my judgment, are judicious measures-- rather than run the risk of the failure of these by insisting on the measure rejected by the conference committee, the restoration of the legal-tender quality of silver money as proposed by the amendment of my colleague, [Mr. Landers.]  I hope this pretense will not be indulged in.  If the two features of this bill to which the conference committee have agreed were really valuable, there is no urgent necessity for their immediate adoption.  A little delay will in nowise embarrass the country.  The important feature of this bill is the legal-tender feature incorporated upon it on motion of my colleague, [Mr. Landers.]  It is impossible in the nature of things, considering the attitude of business before the Senate as well as the state of the conferences between the two Houses on the appropriation bills, that Congress shall adjourn at an early moment.  There is, then, ample time for further conference on this bill.  I therefore assume that gentlemen in voting in favor of the report of the conference committee must do so because they are content with the provisions of the bill as reported by the conference committee and opposed to that portion of the bill which has been stricken out by that conference.

Mr. Burchard, of Illinois.  For my part I disclaim any such assumption.

Mr. Holman.  I would admit the correctness of the position of the gentleman from Illinois if we were on the very eve of the close of the session.  But there is at any rate ample time for repeated conferences on this bill before Congress can possibly adjourn, as gentlemen must see by considering the position of the impeachment trial before the Senate and the state of the appropriation bills.  There is no occasion for haste.  This bill will not be placed in jeopardy by delay.  There is ample time for further and deliberate conference.  A great public measure should not be defeated on a false pretense.

The question therefore is whether we should concur in this report on the assumption that otherwise all the features of the bill will be lost.  All will not be lost.  If this House non-concur, there is still ample time for further deliberation.  I trust the House will not concur;  that this measure will go back for a further conference;  and that the views of the House heretofore expressed shall be further urged upon the conferees of the Senate.  But to the merits of this question.

I am astonished, sir, at the enthusiasm, the actual excitement of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Garfield.]  The gentleman can scarcely find terms strong enough to express his condemnation of a measure that seems, by remote inference, to operate favorably for the debtor class of the people of this country.  When the notes of the Government, made legal tender in the general business of our people by virtue of law and worth from forty to sixty cents on the dollar on the gold basis, were converted into bonds --the principal of which was expressly payable in lawful money, the lawful money on the basis of which and for which the bonds were issued-- the gentleman from Ohio did not consider it contrary to public morals, the moral honesty of a great people, to declare, by the act of the 18th of March, 1869, that the bonds so issued on a depreciated currency, and the principal of which was payable in such currency, should be paid in a more valuable money --in coin, gold, or silver, adding enormously to their value.  When that measure, in the interest of capital, in the interest of the public creditors, was pending in this House, and being forced through under the previous question, the gentleman did not become enthusiastic in the interest of the debtor class or in the interest of the labor which was to bear the increased burden, and denounce the measure as a fraud, a colossal swindle.  Not a word of that.  But, on the contrary, the gentleman from Ohio gave the measure a prompt and cordial support.  Yet it is positively true that that measure, the very first measure of this Administration, by a change of the medium of payment enhanced the value of the 5/20 bonds at least $200,000,000, and added not less than $200,000,000 to the great burden under which the labor of this country rests;  and every one of the 5/20 bonds had been issued before that measure enormously increasing their value was enacted.  But that was not "a colossal swindle," certainly not, for it was in the interest of capital !  But this silver measure is a colossal swindle, of course, because it seems to be in the interest of the debtor class and of labor.

It is simply proposed by the pending measure that the state of the coined money of this country at the time that act of March, 1869, was passed shall still be the state and standard of the coined money of this country;  that the silver dollar, the unit of value, with slight variation of standard from the foundation of the Government to February 12, 1873, shall still be lawful money;  shall be still legal-tender coin in the interest of justice and fair dealing;  not in the interest of one class, the debtor class, nor in the interest of the creditor class, but in the interest of justice and common honesty between this Government and its people and its creditors, and of the citizen with the citizen.

Whatever may have been the diversity of opinion, before the final decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, as to the power of Congress to give to paper issues the attributes and final quality of money, no man ever doubted that gold and silver coin, in such relations to each other as Congress might prescribe, was lawful money.  The one is as clearly a constitutional coin as the other.  The Constitution does not consider their relative commercial value, but only the quality of money --the standard of value in the liquidation of debts-- that Congress should stamp upon them.

Until the 12th of February, 1873, through all of our history gold and silver coin were equally and alike, in proportions which had undergone scarcely a perceptible change, money.  The first coinage act of April2, 1792, provides as to silver money as follows:

Dollars or Units--- each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain 371¼ grains of pure, or 416 grains of standard, silver.

And by the eleventh section of the same coinage act the relation between gold and silver coin is established as follows:

Sec. 11.  And be it further enacted, That the proportional value of gold to silver in all coins which shall by law be current as money within the United States shall be as 15 to 1, according to quantity in weight of pure gold or pure silver;  that is to say, every fifteen pounds weight of pure silver shall be of equal value in all payments with one pound weight of pure gold, and so in proportion as to any greater or lesser quantities of the respective metals.

By the coinage act of 1837, which remained in effect in force until the passage of the act of February 12, 1873, the silver dollar is to be of 412½ grains of standard silver, as against 416 grains of standard silver by the act of 1798.  Thus in the progress of time between 1798 and 1837 the value of silver had slightly increased, at least in its commercial value in relation to gold.

The law in force in 1873 before the demonetizing of silver was this net of 1837, and the provision of that act as to silver money is as follows:

Sec. 9.  That of the silver coins the dollar shall be of the weight of 412½ grains, [standard metal];  the half dollar of the weight of 206¼ grains;  the quarter dollar of the weight of 103 and one-eighth grains;  the dime, or tenth of a dollar, of the weight of 41¼ grains;  and the half dime, or twentieth part of a dollar, of the weight of 20 grains and five-eighth of a grain;  and that dollars, half dollars, and quarter dollars, dimes, and half dimes shall be legal tenders of payment, according to their nominal value, for any sums whatever.

And this, sir, was the state of the law on the 18th day of March, 1869, when the act was passed "to strengthen the public credit," so called, which declared that "the faith of the United States is solemnly pledged to the payment in coin or its equivalent of all the obligations of the United States not bearing interest, known as United States notes, and of all the interest-bearing obligations of the United States, except in cases where the law authorizing the issue of such obligation has expressly provided that the same may be paid in lawful money or other currency than gold and silver."

Here was the initiative step toward the final retirement of the United States legal-tender notes --the only paper money ever issued in the direct interest of the people-- that the bank monopoly might resume, as of old, the plunder of our industries and the centralization of our wealth.

The far-seeing capitalists, after the passage of the coin act of March 18, 1869, adding at least two hundred millions to the value of their securities, seemed to have been indignant that Congress had not done even better for them.  The money-changers of the world, who coin the sweat of the labor of multitudes of men into imperial fortunes for themselves, saw the subtle advantage of coercing the payment of the vast indebtedness of the nations --of the laboring multitudes-- in a single coin, greatly diminishing the quantity of the medium of payment.

Germany, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Italy, and even Holland, the latter powers under the auspices of England, in different degrees, were moving upon the unconscious laboring interests of the world in the direct interest of capital at this period.  Without previous suggestion, Mr. Hooper, a member of this House, a leading capitalist and banker of Boston, brought before the House on the 27th day of May, 1872, "a bill revising and amending the laws relative to mints, assay offices, and coinage of the United States," with a substitute therefor, which he offered.  This bill, or rather the substitute for the bill reported by Mr. Hooper, demonetized silver and produced a change in the standard of value in its ultimate results almost without a parallel, the effect of which will only be seen in the forced resumption of specie payments.

I have before me the record of the proceedings of this House on the passage of that measure, a record which no man can read without being convinced that the measure and the method of its passage through this House was a "colossal swindle."  I assert that the measure never had the sanction of this House, and it does not possess the moral force of law.

Mr. Hooper moved to suspend the rules and pass the substitute reported by him;  then the Record shows the following proceedings occurred.  I omit the unimportant details:

Mr. Holman.  I suppose it is intended to have the bill read before it is put upon its passage.

The Speaker.  The substitute will be read.

Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts.  I hope not.  It is a long bill, and those who are interested in it are perfectly familiar with its provisions.

Mr. Kerr.  The rules cannot be suspended so as to dispense with the reading of the bill ?

The Speaker.  They can be.

Mr. Kerr.  I want the House to understand that it is attempted to put through this bill without being read.

The Speaker.  Does the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Hooper] move that the reading of the bill be dispensed with ?

Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts.  I will so frame my motion to suspend the rules that it will dispense with the reading of the bill.

The Speaker.  The gentleman from Massachusetts moves that the rules be suspended and that the bill pass, the reading thereof being dispensed with.

Mr. Randall.  Cannot we have a division of that motion ?

The Speaker.  A motion to suspend the rules cannot be divided.

The motion of Mr. Hooper failed.

Mr. Hooper then moved that the rules be suspended and that the substitute for the bill be passed, and that the substitute be read.

The Clerk began to read the substitute.

Mr. Brooks.  Is that the original bill ?

The Speaker.  The motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Hooper] applies to the substitute, and that on which the House is called to act is being read.

Mr. Brooks.  As there is to be no debate, the only chance we have to know what we are doing is to have both the bill and the substitute read.

The Speaker.  The motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts being to suspend the rules and pass the substitute, it gives no choice between the two bills.  The House must either pass the substitute or none.

Mr. Brooks.  How can we choose between the original bill and the substitute unless we hear them both read ?

The Speaker.  The gentleman can vote "ay" or "no" on the question whether this substitute shall be passed.

Mr. Brooks.  I am very much in the habit of voting "no" when I do not know what is going on.

Mr. Holman.  Before the question is taken upon suspending the rules and passing the bill I hope the gentleman from Massachusetts will explain the leading changes made by this bill in the existing law, especially in reference to the coinage.  It would seem that all the small coinage of the country is intended to be recoined.

Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts.  This bill makes no changes in the existing law in that regard.  It does not require the recoinage of the small coins.  On the contrary, I understand that the Secretary of the Treasury proposes to issue an order to stop the coinage of all the minor coins, as there is now a great abundance of them in the country.  The salaries are not increased.  They remain as they were.

Mr. Holman.  Is not the salary of the sub-Treasurer at New York increased ?

Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts.  No, sir;  it is not increased.

Then, inasmuch as the House seemed fully satisfied with the statement of Mr. Hooper that the bill made "no change in the existing law in that regard," a number of questions were asked in regard to the proposed increased facilities for mintage, the salaries to be paid, and the like, and then the rules were suspended and the bill passed.  It was never read, and except the small number of gentlemen who composed the Committee on Mines and Mining, no member of the House, I am safe in asserting, knew of this radical and extraordinary change by which one of the two metals which from the beginning of history have been mediums of exchange in the commerce of the world was to be rejected, and as an inevitable result the other greatly enhanced in value.

This bill, without further notice in the House, passed the Senate during the same Congress, and became a law on the 12th day of February, 1873, and the feature under consideration now stands in our statutes in the following words:

The silver coins of the United States shall be a legal tender at their nominal value for any amount not exceeding $5 in any one payment.

And this is the state of the silver money under existing law.  Instead of a full legal tender as it had been through all of our history until February 12, 1873, it becomes by that act a legal tender for $5 only in any one payment, thus reduced and degraded to a subsidiary and inferior coin.  The old dollar of 371¼ of pure silver was ignored and rejected from our monetary system.

The object of all this is too obvious to require explanation.  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Garfield] estimates our debts, national and corporate and individual, at $5,000,000,000.  I fear that this estimate is below the reality.  The great body of this indebtedness accrued while silver money was a full legal tender.  It is obvious that the increase of indebtedness public or private has been inconsiderable since the financial crash of 1873.  It was the weight of the immense debts, public and private, contracted before 1873 that brought financial ruin upon the country.  It would be exact justice that this vast body of debts should be payable in the same money and on the basis of the same volume of money as that in which it was contracted;  equally just to the creditor and the debtor.  No man can deny the truth of this proposition.  Is the debtor less entitled to justice than the creditor ?  Shall honor and fair dealing and all the principles of just government give way before the demand of the creditor ?  Has capital alone rights which government is bound to respect ?  As a general proposition, this vast sum of $5,000,000,000 of indebtedness, public and private, rests directly on the labor of the country.  Is it just to increase the weight of this indebtedness by arbitrary law ?  Is labor less entitled to justice and fair dealing than capital ?  Shall we return, after the centuries of revolution in which the many have demanded the just recognition of government, to the policy of the Middle Ages when the few only were recognized by the state ?

Few men would dare to give these questions an affirmative answer.  And yet within eight years by these arbitrary enactments of law the weight of our vast indebtedness and the value of the securities which represent it, have been enormously increased without one ameliorating provision in the interest of the labor on which this indebtedness rests;  the act of March 18, 1869, declaring that the principal of public bonds, which was payable, in express terms, in lawful money --gold, silver, or legal-tender notes, at the option of the Government-- and notwithstanding that those bonds were sold for legal-tender notes greatly depreciated below the value of gold and silver coin, should be paid in coin only;  the coinage act of February 12, 1873, demonetizing silver coin, greatly reducing the volume of money and directly and immensely reducing the medium of payments for the bonds augmented in value by the act of March 18, 1869, and thus still further increasing their value;  and the act of January 14, 1875, proposing to demonetize $372,000,000 of legal-tender notes, lawful money, thus reducing to this vast extent the medium of payments of a large portion of the five billions of indebtedness, and this too by increasing the enormous interest-bearing debt by funding these $372,000,000 of lawful money into 5 per cent. gold bonds.  I hesitate to mention the increased weight of indebtedness imposed by these three acts on the labor and on the debtor class of this country, for its magnitude would seem almost incredible.  And such is the temper of our times that gentlemen feel perfectly safe in denouncing a measure that is not in the interest of capital as "a colossal swindle."  The sanctity of "the public credit," the spirit of "public honor," are invoked only in behalf of capitalists, as if there was nothing sacred in the rights of labor and nothing noble in equal and exact justice.

I cannot see any possible injustice in restoring the legal-tender quality of silver money.  It seems to me positively unjust not to restore it.  It is a measure, in my judgment, in the interest of the people and of equal and exact justice.  Of course there is no great lobby pressing this measure.  The laboring interests of this country are never represented by an organized lobby such as filled every avenue to the halls of Congress when the three measures in the interest of capital to which I have referred were pending.  When the coin act of March 18, 1869, was passed through this House under the previous question and without permitting one word of debate, the capitalists of this country and of Europe were fully satisfied with its provisions.  It was regarded as a great triumph.  The gentleman who reported the bill to this House was at once made our minister to England and was received with distinguished consideration by the great representatives of English wealth, but even then the holders of our public securities, while exacting that legal-tender notes should not be money in payment of the public debt, did not arrogate the right to demonetize silver and demand gold for their bonds.  It was not thought safe to awaken the laboring-men of this country by demanding too much.  That act recognizes silver and gold as the money in which the securities should be paid.  The terms of the act are explicit:

The faith of the United States is solemnly pledged to the payment in coin or its equivalent of all the obligations of the United States not bearing interest, known as United States notes, and of all the interest-bearing obligations of the United States, except in cases where the law authorizing the issue of any such obligation has expressly provided that the same may be paid in lawful money or other currency than gold and silver.

If it was proposed to change the relations of the two metals, increasing the relative value of silver, the objection would be good, for the creditor is entitled to be paid in the money provided for in his contract;  but nothing of the kind is suggested.  It is simply proposed to restore to silver money its quality as legal tender in payment of debts which it possessed from the foundation of the Government to the 12th day of February, 1873.

It is said that silver has become less valuable.  As an article of commerce silver and gold, like every other article of merchandise, is and always has been and always will be subject to fluctuation.  From various causes it is clear that gold as an article of commerce has increased in value and silver has fallen in value;  both metals have been subject to such vicissitudes from the time that their employment as mediums of exchange was found convenient in the business of the world;  but when the Government stamps upon three hundred and seventy-one and one-fourth grains of pure silver, or four hundred and twelve and one-half grains of standard metal the quality of a dollar, a unit of value, and makes it a legal tender as a dollar, it is simply a dollar --a dollar in the legal payment of debt, and becomes a recognized and legal standard of value and exchange, and such it has been from the beginning of our Government.  The suggestion that the silver dollar is worth less than the greenback dollar and greatly less than the gold dollar is absolutely absurd, except only as to the extent that each may be a legal tender in the payment of debts.  The one that may liquidate debts of every character is of course the most valuable as money in comparison with one that is only a limited legal tender.

I do not hesitate to express the opinion that the double standard --gold and silver legal tender-- is demanded by the true interests of this country, and that if the fatal policy of the resumption act of January 14, 1875, is finally carried out and the exclusively gold standard of 1873 shall be maintained, the general prostration of all the industries of this country will be inevitable, and wide-spread disaster and universal suffering will fall upon our people.  No interest will escape the general ruin except that of invested capital, which will be enlarged to the degree that all other interests of the country will suffer.

Dr. Linderman, the Superintendent of the Mint, in his last report says:

Since 1870 the exclusive gold standard has been adopted by the United States, Germany, Japan, and the Scandinavian states.  The double standard exists in France, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain, and the silver standard in Russia, Austria, Mexico, China, and the Indies.

Of all these four nations that since 1870 have adopted the exclusively gold standard, the United States only is a debtor nation;  ours is the only nation that has legislated in the special interest of foreign capitalists, and when it is known, as it should be, that a representative of British capital was consulted by Mr. Hooper and his associates in framing the mintage act of 1873, the motive that instigated that act may well be imagined.

Dr. Linderman says further:

The principal money markets of the world have been occasionally disturbed during the last three years, and the margin of the exchanges has been such as to afford a wide field for speculation.  In seeking for the causes of these disturbances, it would appear, at first glance, that the supply of gold is unequal to the legitimate demands of the rapidly increasing commerce of the world.  A careful examination of the subject, however, will show that the monetary troubles have not been caused by insufficient supplies of gold, but by its having been withheld in large sums from circulation, and the diminished use of silver as money.

The withholding of gold from circulation and the diminished use of silver as money are the causes, then, of the disturbed condition of finance among commercial powers !  Why is the gold withheld from circulation ?  Manifestly because in the reduced volume of money a few great capitalists are able to control the money market of the world.  This is the inevitable result of the diminished use of silver or some other standard of money.  The withholding of gold under this new policy, made easy by the retirement of silver, restores the mediæval age in the capacity of the few great masters to enslave mankind --the old by force, the new by subtlety and cunning.

The great American poet in his apostrophe to freedom admirably depicts the ceaseless struggle between freedom and tyranny, and he admonishes freedom that his ancient enemy tyranny "will fade into a feebler age" --feebler, yet subtler.

He shall send
Quaint maskers, forms of fair and gallant men
To catch thy gaze and uttering graceful words
To charm thy ear;  while his sly imps by stealth
Twine round thee threads of steel, light thread on thread,
That grow to fetters;  or bind down by arms
With chains concealed in chaplets.

In view of the legislation of recent years the laboring-men of this country may well consider these words --more truthful, if possible, than poetic.

This question of silver money has received but little attention since the passage of the act of 1873.  Indeed, so late as March last being present at a conference between members of the House and Senate, and the demonetization of silver being mentioned, a leading Senator, for many years in the Senate, asserted most positively that silver coin was still an unlimited legal tender, and an appeal to the law only settled the dispute.  But the depressed condition of our various industries, the absence of employment for labor even at low and unremunerative prices, and the general suffering and distress everywhere manifest, will provoke a severer inquiry into the financial policy of the country.  It will be seen that every measure of finance and taxation since the close of the war has been against labor and in favor of capital, and that the country is now suffering from a policy dictated by a selfish and remorseless cupidity seeking to augment the advantages and power of wealth and taking from "the mouth of labor the bread it has earned," and that only through a reversal of this policy and the enactment of laws of finance and taxation equally just to every interest can our prosperity be restored.

[Mr. Cannon, of Illinois, by unanimous consent, obtained leave to have printed in the Record remarks on the pending bill.  See Appendix. page 196]

Mr. Speaker, there is a general discussion throughout the country as to what should be our financial policy;  and no man in an ordinary life-time can intelligently read and digest all the essays and plans suggested by the thousands of persons who are discussing this question, and generally each one of whom is absolutely certain that his proposition is the magic wand which, if adopted, will calm either the storm or serve as a rudder by which to steer the ship of state over the angry sea into a harbor of safety.

I do not deprecate the discussion, for in a republic like ours, whose destiny is controlled directly by the people, discussion leads to a proper understanding of the question, and when once understood, I have no doubt the people will, in the future as in the past, approve those measures which are right and politic;  for in the long run the old maxim applies to nations as well as to individuals, that honesty is the best policy;  and at the outset I want to say that this question will never be settled by theorists, for they disagree and quarrel.  It is only by availing ourselves of the experience of the past and exercising that best of all kinds of sense, "common sense," aided by common honesty, that we can hope to find out and adopt the true policy.

It is with a desire to advocate a proper policy that I approach the discussion of the question now being considered by the House;  for any action here that results in legislation upon a question of national importance, is in its effects felt by every business interest of the country and in the homes of forty-four millions of people;  and while we may make mistakes and no doubt do, no Representative has the right to act without having diligently inquired as to what his action should be.  The proposition is to remonetize the standard silver dollar as it was prior to February, 1873, making it a legal tender for all debts, public and private, and receivable for duties on imports.  And in coming to a conclusion two questions are to be considered:

First as to the right.

Constitutional Provisions.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution (section 8) provides, among other things, that "Congress shall have power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. * * * To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin."  Congress, under this power, has from time to time provided for the coinage of money and fixed the weight and fineness of the various denominations thereof.

Article 1, section 10 provides--

"No State shall * * * coin money, emit bills of credit, make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts."

In 1791 Alexander Hamilton, in making a report to Congress, in speaking of the use of the precious metals as money, used the following language:

To annul the use of either of the metals as money is to abridge the quantity of circating medium and is liable to all the objections which arise from a comparison of the benefits of a full with the evils of a scanty circulation.

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Hamilton, February, 1792, says:

I return yon the report on the Mint.  I concur with you that the unit must stand on both metals.

This shortly preceded the enacting of the law of April 2, 1792, by which the Mint was established and the coinage of money provided for, and as I desire to be accurate in all my statements, I will give the provisions of the act of 1792, and all subsequent acts of Congress in reference to the coinage of money, by reading from the report of the Director of the Mint for the year 1873, page 9, as follows:

The Mint was, by tbe act of April 2, 1792, established "for the purpose of a national coinage," at Philadelphia, that city then being the seat of Government.  By the same act it was provided that the money of account should be expressed in dollars or units, dimes or tenths, cents or hundredths, and mills or thousandths;  and that all accounts in the public offices or proceedings in the courts of the United States should be kept and had in conformity therewith.  Although the ideal unit of the colonial money of account was originally called a pound, the Spanish dollar was for many years before the establishment of the present form of government the money of commerce and practical monetary unit, and, whether obligations were discharged in gold, silver, or paper money, a certain number of Spanish dollars constituted, specifically or by implication, the standard or measure of value.  This had much to do with the selection in 1792 of the dollar as the monetary unit.

By the act referred to, provision was also made for the issue of gold, silver, and copper coins.  The gold coins were to be rated at 24.75 grains of pure gold to the dollar and the silver coins at 371¼ grains to the dollar or unit, the relative value of the two metals being declared in the same law to be as 15 to 1.  These standards were continued down to 1834, when an act was passed reducing the pure gold from 24.75 to 23.20 grains to the dollar.

By the act of January 18, 1837, the fineness of the gold was increased about three-fourths of one thousandth by changing from the standard of .899225 to .900, which increased the pure gold to the dollar from 23.20 to 23.22 grains, at which it still remains.

By this act the fineness of both the gold and silver coins was fixed at .900.  The silver dollar weighed 412½ grains troy, and the gold was issued at the rate of 25.8 per dollar in value, the actual gold dollar coin not being authorized, however, unti 1849.  The relation of the metals, therefore, was almost exactly 16 to 1.

The quantity of pure silver in the dollar, as originally fixed, was not changed from the date of its issue down to April 1, 1873, when it was discontinued;  but the weight of the coins of less denomination was reduced from 412½ to 384 grains standard per dollar of nominal value by the act of February 21, 1853, which fixed the weight of the half dollar at 192 grains and the quarter dollar, dime, and half dime at one-half, one-fifth, and one-tenth of the said half dollar.

The standard weight of these latter coins was, by the coinage act of 1873, increased to 385.8 grains to the dollar, composed of two half dollars, four quarter dollars, and ten dimes, and corresponding in weight and fineness with the five-franc silver coin of the Latin states of Europe.  These coins are issued at the rate of $1.24414 per standard ounce, 803¼ ounces giving coins of the nominal value of $1,000.

The coinage act, in effect, abolished the silver dollar of 412½ grains troy (371¼ grains pure silver) and declared the gold dollar of 25.8 grains, nine-tenths fine, (23.22 grains pure gold,) the unit of value, and thus legally established gold as the sole standard or measure of value.  The issue of the copper coin commenced in 1793, silver in 1794, and gold in 1795.

It will be noticed that the Spanish silver dollar prior to act of 1792 was the standard of value, and it is true that the standard silver dollar of the United States had in it the same amount of silver as the Spanish silver dollar, and that under this legislation the standard silver dollar weighed 412½ grains, nine-tenths of it fine silver and one-tenth alloy, and the weight of this coin was never changed, and all the acts of Congress prior to 1873 provided it should be a legal tender for all debts public and private, while the gold dollar, act of 1853, 25.8 grains, with the larger gold coins were also a legal tender.  Both the silver and gold were called coin.  The smaller silver coin, half dollars, quarters, dimes, and half dimes, weighed a little less to the dollar than the standard silver dollar, and by the act of 1853, as well as the act of 1873, were a legal tender for not exceeding $5.

In making both gold and silver a standard of value, our fathers took counsel of the experience of civilized nations for many centuries past.  Indeed, I may say, in the light of history, that from the most ancient times mankind have by toil, hardship, and enterprise sought both gold and silver, and in most civilized countries have used them for money, and with slight fluctuations in the proportion of 16 to 1, that is, sixteen ounces of silver being equal in value to one ounce of gold.  So from 1792 to the breaking out of the late war, and all through the war up to 1873, the standard silver dollar was in common with gold coin a legal tender for all debts, public and private, and receivable under all the legislation for duties upon imports.

During the late rebellion the United States, for the purpose of preserving its existence, raised armies, bought supplies, and performed all other acts necessary to carry on the war to a successful termination, and it became necessary for Congress to borrow money "on the credit of the United States."

Act of July 17 and August 5, 1861.

The first loan after President Lincoln was inaugurated was under the act of July 17, 1861, authorizing the borrowing on the credit of the United States of $250,000,000 on bonds at 7 per cent. interest, payable after twenty years.

Section 9 of the act is as follows:

Sec. 9.  And be it further enacted, That the faith of the United States is hereby solemnly pledged for the payment of the interest and redemption of the principal of the loan authorized by this act.

August 5, 1861, an act was passed supplementary to the act of July 17, 1861.

The bonds issued under these acts bound the Government to pay dollars.  There can be no mistake as to the meaning of the word dollars.  It was coin, either or both gold and silver of the weight and fineness provided by law.  This was prior to the acts authorizing the issue of United States notes known as greenbacks.

First Act Authorizing the Issue of United States Notes known as Greenbacks.

The war still progressed, and the necessities of the Government for money with which to purchase supplies and pay other expenses were pressing.  So on the 25th of February, 1862, it was enacted, section 1, "that the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to issue on the credit of the United States $150,000,000 of United States notes not bearing interest, payable to bearer at the Treasury of the United States."  It was further provided that such notes should be receivable for all debts due the United States, "except duties on imports," and should be received for all claims and demands against the United States, "except for interest upon bonds and notes, which shall be paid in coin;"  and they were, with above exceptions, also made a legal tender for all debts, public and private.

These notes did not bear interest;  the promise to pay in each note was a promise to pay dollars, and the law in existence said what a dollar was and how much gold or silver it should contain.

Almost all nations of the world during great wars have been compelled to issue in some shape or other their obligations to circulate as money, generally to the practical exclusion of a metallic currency while in circulation.

The French government issued the assignats, which became worthless and were never paid.  Our own Government during the revolutionary war issued the continental currency, redeemable in Spanish milled dollars, and which was never redeemed.  So when it was decided to issue the greenbacks great doubt was expressed all over the country as to the wisdom of the step, by the democracy, who denounced the party then having control of the Government for violating the Constitution.

It was contended on the other hand that in time of war the power of the Government for its preservation was only limited by necessity;  and for the purpose of enabling the Government to pay out and use those notes to a good advantage it was further provided by the original act that they should be fundable upon demand into a six per cent. interest-bearing United States bond, and should be receivable as coin at their par value in payment for any loans that might thereafter be negotiated by the Secretary of the Treasury;  and this same act provided, section 2, for the issue of $500,000,000 6 per cent. bonds, bearing interest in coin.

To give the greenback further value section 2 of this same act provided that all stocks, bonds, and other securities held within the United States shall be exempt from taxation by, or under State authority.  Indeed, I may say that all the bonds and obligations of the Government issued in payment for loans, including the greenbacks issued under different acts of Congress, were by law made non-taxable by State or municipal authorities, and are not taxable to-day.

Section 5 of the same act, authorizing the first issue of greenbacks, provided that all duties should be paid in coin or notes payable on demand, which were coin-notes, and that the proceeds should be applied---

First.  To the payment in coin of the interest on the bonds and notes of the United States.

Second.  To the payment or purchase of 1 per cent. of all the debt of the United States, to be set apart as a sinking fund.

Third.  The residue to be paid into the Treasury.

Other Acts of Congress During the War Authorizing the Issue of National Obligations.

The act of July 11, 1862, authorized a further issue of United States notes or greenbacks to the extent of $150,000,000, with similar provisions as the act of February 25, 1862.

The act of March, 1863, authorized the issuing of $900,000,000 6 per cent. interest-bearing bonds of the United States, redeemable at the pleasure of the Government in not less than ten years nor more than forty years, payable in coin, giving the Secretary of the Treasury the power to issue part of same, not exceeding $400,000,000, in Treasury notes, payable at the pleasure of the Government not exceeding three years from date, with 6 per cent. interest, authorizing the exchange of either the bonds or Treasury notes for greenbacks;  also authorizing an issue as a part thereof of $150,000,000 of United States notes, and limiting the term for exchange of all United States notes for bonds to on or before the 1st day of July, 1863.

The act of June 30, 1864, authorized the issue of $400,000,000 bonds to run not less than five nor more than thirty years, at 6 per cent. interest in coin.

Section 2 gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to issue $200,000,000 of this amount in Treasury motes, payable not exceeding three years from date, with 7.30 per cent. interest, and to convert said Treasury notes into bonds, and to exchange these interest-bearing Treasury notes for United States notes or greenbacks issued under prior acts of Congress;  and the following proviso is attached to said second section:

Provided, That the total amount of bonds and Treasury notes authorized by the first and second sections of this act shall not exceed $400,000,000, in addition to the amounts heretofore issued;  nor shall the total amount of United States notes, issued or to be issued, ever exceed $400,000,000, and such additional sum, not exceeding $50,000,000, as may be temporarily required for the redemption of temporary loan.

While it was doubtful how the war would result and whether we were to have a Government or not, the obligations of the Government, both interest and non-interest bearing, decreased in value;  for the element of uncertainty as to their payment or, if paid, when they would be paid, produced the inevitable result upon their price.

All these acts were passed during the continuance of the war, and constitute the contract between the Government on the one hand and the holders of the obligations of the Government on the other hand, and which good faith requires the Government to keep and with which the creditor must be satisfied.

The nature of the obligation resting upon the Government under these acts is tersely set forth in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury to Congress as follows:

But the purpose and meaning of the acts in question are not left open for forensic discussion having been authoritatively settled by the unanimous opinion of the highest judicial tribunal known to our Constitution.  As soon after the termination of the war as 1868, it was argued before the Supreme Court that the legal-tender notes of the United States were issued as money, a substitute for metallic currency, and that, having been made legal tender in payment of all debts, including (with certain exceptions) the Government's own, of course, when presented for payment, if similar notes, being legal tender, were offered in exchange for them, the debt would be discharged by a delivery of new notes of the same kind, and so on ad infinitum.  To this argument the court replied:

"Apart from the quality of legal tender impressed upon them by acts of Congress, of which we now say nothing, their circulation as currency depends upon the extent to which they are received in payment, on the quantity in circulation, and on the credit given to the promises they bear.  In other respects they resemble the bank-notes formerly issued as currency.

"But, on the other hand, it is equally clear that these notes are obligations of the United States.  Their name imports obligation.  Every one of them expresses upon its face an engagement of the nation to pay the bearer a certain sum.  The dollar note is an engagement to pay a dollar, and the dollar intended is the coin dollar of the United States --a certain quantity in weight and fineness of gold or silver, authenticated as such by the stamp of the Government."

This authoritative declaration of the Supreme Court defines clearly and precisely the meaning and intent of Congress in the acts which authorized the issue, and should be accepted as conclusive of the obligation and duty of the Government to provide for the payment in specie of all such issues.

Nor is this all.  Subsequent to this decision, and for the purpose of putting a quietus upon the mischievous discussion of the subject, Congress, on the 18th day of March, 1869, declared by public act that "the United States solemnly pledges its faith to make provision at the earliest practicable period for the redemption of the United States notes in coin."

I have referred to these acts of Congress and the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States for the reason that on the part of certain gentlemen upon this floor and a great many throughout the country there appears to be a misapprehension as to what the contract is between the Government on the one hand and its creditors upon the other;  and from the above references to the law, as well as a careful examination of the text of the different acts, I am prepared to state--

First.  That there is not one dollar of the indebtedness of the United States, interest-bearing or non-interest-bearing bond or greenback, but what the Government has the right, legal, equitable, and moral, under the contract to pay in coin, and that coin is gold or the standard silver dollar of the fineness and weight provided by law at the time the indebtedness was made.

Second.  It further appears that the faith of the Government is pledged to collect duties on imports in coin (either gold or silver, or both) for the payment of interest upon the public debt.

Third.  That the faith of the Government is pledged, until the redemption of the greenbacks, never to issue more than $400,000,000 of the same.

Having shown the right under the contract to pay our debt in gold and silver, or either, let us inquire briefly as to the policy of paying our debts in silver as well as in gold.

The Policy of Payment of our Debt in Silver as well as Gold.

A discussion of this branch of the subject will make necessary an inquiry as to the amount of gold and silver in the world.  The office of money and the effect of making it plenty or scarce, cheap or dear, upon production and commerce, and more particularly the effect of making it cheap or dear upon contracts in existence, and after those contracts are made to pay "dollars," having reference to the dollar established by law at the time the contract was made;  and first as to the amount of silver and gold in existence and the production of the same.

The statisticians and political economists in the world agree substantially, after careful consideration of the subject, in estimating for use in the arts and for coin---

gold at ...... $5,800,000,000
silver at .... 5,600,000,000
Making a total of ..... 11,400,000,000

About one-half of this amount ($5,700,000,000) is coin, of which there is in use in the commercial world---

gold coin ..... 2,600,000,000
silver coin .... 1,000,000,000

I mean by the commercial world those countries other than the oriental, while the amount in circulation in the eastern or oriental countries is estimated at (mostly silver) $2,100,000,000.

As to the amount of gold and silver in the world, our efficient statistician at the head of the Bureau of Statistics, Mr. Edward Young, substantially concurs with the above estimate, as shown by a letter which he writes me, as follows:

Bureau of Statistics, July 12, 1876.

The aggregate gold product of the world for the past twenty-seven years, 1849 to 1875, both inclusive, is estimated at ..$2,761,700,000.

The aggregate silver product of the world for the same period is estimated at ..... $1,573,900,000.

Making the aggregate production of precious metals for the twenty-seven years, 1849 to 1875 ..... $4,335,600,000.

The present stock of precious metals for use in the world (for coinage and the arts) has been estimated by trustworthy investigators at from $11,000,000,000 to $13,000,000,000 ---say a mean of $12,000,000,000.

Edward Young,
Chief of Bureau.

Hon. J.G. Cannon, M.C.

As to the production of gold and silver annually from 1852 to 1875, inclusive, I give a tabular statement as reprinted from the Paris Journal des Economistes for March, and which statement agrees substantially with information from other sources. It will be observed the production of gold is decreasing:

Year. ................ Gold. ................ Silver. ....................... Total.
1852 ..... $182,500,000 .... $40,500,000 .... $230,000,000
1853 ...... 155,000,000 ...... 40,500,000 ...... 195,500,000
1854 ...... 127,000,000 ...... 40,500,000 ...... 167,500,000
1855 ...... 135,000,000 ...... 40,500,000 ...... 175,500,000
1856 ...... 147,500,000 ...... 40,500,000 ...... 188,000,000
1857 ...... 133,000,000 ...... 40,500,000 ...... 173,500,000
1858 ...... 124,500,000 ...... 40,500,000 ...... 165,000,000
1859 ...... 124,500,000 ...... 40,500,000 ...... 165,000,000
1860 ...... 114,000,000 ...... 40,500,000 ...... 159,500,000
1861 ...... 114,000,000 ...... 42,500,000 ...... 156,500,000
1862 ...... 107,500,000 ...... 45,000,000 ...... 152,500,000
1863 ...... 107,000,000 ...... 49,000,000 ...... 156,000,000
1864 ...... 113,000,000 ...... 51,500,000 ...... 164,500,000
1865 ...... 120,000,000 ...... 52,000,000 ...... 172,000,000
1866 ...... 121,000,000 ...... 50,500,000 ...... 171,500,000
1867 ...... 116,000,000 ...... 54,000,000 ...... 170,000,000
1868 ...... 120,000,000 ...... 50,000,000 ...... 170,000,000
1869 ...... 121,000,000 ...... 47,500,000 ...... 168,000,000
1870 ...... 116,000,000 ...... 51,500,000 ...... 167,500,000
1871 ...... 116,500,000 ...... 61,000,000 ...... 500,000,000
1872 ...... 101,500,000 ...... 65,000,000 ...... 166,500,000
1873 ...... 103,500,000 ...... 70,000,000 ...... 173,500,000
1874 ........ 90,500,000 ...... 71,500,000 ...... 162,000,000
1875 ........ 97,500,000 ...... 62,000,000 ...... 159,500,000

Money -- What Is It ?

Money has been defined by many political economists, and it is somewhat strange that people should wrangle about the definition of that article which moves the world and is at the bottom of all enterprise and labor, and for which we toil from the cradle to the grave.  Suffice it to say, as defined by economists and which definition is approved by common sense---

It is an instrument designed equitably to measure the value of commodities and services with the view to effect their exchange either at present or in the future and throughout the world.

If all nations, individuals, and corporations were out of debt, then it would make but little difference whether a large or small amount of coin was called a dollar.  To illustrate:  It would make but little difference whether a dime or a dollar was the representative used to measure the value and effect the exchange of a pair of shoes made in Massachusetts for a bushel of corn raised in Kansas, the shoes passing from the maker in Massachusetts through the dealer in Kansas to the person who wears them, and the corn passing from the farmer who produced it in Kansas through the dealer in Massachusetts to the consumer;  but in the development, production, and commerce of any country, corporations, individuals, and governments make ventures, contract debts, and generally in the aggregate follow those manifold pursuits that tend to the well-being of each individual and result in the happiness, strength, and power of the whole as a people.  From these transactions the relation of debtor and creditor is formed, and the commodity or other capital advanced by the creditor and received by the debtor and agreed to be returned is measured by dollars.

The farmer in Illinois who promises to pay the lumberman of Michigan $1,000 for lumber has no intention of going to Nevada or California and of actually mining the amount of silver or gold, having it coined, necessary to pay that 1,000, but he expects to grow the corn and wheat and grass or cattle and hogs necessary to exchange for the thousand dollars with which to pay the lumberman;  hence it is necessary that the dollar or the standard by which values are measured should be maintained by Government and should be in justice to everybody as stable and certain as possible;  and as we trade all over the world, this same dollar or standard of value should be as nearly universal as possible, and the creditor who has the obligation of the debtor to pay him a thousand dollars in coin, that coin at the time of the contract being fixed, as a standard of value, at 25.8 grains of standard gold to the dollar or 412½ grains of standard silver to the dollar.

Who insists when payment is made that it should be in dollars, weighing 50 grains of gold instead of 25, or dollars weighing 1,000 grains of silver instead of 412½ grains, or would say let us not have silver as a standard of value at all, pay me in gold dollars, and thereby silver as compared with gold is not as valuable as when the debt was contracted, would be attempting to act unfairly and by artifice to get more than he was to have;  or the debtor who would say let us make a dollar out of 12 grains of gold instead of 25, or out of 200 grains of silver instead of 412½ grains, or would insist on making a dollar out of brass, which should be a legal tender in addition to the gold and silver and of not half the value of gold and silver dollars, and insist on paying his debt in brass dollars, would be acting unfairly and seeking by artifice to pay less than he agreed.

What has been done in reference to the debts the Government owes and that individuals owe, and the reason for action of the parties ?

I have already called attention to the fact that at the time our debt was contracted a certain amount of both gold and silver constituted a dollar.  It is estimated that $1,000,000,000 of this debt is held by people of foreign nations, most of it in Great Britain and Germany.  Silver is not used in Great Britain as money except for subsidiary coin, and since the Franco-Prussian war and within the last three years, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway have ceased to use silver as standard money and have adopted the use of gold as a standard, and Dr. Linderman, the Director of the Mint, estimates the amount of silver that is being retired from the circulation in Germany and thrown upon the markets of the world at $300,000,000, and about the same amount in the other nations.

And, strange to say, the United States being the debtor nation, having the right to pay that debt in gold and silver of a certain fineness, with her vast mineral wealth, especially of silver, that is being developed by the labor, pluck, and energy of Americans under the lead of science and experience, has unwittingly assented to the demonetization of silver.

This legislation was had in the Forty-second Congress, February 12, 1873, by a bill to regulate the mints of the United States, and practically abolished silver as money by failing to provide for the coinage of the silver dollar.  It was not discussed, as shown by the Record, and neither members of Congress nor the people understood the scope of the legislation.

The result is that gold has become the only standard by which values are measured, silver ceasing to be used as money, and gold as compared with silver has become more valuable, and silver as compared with gold has become less valuable, so that if we actually pay in gold, not having the privilege to pay silver, we have decreased our ability to pay by at least from 20 to 30 per cent.;  in other words, we decrease our ability to pay by the amount of silver we have to pay with, it no longer being available to us to pay in discharge of our indebtedness the same as gold.

But the objection may be urged that we have not large amount of silver with which to pay onr debts, and therefore it cannot make much difference whether silver is demonetized or not.  A complete answer to that is, first, that so far as we have silver or can mine it or buy it with our commodities, we have the right to use it in payment of our debts according to the contract;  and, for that matter, the same thing may be said of gold, that we have not a large amount of it in comparison with our debt with which to pay.  But a more complete answer to such objection is that practically we pay the greater portion of our debts in cotton, corn, wheat, meats, and such other commodities as we sell or export, and that the value in dollars of what we sell is measured by gold if it is the only standard of value, or by gold and silver if they both constitute the standard;  so if you decrease the amount of the standard by which the values of commodities are to be measured from 20 to 30 per cent. by demonetizing silver, the necessary consequence is the gold, in measuring the value of cotton, corn, &c., has the same office to perform that the gold and silver both performed, and the creditor gains while the debtor loses.

The debtor is bound to pay the number of dollars he contracted to pay, but the dollar is more valuable than it was when he made the contract.  Dr. Linderman, Director of the Mint, fully understood this, for in his report for the year 1873, page 21, he says:

The gradual adoption of the gold standard, and consequent demonetization of silver, will of course be followed by an increase in the value of gold, or what is the same thing, a decrease in the price of articles measured by it.  Indeed it is quite certain that this effect is already perceptible in some portions of Europe.  Be that as it may, however, it is safe to assume that Germany will soon have substituted three hundred millions of gold for silver heretofore used as standard money, and that Denmark, Sweden, and Norway will require nearly as much more in consequence of changing their standard from silver to gold.  Now, add to the foregoing the requirements of France and the United States in the near future, and it will be readily understood that gold must appreciate in value.

It is true that the mines of the world produce annually about one hundred millions of gold; but in considering this as a stock to be drawn upon for coinage, it must be remembered that the consumption of gold in the arts has largely increased during the last twenty-three years, and now approximates to about twenty five millions per annum.

Some of the Effects of Demonetizing Silver.

At the time our debt was contracted the standard silver dollar as compared with the gold dollar was of a little greater value, and so continued until after silver was demonetized. Since 1873, however, gold as compared with silver has grown more valuable; and to show how much more valuable, take the price of silver in gold in Liverpool on the 10th day of July, (this month,) and the price of a greenback dollar in gold, the gold being at 12 per cent. premium, counting gold as the unit of value at par:

One dollar in gold ..... $1.00
The value of t.he greenback in gold is ..... 89
The value of the standard silver dollar (412½ grains) is .... 79

And let me here say that we have just as much right under our contract to call silver the unit or standard of value and par, and to say that the greenback is above par by 11 per cent. and gold above par by 24 per cent. as advocates of the gold standard have to claim that gold should be the unit or standard of value, and that greenbacks are below par and silver is below par.

Notice, the greenback dollar is worth over 11 per cent. more than the silver dollar. The reason is that, silver being demonetized and gold become more valuable and silver less valuable, the greenback is payable in gold, which, becoming more valuable, of course makes the greenback, as well as all the other securities of the United States, more valuable and harder to pay.

Now, then, let us remonetize silver.  There is, as before shown, about as much silver in value in the world as there is gold.  The result will be that silver, as compared with gold, will grow more valuable;  gold, as compared with silver, will grow less valuable, and they will meet, each traveling half way, at about the value of the greenback;  and thus we would have silver at par with gold, gold at par with silver, and the greenback at par with gold and silver.

But the objection is made that the United States may remonetize silver and that Germany and the other nations will not.  In answer, I say so much the greater necessity for the United States remonetizing silver;  that is the only way we can get even, for by adopting the gold standard only they have made the dollar more valuable than it was when they bought our bonds and loaned us their capital;  and silver ceasing to be used as money, silver coin is thrown upon the market, and has depreciated as compared with gold.  Now, if we remonetize silver that will create a demand for it here, and it will flow into this country in exchange for our products, and we will in turn use it in paying our debts in common with gold as between each other, and in paying the $50,000,000 to 70,000,000 of annual interest upon our foreign debt.

Mr. Speaker, I have very great respect for the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Garfield,] and also many gentleman on the other side of the House who oppose the legislation spoken of, but I do not agree with him in denouncing the proposition to remonetize silver and paying our debts with it as swindling, and his stigmatizing silver with the term "cheap and nasty."  Sir, it has with gold been used as money for ages past, and will be, in my opinion, for ages to come.  It is in common with gold the money of the Constitution, and whether it has grown less valuable or gold has grown more valuable is not the question.  By the letter and spirit of the contract we have the right to pay every dollar of the indebtedness of the United States in standard silver dollars weighing 412½ grains, nine-tenths of it fine silver and one-tenth of it alloy as well as in gold, and I should like to know what right the gentleman has to denounce as swindling a proposition to do what we contracted to do.  I suppose if gold were cheaper than silver then the gentleman would say it is swindling to pay in gold.

If the gentleman owed me $10,000 and by the contract had the option to pay it either in gold dollars or silver dollars, and had to be industrious and economize to pay either, does he claim that it would be swindling to pay me in silver dollars because they were the cheapest ?  If the gentleman did business in that way on his private account, before six months had elapsed any court would appoint a conservator to take charge of his property and manage his estate.

Sir, it is the only practicable route that I can see to a resumption of the business of the country upon the basis of specie;  it fills the measure of the contract from every stand-point;  it enables us to keep the public faith and honor;  it stops the rapacity of the creditor on the one hand, who unfairly seeks to increase the value of his credits by having the contract changed in his favor, and it stops the power of the politician on the other hand, who seeks to avail himself of the present depression and hard times to ride into power under the promise to set the printing-presses in motion and make money and give it value without labor by mere force of legislative enactment.

Mr. Speaker, it is urged that it is not practicable to coin large amounts of the standard silver dollar soon enough and fast enough for use.  This objection is not well taken.  The Director of the Mint informs me that the mints can turn out subsidiary coins in addition to required gold coin and minor coinage $2,000,000 monthly, and an equal amount of silver dollars monthly, and that with reasonable appropriations the capacity of the mints can be increased.  I further want to state that it is not necessary for large payments, to have silver or gold coined in large amounts, for the act of 1869, which was merely declaratory of the contracts in regard to the public indebtedness and was also the foundation for refunding a large part of it at a lower rate of interest, is as follows:

the faith of the United States is solemnly pledged to the payment in coin or its equivalent of all the obligations of the United States not bearing interest, known as United States notes, and of all the interest-bearing obligations of the United States, except in cases where the law authorizing the issue of any such obligation has expressly provided that the same may be paid in lawful money or other currency than gold and silver.

What is the equivalent of coin ?  I answer, gold and silver bullion of the fineness of coin;  and for large payments this could be tested and used in large amounts.  The word "equivalent" in the act could mean nothing more or less than this.  Then this gold and silver coin or bullion would be receivable for all dues payable to the United States, including duties upon imports;  and for convenience the bullion could be deposited in the Treasury and coin certificates issued redeemable in the bullion.

The Resumption Act.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word with reference to that clause of the so-called resumption act which fixes the 1st day of January, 1879, to redeem the Treasury notes on demand in coin.  Experience, especially in matters of finance, is better than theory, and I am satisfied from observation that part of the act should be repealed and have so voted constantly when that proposition was pending before the House. I believe it is admitted by all that it is a mere declaration without any vital force to make it practicable, and tends with other causes to deter men of enterprise from embarking in the various industries of the country, for the reason that they are doubtful as to what legislation will be had touching same or what will be its effect.

Those who oppose its repeal say that they are willing it should be repealed and believe it should be, but want something in its place that looks toward resumption, or, in other words, that they will not take a step backward.  To such I submit in all candor and fairness that the passage of a bill remonetizing silver, with the influx of silver necessarily resulting therefrom, would equalize the value of gold and silver and greenbacks, then the victory would be won; for if we had the power to exchange greenbacks on demand for either gold or silver we would not voluntarily do so longer than until the novelty wore away, for, with the Frenchman who rushed to the bank that was being run upon and demanded his money, when it was counted to him, we would exclaim: "If you have the money, we don't want it.  If you have it not, we must have it."

Mr. Speaker, I am in the minority in the House.  I have been trying for months to get the floor to present my views upon this question and urge legislation touching the same.  I suppose I have no right to complain at not being able to do so as I am not on the Banking and Currency or Ways and Means Committee, which have charge of the presentation of matters of this kind to the House;  and with three hundred members, all clamoring for the floor, one's turn does not come often when he desires to be heard upon some question not coming from his committee.  But I want to say to the other side of the House that one-tenth part of the time given to the maturity and consideration of this measure that is used in the effort to make capital for the fall campaign will suffice to perfect the details and pass the bill.

There is another reason why this legislation should be had at once.  It would settle the money question permanently.  If there is any one thing more than another that paralyzes business it is the power Congress has, with our unsettled condition of finance, to tinker with the currency;  it sets the theorist, the politician, and the speculator to work proposing all manner of schemes to better our condition, nine-tenths of which are purely impracticable or thoroughly selfish;  the producer and the trader are kept in a state of feverish excitement, doubtful as to what bad results may follow from unwise legislation.

There is but one way out of it:  restore the money of the Constitution by remonetizing silver;  give the Government and each individual the chance to comply with its or his contract;  nothing more and nothing less.  Then the laws governing demand and supply will regulate the money and the credit of the country as they regulate the production of corn and wheat;  and under the operation of that primal law imposed upon man by the Creator, "By the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread," each individual, under stable laws and stable money, will work out his own salvation, and as a people we enter upon a secure and stable era of prosperity.

Mr. Cox.  I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Randall.]

Mr. Randall.  It would be well to inquire what it really is that this bill embraces.  The first feature as to which there seems to be no difficulty in either House relates to taking away from the trade-dollar legal-tender qualities.  I need not consume any time upon that question.  Both Houses have voted with great unanimity upon the subject.

The next feature relates to subsidiary coin.  And the effect accomplished by this report is to give to the Government the opportunity of issuing fifty millions of subsidiary coin in substitution of the amount of fractional currency now out;  and in addition thereto up to fifty millions which is about six millions more.  And we accomplish that result without issuing any bonds or any permanent indebtedness of the Government such as was provided for in one of the sections of the act known as the resumption act.

Mr. Hewitt, of New York.  May I ask the gentleman, how does he pay for the excess ?

Mr. Randall.  I pay for the excess by buying it with $200,000, until I gradually get out or purchase $200,000 of bullion with the greenback money in tbe sinking fund, and I issue that out as the resulting coin at the subsidiary value;  the Government thereby gaining the seigniorage.

I would be willing and desire to go a little further and aggregate sixty millions of subsidiary coin;  but it was thought that in view of the fact that not more than fifty millions could be minted until we came here again, it was better to yield that point.  I believe that $60,000,000 of subsidiary coin, in view of the increased population of the country, can be well floated in this country for change money.

There was a difficulty between the Senate and House as to the two sections which I originally suggested.  The House was unwilling to make it an agency for retiring any greenbacks whatever.  The Senate were willing to agree to the $20,000,000, provided we would retire an equal amount of greenbacks, mixing two questions which clearly ought to be separate ---the question of greenbacks and the question of subsidiary coin.  However, after a conference the Senate yielded that point, and we succeeded in incorporating into the report the bill as it originally passed the House, and which keeps the two questions separate and does not provide for the withdrawal of greenbacks.  I say, therefore, that there are two plain features in the report:  First, we get rid of increasing any of the indebtedness of the Government, permanent or otherwise, by the issuance of subsidiary coin, and we secure an amount of subsidiary coin for the use of the people of the country of $50,000,000, which is a great thing to accomplish.  If you do not adopt this report, you may encounter the danger between now and December next of having a dearth of change money by which the retail business of the country can be conducted.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. Cox.  I yield now five minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Willard.]

Mr. Willard.  The bill which we are now considering as it left this House and went to the conference committee embraced two measures, one to give an enlargement of the amount of subsidiary coin for the use of the country, and the other to make the old American silver dollar a full legal tender for the payment of all debts, public and private.

Now as the bill is brought to us from the committee of conference it retains only one of those measures, and we are asked by the chairman of the committee to forego the consideration of the remaining measure on the ground that it will embarrass the passage of the other.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it of course becomes a question in regard to the importance of this particular measure which we are desired to postpone;  and upon this permit me to say that in view of the great currency contest that is going on, not only in this country but throughout the world, between the creditor class on the one hand and the debtor class on the other, it seems to me that if we take into consideration the condition of our national finances and the condition of our people, it is the most momentous question that can be presented to us, and that this Congress ought not to adjourn until it meets it and disposes of it on the ground and in accordance with the principles of exact and equal justice.

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Garfield] has proclaimed that the amendment which was offered by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Landers,] and which is now shorn from the bill, was a swindling measure;  but let me say that the swindling in regards to this subject has already taken place in the moneyed centers of the world;  for England, which holds in large measure the credit of the world, and Germany, which has become also a great credit-holding nation, have been determined to exclude from the uses of commerce a part of the coin of the world in order to appreciate that other portion of the coin which they choose to retain.  There has been a studied and persistent effort on the part of the great capitalists of our times to appreciate the value of their credits and to take from the debtor classes that which honestly belonged to them.

We have recently, Mr. Speaker, become a debtor nation.  Late events, the events of the last fifteen years, have made us a debtor nation to a greater extent than we ever dreamed of, and there is now a greater national debt estimated per capita resting upon the population of this country than upon that of any other nation, I believe, in the civilized world, unless we make an exception perhaps of England.  And where are our dues to be paid ?  They are to be paid in those great commercial centers to which I have alluded;  and just as a planet in the skies may appear to the ordinary observer a fixed star and its movements may not be observed, just so there has been within the last few years a gradual appreciation in the value of gold, and we as a nation, the greatest silver-producing nation on the planet, are asked to throw our influence on the side of the creditor class and against our own interest and the interest of every American citizen.

I trust, sir, that we shall consider that this is not simply a question for our own people, but a question which attracts the attention of the whole world.

We ought in this struggle in regard to the currency standard to array ourselves with the Latin nations of Europe, with France, with Spain, and Italy, as well as with the vast populations of Asia, and demand that silver shall not be excluded from being a part of the world's coin.  Our own home interests demand such action on our part, as also do the growth and extension of our commerce with all those nations which require the boundless products of our silver mines in exchange for the results of their manifold industries.  Let us not take the side of greedy England and grasping Germany in this coinage contest, but let us courageously champion those industrial classes who are striving to prevent gold from having an undue appreciation in comparison with all the productions of honest labor.

We fight on the side of equal justice to all and against the unjust exactions of foreign monopoly when we fight for the restoration of the old-fashioned silver American dollar to its rightful place in our American currency.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. Cox.  I yield one minute to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Savage.]

Mr. Savage.  I only wish to read the balance of the sentence read by my colleague [Mr. Garfield] to show the wrong construction he put upon the word "coin:"

The faith of the United States is solemnly pledged to the payment in coin, or its equivalent, of all the obligations of the United States not bearing interest, known as United States notes, and of all the interest-bearing obligations of the United States

There the gentleman stopped.  I read the remainder of the clause:

except in case where the law authorizing the issue of any such obligation has expressly provided that the same may be paid in lawful money or other currency than gold or silver.

It will be seen that the words "gold and silver" are used as equivalent to the word "coin," as used in the first part of the clause, and showing the construction which this body at that time put upon the word "coin."

Mr. Kelley.  That was the act of 1869 ?

Mr. Savage.  Yes, sir.

Mr. Cox.  I now yield two minutes to my colleague, [Mr. Hewitt.]

Mr. Hewitt, of New York.  In the two minutes allowed me the most I could do would be to ask a question, and I will refrain even from that.  But I wish to remind the House that when the proposition was originally made to substitute silver for the paper fractional currency of the United States I opposed it with all the ability at my command.  And to day if I could go back and withdraw the silver from circulation and substitute the fractional paper currency I would vote for it and advocate it as a measure of sound public policy.  But that time has gone by.  The law of Gresham, which has been quoted here to-day, that the inferior currency, meaning by that inferior in market value, will drive out the superior currency, that law has been in operation until the paper fractional currency is disappearing and the silver currency is taking its place.  The consequence is that there is a dearth of currency which cannot now be supplied except by the substitution of silver coin.

Now, while I am embarrassed to the last degree in view of my convictions on this subject by voting in favor of the report of the committee of conference, I am driven to it by this consideration:  that whatever loss may be involved in it, the loss to the community by the interruption of its business, by the stoppage of all retail trade, by the inability to pay the wages of labor, by the inability of the laboring man to get his daily supplies, will be so great that unless we furnish currency of some kind it will be recorded against this House that we were a parcel of blunderers, who took away from the people their only currency they had and gave them nothing instead.  Hence I shall vote for this report of the conference committee, not as a measure of choice, but as one of absolute necessity against which I can and ought to make no resistance.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. Cox.  I have but three minutes left, and I will close the debate in that time and then call the previous question.

Mr. Lawrence.  Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? [Cries of "Regular order!"]

Mr. Cox.  In the three minutes which I have remaining I desire first to answer what seems to be an erroneous impression on the part of many gentlemen on both sides of the House.  There is nothing in this bill reported from the committee of conference that proposes either to issue bonds or more greenbacks for the purchase of silver bullion.  Nor does it retire the legal-tenders.  The House will remember that the bill originally did propose to retire greenbacks;  but, on the motion of the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Reagan] one section of the original bill contained the clause "or in exchange for legal-tender notes."  That clause, however, was stricken out by a decided vote of this House.

Any matter connected with the volume of our currency, therefore, does not come up now.  We propose to make no more debt;  we issue no more bonds, we create no more interest by the passage of this report, and we are not embarrassed, as the Senate was, by inflation, contraction, and greenback questions.

The House has already approved every proposition in this conference report except one.  That one is in the proviso of the twenty million section.  That proviso is to this effect:  That the amount of money at any one time invested in such silver bullion, exclusive of such resulting coin, shall not exceed $200,000.  When this bill went from the House to the Senate the proviso had for its limit the sum of $1,000,000.  For some cautious purpose, of which we should not complain, the Senate reduced the sum to $200,000, exclusive of the resulting coin.  Therefore, if gentlemen will look closely at this bill they will find that the conference report really makes our bills thus coalesced safer and better in that respect.  It guards against reckless, speculative, and excessive expenditure for bullion "at any one time."  In every other regard this House has already approved this bill.

If gentlemen vote for this conference report, it does not follow that they do not approve of the proposition of the honorable gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Landers.]  That is an open question.  It ought so to remain, when gentlemen like the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley] arise here and say that silver was wrongfully demonetized by the act of 1873.  But I ask him why, as the then chairman of the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures, he did not at that time, May 27, 1872, oppose that measure ?  It passed this House by yeas 110, nays 13, and was reported by Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts.  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley] was the chairman of that committee, and did not say a word against it.

Moreover, I would like to ask my honorable friend from Pennsylvania --although I cannot allow him to reply, [laughter,] I will ask him in the Record-- why it is that he is so anxious to make silver legal tender for all public dues ?  Will it not make the tariff 20 per cent. less according to his theory ?  I would like myself to see the tariff cut down 20 per cent. and let the depreciated silver be paid for public as well as private debts, as proposed by the gentlemen from Indiana and Pennsylvania.  But will the gentleman favor that ?  I imagine not.  But the tariff has no business in connection with this conference report.  Its discussion is as irrelevant as the discussion on this bill as to making the silver dollar a legal tender.

I hope the House will vote on the measure pure and simple.  It is a measure for the accommodation of the people between now and December next;  that is, to pursue the policy begun of silver coin in the place of fractional paper currency, for the business of the public, whether north or south, east or west.

I now call the previous question, and hope the House will sustain the call and agree to the report of the committee of conference.

The previous question was seconded, there being on a division ayes 111, noes not counted.

The main question was then ordered, which was upon agreeing to the report of the committee of conference.

Mr. Landers of Indiana, Mr. Holman, and others, called for the yeas and nays on the adoption of the report.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken;  and there were--- yeas 129, nays 76, not voting 82; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Bagby, George A. Bagley, John H. Bagley, Ballou, Banks, Banning, Beebe, Bell, Blair, Bliss, Bradley, William R. Brown, Buckner, Horatio Burchard, Samuel Burchard, Burleigh, Candler, Cannon, Caswell, Caulfield, Cochrane, Collins, Conger, Cook, Cox, Cra~Cronnse, Cutler, Danford, Darrall, Davy, Durand, Eames, Ellis, Ely, Freeman, e, Garfield, Gause, Gibson, Hancock, Harilenbergh, Benjamin Harris, Hamson, Hartridge, Haymond, Hays, Henkle, Abram Hewitt, Hill, Hoar, Hosldns, Hubbell, Hurd, Hurlbut, Tenli:s, Frank Ton!lS, Kasson, Kebr, Kimball, Lamar, George Landers, Lapham, Lawrence, Leavenworth, Le Moyna, Lynde, Magoon, Maish, MacDougall, McDill, Meade, Milliken, Mills, Monroe, Mutchler, Nash, Norton, Oliver, O'Neill, Packer, Page, Payne, Phelps, Pierce, Piper, Plaisted, Potter, Powell, Pratt. R3iney, Randall, .John Reilly .John Robbins, Miles Ross, Rusk, Sampson, Schleicher, Singleton, Sinnickson, SmalLs, A. HeiT Smith, Strait, Tarbox:, Tease, Thomas, Thompson, Thornburp:h, Martin I. Townsend, Washington Townsend, Tucker, Tufts, Turney, Waddell, Wait, Waldron, Charles C. R. Wa.l.ker, Ale:x:a.nder S. Wallace, .John W. Wallace, Erastus Wells, Whitehouse, Whiting, Wike, Andrew Williams, Alpheus S. Williams, James Williams, .Jeremiah N. Williams, and Willis-129.
NAYS---Messrs. Ainsworth, Anderson, Ashe, Atkins, John Baker, Blackburn, Bland, Boone, Bradford, Bright, John Brown, Cabell, John Caldwell, William Caldwell, Campbell, Cason, Cate, Tohn Clark, of Missouri, Clymer, Cowan, Culberson, Davis, De Bolt, Dibrell, Dobbins, Douglas, Dunnell, Eden, Egbert, Evans, Finley, Forney, Fort, Glover, Goodin, Gunter, John Harris, Hartzell, Hatcher, Henderson, Holman, Hopkins, House, Hunter, Kelley, Franklin Landers, Lane, Edmund Mackey, L.A. Mackey, McFarland, Morgan, New, William Phillips, Poppleton, Rea, Reagan, Tames Reilly, Riddle, Robinson, Savage, Semons, Sparks, Spencer, Springer, Stevenson, Stone TeiTy, Throckmorton, Van vorhes, John Vance, Robert Vance, Gilbert Walker, Willard, James Williams, Benjamin Wilson, and Woodburn-76.
NOT VOTING--- Messrs. William Baker, Ba.ss, Blount, Chapin, Chittenden, John Clarke of Kentucky, Denison, Durham, Faulkner, Felton, Foster, Franklin, Frost, Fuller, Goode, Hale, Andrew Hamilton, Robert Hamilton, Haralson, Henry Harris, Hathorn, Hemleo, Hereford, Gilldsmith, Hewitt, Hoge, Hooker, Hunton, Hyman, Thomas Jones, .Joyce, Ketcham, King, Knott, Levy, Lewis, Lord, Luttrell, Lynch, McCrary, McMahon, Metcalfe, Miller, Money, Morrison, Neal, O'Brien. Odell, John Philips, Platt, Purman, Rice, William Robbins, Roberts, Sobieski Ross, Saller, Scales, Schumaker, Seelye, Sheakley, William Smith, Southard, Stenger Stowell, Swann, Walling, Walsh, Warm, Warren, Wiley Wells, Wheeler, White, Whitthorne, Wigginton, Charles Williams, William Williams, Wilshire, Tames Wilson, Alan Wood, Fernando Wood, Woodworth, Yeates, and Young --82.

So the report of the committee of conference was agreed to.