Be it resolved that all the bonds of the United States issued or authorized to be issued
under the said acts of Congress hereinbefore recited, and payable, principal and interest,
at the option of the Government of the United States, in silver dollars,
containing 412½ grains, is not in violation of the public faith,

Payment of Government Bonds in Silver.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution submitted by Mr. Matthews on the 6th instant, relative to the payment of the bonds of the United States in silver, the pending question being on the motion of Mr. Morrill to refer the resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Hereford [Frank Hereford (July 4, 1825 - December 21, 1891) Union West Virginia, D; studied law, admitted to the bar].  Mr. President, in addition to the pending resolution, some days ago the bill known as the "Bland silver bill" passed the House, and last Tuesday was fixed for the commencement of its discussion by this body.  The subjects-matter covered both by the resolution and that bill are pretty much the same.  The remarks that I shall submit to-day will be more especially directed to what is known as the "Bland silver bill," to give my reasons why I think that bill should pass without any amendment.  I am in favor both of the resolution and the bill.

A few days ago a writer on political science of very high reputation delivered a lecture before the students of Yale College, in which I think he has partially defined the objects and the purposes and the effects of the passage of this bill --Professor Sumner.  He uses the following language:

The indebted landholders ---That is, the producers of the West and South, who sell their products abroad--- would be the gainers ---That is, would be the gainers by the passage of this bill--- It is from the laborer and those receiving fixed incomes that the indebted landholders would derive a part of their advantage.  It won't affect city landholders;  only cotton and wheat growers would be the gainers.  It would be a gain for the West and South at the expense of the East and North, and no gain to the national wealth.

The senior Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Dawes,] who addressed the Senate yesterday, has placed this matter a little more pointedly in the following language:

I speak, sir, in behalf of the bondholders of Massachusetts, and I do not in so speaking speak for a handful of men in State street or a platoon of men in Wall street, but I speak for every one man, woman, and child in three of the whole population of that State, who have $230,000,000 now invested in her savings-banks, and reinvested by those banks in these securities to a very large extent.
---[beneficiaries of government indebtedness --what a nice bunch of people, non-producers living off other people's work]

So that, Mr. President, we are informed by this learned professor and by the Senator from Massachusetts that the great objection to the passing of this bill is on account of the interest of the bondholders.  Professor Sumner admits that the passage of it will redound to the benefit of the South and West.  I propose, in my humble way, to show that it will not only be a benefit to the South and West, but to the masses of this whole country, North, South, East, and West.

I am not here to-day to make any war upon bondholders or upon wealth, in whatever form it may be presented, for its acquisition is one of the great objects of life.  It is proper for each and every one of us to try to accumulate wealth in an honest and honorable manner.  I propose in the few remarks that I shall submit to-day to show that the resistance to the passage of this silver bill and the demand on the part of tbe bondholders that silver shall not be remonetized are an unholy and unjust warfare upon the citizens of the United States, a warfare not justified either in law or in good morals.

One of the reasons urged against the remonetization of silver is that it would be unjust to the holders of the Government bonds, that at the time they purchased those bonds they believed that they were to be paid in gold coin.
---[ First, they want interest, then they want the principal to substantially appreciate in purchasing power]

In the language of the President [R.B. Hayes] in his annual message at the opening of the present session:

The power of the United States to coin money and to regulate the value thereof ought never to be exercised for the purpose of enabling the Government to pay its obligations in a coin of less value than that contemplated by the parties when the bonds were issued.

I am surprised to hear such reasons assigned or such a statement made.  No one had a right to believe at the time our bonds were sold that they were to be paid exclusively in coin of any kind, either gold or silver.  What are the facts ?  What is the history of the transaction ?  What is the law in the premises ?  All three --the facts, the history, and the law-- prove conclusively that the purchasers of our bonds had no reason to expect any such thing.  In the first place, every legal-tender note that was ever issued has stamped upon it these words:

This note is a legal-tender at its face value for all debts, public and private, except duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

Can language be any more explicit ?  Now, mark the language of the exception, "except duties on imports and interest on the public debt."  So that nothing is, or can be, plainer than that at the time of the issuance of these legal-tenders they were to be received in payment of the principal of our public debt.  Every man, woman, and child that ever had one was notified of the fact.  Who knew it better than the bondholders.

Again, when the bonds were first issued, in the discussion of the question as to how they were to be paid in both branches of Congress, it was announced publicly by Senators and Representatives, under the leadership of the great commoner of the House at that time, Thaddeus Stevens, that they were redeemable in legal-tenders.  Who will deny this ?  And yet we are told that the purchasers of these bonds expected to be paid in gold at the time they purchased them.

What did Senator Sherman, the present Secretary of the Treasury, say ?  In a letter dated "United States Senate Chamber, Washington, District of Columbia, March 20, 1868," addressed to "Hon. A. Mann, jr., Brooklyn Heights," he says:

Dear Sir:  I was pleased to receive your letter.  My personal interests are the same as yours, but, like you, I do not intend to be influenced by them.  My construction of the law is the result of careful examination, and I feel quite sure an impartial court would confirm it, if the case could be tried before a court.  I send you my views as fully stated in a speech.  Your idea is that we propose to repudiate or violate a promise when we offer to redeem the "principal" in legal-tenders.  I think the bondholder violates his promise when he refuses to take the same kind of money he paid for the bonds.  If the case is to be tested by the law, I am right; if it is to be tested by Jay Cooke's advertisements, I am wrong.  I hate repudiation or anything like it, but we ought not to be deterred from doing what is right by fear of undeserved epithets.  If under the law as it stands the holders of the five-twenties can only be paid in gold, then we are repudiators if we propose to pay otherwise.  If the bondholder can legally demand only the kind of money he paid, then he is a repudiator and extortioner to demand money more valuable than he gave.

Truly yours, John Sherman.

And yet we are told by the gentlemen who purchased our bonds that they had a right to believe and did believe that they were to be paid in gold;  and this, too, in the face of the language upon every greenback and, as I shall presently show, in every faw that was ever enacted;  this, too, in the face of the debates in both branches of Congress.  Had the bondholders never read the endorsement on every legal-tender ?  Had they never read or heard of the debates in Congress ?  Certainly they had and knew all about them.  Why was that endorsement put on every legal-tender ?  Can any Senator answer me ?  Was it to notify the world or was it intended to cheat and defraud the citizen ?  One or the other was the purpose.  There is nowhere to be found any law saying that our bonds shall be paid in gold.  They are made payable either in paper money or in coin, but never in gold.  The bonds known as the 5/20 bonds issued under the act of February 25, 1869, were made payable, the principal in dollars, without specifying the kind of dollars.  They might by that law have been paid in paper, gold, or silver;  but the interest was made payable in coin.  Why specify that the interest was to be paid in coin ?  Does not the argument necessarily follow that the principal could be paid in something else than coin ?

Again, if Senators will turn to the very statute authorizing the issuance of these bonds (12 United States Statutes at Large, 345) they will find the same act authorized the issuance of 150,000,000 of legal-tenders and provided that the bonds might be paid for in these very legal-tenders or any others heretofore or hereafter issued;  and further provided that said notes, or legal-tenders, as we now term them, shall be "a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except duties on imports and interest as aforesaid."

And yet, in the face of all this, we are told that the purchasers believed that these bonds were and are to be paid in gold.  How preposterous the proposition !

Again, Congress seems to have been most abundantly cautious, for in every bond ever issued the law authorizing its issuance is especially referred to in the following language:  "This debt is authorized by act of Congress approved" --after which follows the date;  so that any one wishing to purchase was in the very bond he was proposing to purchase, referred to the law.  How could anybody be misled ?  Nobody was misled.  The Government was as particular and cautious as the agent who, acting under a power of attorney, should, in the conveyance he made as such agent, insert in totidem verbis his power of attorney.

In the bonds known as the 4 per cent. bonds is found the following language:  to be paid "in coin of the standard value of the United States on said July 14, 1870, with interest in such coin."  Neither the law nor the bond says "gold coin," but "of the standard value of the United States on said July 14, 1870."  Here the Government and the purchasers stipulated for coin of a certain standard value.  Yet, we are told by the Executive in his message:

To require the public creditors to take in repayment any dollar of less commercial value would be regarded by them as a repudiation of the full obligation assumed.

The Government did not and would not bind itself to pay in coin of a certain or any commercial value.  The creditors, the purchasers of the bonds, the other contracting party, would not and did not bind themselves to receive in payment coin of a certain or any commercial value.  The contract was for a certain standard value.  I have no doubt the law was thus framed, the bond thus drawn, the contract thus made, at the instance of the creditors.  What right have they now to complain, much less to call it repudiation ?!

On the 14th of July, 1870, under the act of which date these 4 per cent. bonds are issued, the silver dollar contained 412½ grains of standard silver" and was the legal equivalent of the gold dollar, which then contained, as it does now, 25.8 grains of standard gold."

The bill to remonetize silver, as it passed the House, provides for the silver dollar to contain 412½ grains of standard value.  If this bill should become a law, as I hope it will, the bondholders can be paid in either gold or silver of the standard value of July 14, 1870.  That is the contract.

In other words, the parties contracted for so many grains of silver or gold.  We propose to carry out the contract, both in letter and spirit, and give them the "pound of flesh," but not a "drop of blood" drawn from the teeming millions now crying for bread.  Neither of the contracting parties would agree to give or receive gold or silver at its commercial value so emphatically insisted upon in the message of the Executive, for that was uncertain and depended upon contingencies;  but the standard value was fixed and certain.  Let us test this:  Suppose to-day A should contract to deliver to B a thousand bushels of wheat at the expiration of five years.  At the time of the contract the commercial value of wheat is 1.50 per bushel, but at the date of the performance of the contract the commercial value of wheat is only fifty cents per bushel.  Would it be repudiation, would it be wrong in morals, for the seller to insist on the terms of his contract simply because the commercial value had changed ?  To my mind the two cases are exactly parallel.  There is no repudiation about it or any semblance of it.

But, to set this whole matter in a plainer light if possible, let us refer for a moment to the well-known resolution of March 18, 1869, "to strengthen the public credit," which is contained in section 3693 of the Revised Statutes.  It reads thus:

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.

Can anything be clearer ?  Does it anywhere appear in this resolution intended to strengthen our credit that the bonds were to be paid in gold ?  No, indeed;  but the word "silver" is expressly used, going to show conclusively to my mind that Congress intended at the time to say to all the world that they reserved to themselves the right to pay in either coin.  If Congress had intended to pay the bonds in gold, why not say so ?  Why use the now detested word "silver" at all ?

Let us go one step further.  The next section, 3694, reads as follows:

The coin paid for duties on imported goods shall be set apart as a special fund and shall be applied as follows:

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

But it is urged that gold is the standard of value throughout Europe and that we must be governed accordingly.  It is not so in France;  in that country gold, silver, and the notes of the Bank of France are all legal tenders;  and we are told in the exhaustive and very able report of Senator Jones, of Nevada, of the monetary commission, that---

Germany, where the earliest and largest purchases of these bonds were made, did not recognize gold as money until December, 1871, and has now quite as much silver as gold in its circulation.

That country which to-day holds more of our bonds than any other foreign country, at the time they were issued did not recognize gold at all, but silver.  All other nations legislate for the benefit and general good of their own citizens, but we are asked to shape our legislation for the benefit of foreign countries.

I was surprised the other day when my friend from Connecticut [Mr. Eaton] asked the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Matthews] how much land silver would buy in England.  In the name of history what a question !  I thought that over a hundred years ago we had declared ourselves to be free and independent of England and that we had a commercial policy of our own.  That question would have been very pertinent over a hundred years ago, but it is not so now.  Pretty soon after the discovery of the gold fields of California, Germany believed it to be to her interest to demonetize gold, and did demonetize it in 1857, together with Austria.  Then silver was her only standard.  Afterward she remonetized it and in 1871 demonetized silver.  Are we to be governed and controlled by any such a changing, shifting policy, or shall we have an American policy ?

But it is urged that, if we remonetize silver, it, being the cheaper, will drive gold out of the country.  Suppose it does;  if, as is predicted by the enemies of this bill, silver will flood the country, and we pay all our debts with silver, both public and private, if this bill should become a law, where is the injury to the nation or the citizens thereof ?  But it is not true that gold would be driven out.  Why does it not have that effect in France ?  Why did it not have that effect from the foundation of the Government down to the date of its demonetization ?

Suppose this bill should become a law and a great amount of silver coin should be thrown into the country, who is injured ?  Can a nation have too much gold and silver ?  Can a nation produce too much wheat and corn ?  Will it impoverish an individual to have a large amount of gold and silver ?  Will it impoverish the farmer to produce a great amount of wheat and corn ?

Are we not congratulating ourselves upon the unprecedented amount of the various cereals produced the present year ?  The United States is the great silver-producing nation of the world.  Is it patriotic, is it statesmanlike to strike down at one fell blow one of its greatest interests ?  Suppose all the world were to do what the United States has done, namely, demonetize silver, what would the State of Nevada and the western Territories be worth ?  I think it is statesmanlike to stimulate production and to increase the value of the productions of one's own country.  And how more certainly can you increase the value of anything than by increasing the uses to which it may be adapted ?  The enemies of the bill all the time argue as though we were proposing to enter upon some new experiment.  From the foundation of this Government down to February 12, 1873, when silver was demonetized, silver was a circulating medium and a legal tender for all debts, public and private, and the country witnessed no such direful effects as are now predicted.

Mr. President, from the day that Abraham counted out "four hundred shekels of silver current money with the merchant" for the purchase of the cave of Machpelah down to the day that silver was demonetized in this country, it has been used all over the world.  I am willing to judge the future by the past. But we are told and threatened by a syndicate representing for the most part foreign capital that if this bill should pass our bonds cannot be re-funded, and that we shall have to continue to pay 5 and 6 per cent. interest instead of 4 per cent.  We are told that the public debt of the United States to the amount of $729,000,000 bears interest at the rate of 6 per cent. and $708,000,000 at the rate of 5 per cent., aggregating $1,437,000,000, and that if we bind ourselves to pay this in gold, principal and interest, it can be funded in 4 per cent. bonds, thereby saving to the country annually about $20,000,000. That debt is now payable in silver.  If you make it payable in gold you increase the amount of the debt just as much as gold is worth more than silver.  This is the great argument urged before the Committee on Finance by the bankers from New York and Philadelphia.

What advantage is it to a man to diminish the interest he is paying on a debt if at the same time he increases the principal and makes it more difficult to pay ?  The difference between gold and silver now is about 3 per cent.  I see this morning it is a little over that.  Hence the proposition of these gentlemen who hold our bonds is to add 3 per cent. to our indebtedness which, upon $1,437,000,000 is $43,110,000 !  I ask this Senate and the country, will you do it ?  I answer, for one, not by my vote.

Nor is this all.  The Secretary of the Treasury, in a letter dated November 19, 1877, in response to a resolution of the House of Representatives, transmitted the contract entered into with this syndicate for the purchase and sale of these bonds.  By the terms of this contract these parties are to be paid by the Government for buying these bonds one-half of 1 per cent. payable in coin, which amounts to $7,185,000;  which added to the difference between gold and silver, heretofore referred to, amounts to the enormous sum of $50,295,000, by which our indebtedness will be increased.  I appeal to Senators to know if they are ready to add $50,295,000 to our present indebtedness. I cannot believe it.  Yet that is the effect of the rejection of this bill;  for if the bill should be rejected silver will still be demonetized, and these high contracting parties will construe our action into a tacit consent to the contract.

I do not believe the people of this country will sanction any action or non-action of Congress by which they shall be compelled to pay this enormous debt in gold, and also pay $7,185,000 in coin for the luxury.  For that is the naked proposition, that we shall now by non-action bind ourselves to pay this enormous debt in gold and to pay to this syndicate $7,185,000 for the luxury of so doing.

But we are told that if we pass this bill it will injure the public credit of the nation.  What are the facts ?  Since 1861, as shown by the reports of the Secretary of the Treasury, we have paid to these bondholders, in gold, who bought and paid for our bonds in greenbacks when they were only worth forty or fifty cents on the dollar, the enormous sum of $1,601,469,797.46 in interest, and of the principal $696,273,348.17, which, added to the interest, makes $2,297,743,145.63, which is $251,716,076.69, less the cash in the Treasury, more than the whole debt of the United States on December 1, 1877.  I repeat it, all this vast sum was paid to these bondholders in gold in about fifteen years, who paid us for these bonds in greenbacks, and yet we are told that if we pass this bill we will be acting in bad faith and will injure our credit.  The statement is preposterous !  Why all this clamor about good faith with the public creditors ?  Had we not better turn our eyes homeward and think and talk a little more about good faith with our people, the starving millions crying for bread ?  As gold goes up everything else goes down, values shrink;  hence from 1873 to 1877, inclusive, the failures in the United States amount to $1,157,033,925, one-half of the present indebtedness of the Government, and these failures are increasing every year and will necessarily continue until silver is remonetized the resumption act repealed, contraction stopped, and the impost duties are paid in legal-tenders.  Then legal-tenders, gold, and silver all will be of equal value.

Mr. President, I now come to one of the most remarkable and to my mind one of the most fraudulent pieces of legislation this or any other country ever saw.  I refer to the manner of the passage of the bill demonetizing silver.  I will not occupy the time of the Senate by going over the whole history of this most iniquitous transaction.  Mr. Hooper, since deceased, was at the time chairman of the committee having charge of a bill which had been referred to his committee, and on May 27, 1872, reported a substitute and moved to suspend the rules and pass the substitute, upon which motion, among other things, the following occurred, which any Senator can find by turning to the Congressional Globe, part 57 page 3883, and is as follows:

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.

Mr. Randall.  I should like to have the bill read, although I am willing that the rules shall be suspended as to the passage of the bill.

The question was put on suspending the rules and passing the bill without reading;  and (two thirds not voting in favor thereof) the rules were not suspended.

Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts.  I now move that the rules be suspended, and the substitute for the bill in relation to mints and coinage passed;  and I ask 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.

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts, to suspend the rules and pass the bill, it was agreed to;  there being-- ayes 110, noes 13.

And so the rules were suspended, and the substitute passed without its ever being read or any member of that body knowing the contents of it.

Mr. Allison.  Is not the substitute there ?

Mr. Hereford.  No, it is not.

Mr. Sargent.  The Speaker says "the substitute will be read."  Does the Senator show by the Record that it was not read ?

Mr. Allison.  The motion was to read the substitute and not the original bill, as I understand.

Mr. Sargent.  An ordinary parliamentary proceeding.

Mr. Hereford.  No, sir;  I will read you the whole of it.

Mr. Allison.  I understood the motion to be to read the substitute and not the original bill.  Now the original bill and the substitute were alike in reference to this question of the demonetization of silver.

Mr. Hereford.  That was the very thing the gentlemen composing that House did not know.  It was true that weeks before the question had been discussed, but nobody knew what this substitute was.

Mr. Allison.  But the substitute was read, I infer from the statement made there.

Mr. Hereford.  No, sir;  the substitute was not read.

Mr. Allison.  But the record seems to indicate it.

Mr. Hereford.  I will read the whole of it:

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.

---[once again, which side are you on ?  pay attention to what is read, then vote against it;  you were there on April 9, huffed and puffed and claimed to know what was in the bill]

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.

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts, to suspend the rules and pass the bill, it was agreed to;  there being-- ayes 110, noes 13.

Mr. Allison.  That does not show but that the substitute was read.

Mr. Hereford.  It does show distinctly that the motion was to suspend the rules and pass the bill without its being read, and that the bill was passed without ever being read or any member knowing its contents except the initiated.

Mr. Sargent.  Will the Senator yield to me a moment ?  As I understand the record, it corresponds with my recollection, for I was in the House at that time.

Mr. Hereford.  So was I.

Mr. Sargent.  The Record, found on page 3882 of the Congressional Globe of that year, shows that the motion made by Mr. Hooper was that the rules be suspended and the substitute passed without reading;  but that motion was defeated.  Subsequently he made a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, and the substitute was read before its passage.

Mr. Hereford.  No, sir;  the language is this:

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. Sargent.  That might be, and yet the Record not show that the substitute was not read.

Mr. Hereford.  Listen further.  Mr. Brooks said:

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

Mr. Sargent.  "Both read."

Mr. Hereford.  Go a little further back---

Mr. Sargent.  I do not wish to interrupt the Senator;  but he will allow me to say that members required the reading of the substitute, and when Mr. Hooper refused to allow that his motion to suspend the rules was voted down.  That motion contained two clauses, one of which was that the substitute pass without reading.  Subsequently the substitute was read, and then members asked that the bill for which it was to be substituted should be read.  That was refused.  The substitute having been read, the rules were suspended and it was passed;  and the refusal the Senator there refers to was the refusal to read another bill for which this was substituted by the motion of Mr. Hooper.  The substitute was read.  Here it says:

The Clerk began to read the substitute.

Then he was interrupted by debate, and the reading of the substitute was subsequently finished.

Mr. Saulsbury.  I should like to ask the Senator from California if that Record does not show that after the reading of the substitute was commenced there was an interruption, and afterward there was no reading of the substitute.

Mr. Sargent.  It does not show affirmatively that the Clerk did not finish reading tbe substitute.

Mr. Saulsbury.  Is not that the plain inference from the record ?

Mr. Sargent.  On the contrary, the House had voted down the first motion to suspend the rules, which would have thereby prevented the reading of the substitute.  The question was, as shown by the debate, whether the substitute should be read or not.  The House determined that the substitute should be read, and voted down a motion to suspend the rules, which would have prevented it.  Then the Clerk began to read the substitute;  a debate sprang up, and subsequently the substitute was adopted.  The inference plainly is that the determination of the House was carried out and that the substitute was read.

Mr. Saulsbury.  I do not wish to interrupt the Senator from West Virginia, but I appeal to the Senate that the reading of the Record by the Senator from West Virginia shows that as matter of courtesy, not as matter of right, some gentleman of the House said, "I would like to have it read," and the Clerk commenced reading it, when debate ensued and no further reading was proceeded with, and the vote was taken without the substitute having been read.

Mr. Sargent.  If it is not interrupting the Senator from West Virginia unpleasantly, I should like to make this clear.  The original debate on the motion to suspend the rules ran as follows:

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.

Mr. Randall.  I should like to have the bill read, although I am willing that the rules shall be suspended as to the passage of the bill.

There was the distinction made.  They were willing the rules should be suspended as to the passage of the bill, but wanted to have the substitute read.

The question was put on suspending the rules and passing the bill without reading, and (two-thirds not voting in favor thereof) the rules were not suspended.

In other words, those who insisted that the substitute should be read prevailed.  Then, after the interruption of some formal business, the Globe proceeds:

Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts.  I now move that the rules be suspended and the substitute for the bill in relation to mints and coinage passed;  and I ask that the substitute be read.

Mr. Hooper yielded to the temper of the House, himself concedes the point, and consented that the substitute should 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.

And so on as the Senator read, Mr. Brooks then insisting that the Clerk should read not only the substitute but the original bill which was not before the House.  The House refused to do that, and the substitute was read and passed by a suspension of the rules.  My recollection is to that effect and I find that I there in the debate interjected some remarks showing that my attention was directly and positively called to the subject at the time.  I speak not only by the record but by my own recollection.

Mr. Hereford.  Mr. President, I was a member of the House at the time the bill was under discussion.  I recollect very distinctly what took place, and what I have read to-day from the Record shows the impression that I had then to be true.

Mr. Sargent.  Will my friend allow me a moment more, and I will not disturb him again ?  As this depends a little on inference from the Record, I should like to show what took place as supporting my inference from the Record as well as my recollection in this very debate.

Mr. McCormick, of Missouri.  I ask that the nineteenth section be again read. The section was read, as follows:

Showing that it was all read; and then Mr. McCormick, of Missouri, asked that the nineteenth section be read again.  That is found on page 3883 of the Globe of that year.

Mr. Hereford.  Now, Mr. President, my friend from California is a great friend of gold, and I suppose he has put his remarks into my speech as "apples of gold in pictures of silver;"  but the construction he has placed on this is not correct, nor does it so accord with the fact.  I will go back for a moment. The only way in which this is at all confused is that sometimes gentlemen who were making objections or who were speaking on this subject got the matter confused as between the original bill and the substitute, and spoke of "the bill" when they had reference to the substitute.  Mr. Hooper was not attempting to pass the bill;  he was attempting to pass the substitute for the bill, which was not to be read.  Mr. Kerr said:

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.

Nobody was attempting to put the bill through.  They were attempting to put the substitute through.  Nobody was called to vote upon the bill.  They were called to vote upon the substitute.  The Speaker in another place says:

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.

Would he not know what was going on if the bill was to be read or was read ?  Most assuredly.  There is no other sense in the language used by the gentleman from New York.  The recollection of the Senator from Kentucky, who was a member of the House then, [Mr. Beck,] corresponds with my recollection of the facts and corresponds with the only interpretation of the proceedings of the House at that time.

Mr. Sargent.  How do you understand the request of Mr. McCormick, of Missouri, that the nineteenth section be again read ?

Mr. Hereford.  That section may have been read.  It nowhere appears in the Record that the substitute was read.  If the Senator from California will go back about six weeks before that, when the original bill was up, he will see there that it was read section by section and explained by Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts, section by section, telling what was contained in it.  No such proceeding was had upon this substitute.

Mr. Hoar.  Will the Senator from West Virginia allow me to ask him a question ?  I have some memory of that transaction;  I was a member of the House at the time.  Is it not true that the House first ordered the substitute to be read by a vote ?  Then. a little later, is it not true that a member of the House rose --does not that appear from the record ?-- and said:  "I ask that the nineteenth section be again read," and that thereupon the nineteenth section of the substitute was read and is there set forth ?  Now, if that be true, I appeal to the candid judgment of the honorable Senator from West Virginia, whether it is possible to argue that the substitute had not been read. The nineteenth section of the substitute had been read once under the general order that the whole substitute be read.  Then a member of the House rises and says, "I ask that the nineteenth section be again read," and thereupon the nineteenth section of the substitute is read.  That, of course, could not refer to a reading six weeks before of the original bill, when the substitute had not come into existence at all.

Mr. Hereford.  Now, allow me, in reply to the Senator from Massachusetts, to read from the Record.  To show what a hurry Mr. Hooper was in, I will go a little further back:

I desire to call up the bill (H.R. No. 1427) revising and amending the laws relative to mints, assay offices, and coinage of the United States.  I do so for the purpose of offering an amendment to the bill in the nature of a substitute, one which has been very carefully prepared and which I have submitted to the different gentlemen in this House who have taken a special interest in the bill.  I find that it meets with universal approbation in the form in which I offer it.  I move that the rules be suspended, and that the substitute ---[which is H.R. 2934] be put on its passage.

Mr. Brooks.  I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Hooper] to postpone his motion until his colleague on the committee, my colleague from New York, [Mr. Potter] is in his seat.  It is my impression that he does not concur in this substitute.

Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts.  It is so late in the session that I must decline waiting any longer.

Mr. Brooks.  I would again suggest to the gentleman that he should wait until my colleague comes in.

Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts.  I cannot do so.

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. ---now, see what Mr. Hooper's desire was and his desire was carried out--- I hope not.  It is a long bill, and those who are interested in it are perfectly familiar with its provisions.

The Speaker said the substitute would be read, and Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts, said:

I hope not.  It is a long bill.

He got confused also between the substitute and the bill.  Bear in mind the Speaker said, "The substitute will be read;"  and then 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. Hoar.  Was not the substitute also a bill ?

Mr. Hereford.  Of course.

Mr. Hoar.  Then does not the Senator from West Virginia understand that when Mr. Hooper said "it is a long bill" he referred to the substitute ?

Mr. Hereford. Now, sir, how can the gentleman so torture the English language ?  The Speaker says "The substitute will be read;"  and then at once Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts says, "I hope not."  Did he not know what he was talking about ?  He said he hoped the substitute would not be read.

Mr. Hoar. The honorable Senator certainly does not understand my question. Mr. Hooper was arguing against the reading of the substitute. A demand for the reading of the substitute was made, and Mr. Hooper replied, "I hope the substitute will not be read;  it is a long bill."  Is it torturing the English language to say that the "long bill" he spoke of was the substituted bill which was proposed ?  He was arguing against the reading of that. And is it not also true that the House overruled the desire of Mr. Hooper and ordered the substitute to be read;  and that thereupon, after it had been read, a member said:  "I desire that the nineteenth section be read again," and the 19th section of the substitute was then read again in accordance with that desire, showing that the whole substituted bill had once been read.

Mr. Hereford. Now, if the Senator is through, I will try to put this matter clear. As I said before I was interrupted, Mr. Hooper reported from this committee a substitute. In parliamentary language there is no such thing as a substitute;  it is not known, but we understand what they all meant here. He reported from the committee a substitute. That was what he desired to have passed, and here is the language that was used:

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.

He was not seeking to have the original bill read or passed;  he was seeking to have his substitute passed. As he said in as plain language as it is possible for a man to use, he hoped the substitute would not be read, and his wish was carried out.

Mr. Sargent. Oh, no, he was voted down.

Mr. Hereford. Now go a little further:

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

Mr. Hooper, as chairman of the committee, was not asking that the bill be read;  he did not have the bill before him;  he came from his committee with a substitute, had it before the House;  it was in the hands of the Clerk;  that was what he was seeking to have passed;  that was what they were talking about;  and Mr. Kerr says:

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.

He notified the country of it then, that it was attempted to put through without reading the bill, ash sometimes termed it, and as Mr. Hooper sometimes termed it; but the thing they were seeking to put through was a substitute in the nature of a bill;  and Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts, said he did not want it read, and the Speaker ruled that it need not be read, and Mr. Kerr rose in his seat, and it seems to me to-day that I can almost hear his clarion voice as he had on former occasions warned the country of an attempt to put jobs through that House, and said, as he did often:  "I want the House to understand that it is attempted to put through this bill without being read."  They were not attempting to put the bill through, but the substitute. What was the conclusion of the whole matter ?  We have seen what the desire of Mr. Hooper was:

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts, to suspend the rules and pass the bill, it was agreed to;  there being-- ayes 110, noes 31.

To my mind there can be nothing clearer;  and this is the first time I have ever heard it denied that the bill was passed without being read.  But the fraud does not stop here;  by this bill the silver then in existence was not demonetized but remained a legal tender.  It only affected the future coinage.  The foul consummation of this fraud upon the people was reserved for another occasion.  Subsequently the laws of the United States were revised, being in charge of a committee of the House of which Mr. Poland, of Vermont, was chairman.  Time and again he assured the House of Representatives that the revision had in no respect changed any law in any manner whatever;  yet in section 3586 of the Revised Statutes we find the demonetization of silver apply as well to the silver heretofore coined as that hereafter coined.  Was that by accident or design ?

This demonetization of silver has a peculiarly singular history --a most remarkable chapter of accidents.  We have seen that it passed the House without being read or anyone knowing anything about it.  We have seen the law was changed or attempted to be changed in the adoption of the Revised Statutes, notwithstanding the repeated assurances that no change had been made.  But what more do we see ?  Why, in some manner or other, best known to those engaged in the conspiracy, the President of the United States signed the bill without knowing there was any provision in it demonetizing silver.  The bill demonetizing silver was passed February, 1873.  In a letter written October 3, 1873, to Mr. Cowdry, General Grant said:

The panic has brought greenbacks about to a par with silver.  I wonder that silver is not already coming into the market to supply the deficiency in the circulating medium.  When it does come, and I predict that it will soon, we will have made a rapid stride towards specie payments.  Currency will never go below silver after that.

The circulation of silver will have other beneficial effects.  Experience has proved that it takes about forty millions of fractional currency to make small change necessary for the transaction of the business of the country.  Silver will gradually take the place of this currency, and, further, will become the standard of values which will be hoarded in a small way.  I estimate that this will consume from two to three hundred millions, in time, of this species of our circulating medium.  It will leave the paper currency free to perform the legitimate functions of trade and will tend to bring us back where we must come at last, to a specie basis.  I confess to a desire to see a limited hoarding of money.  It insures a firm foundation in time of need.  But I want to see the hoarding of something that has a standard of value the world over.  Silver has this, and if we once get back to that our strides toward a higher appreciation of our currency will be rapid.  Our mines are now producing almost unlimited amounts of silver, and it is becoming a question, "What shall we do with it ?"  I suggest here a solution that will answer for some years, and suggest to you bankers whether you may not imitate it:  To put it in circulation now;  keep it there until it is fixed, and then we will find other markets.

Has the world ever seen such a chapter of accidents about a matter of so much importance ?

I said accidents.  I recall that word and use the one more consistent, as I believe, with truth, namely, design, deliberation, an intention in this indirect way to defraud the people.  Here we see that seven months after General Grant signed the bill he was utterly ignorant of it, and is wondering "that silver is not already coming into the market to supply the deficiency in the circulating medium."  He says he wants to "see a hoarding of something that is a standard of value the world over.  Silver is that."  He thought there was a "deficiency in the circulating medium."  He thought "silver was a standard of value the world over."  I commend his views to those of my friends on the other side of the Chamber who have fought so long under his banner.

Let us for a moment review the history of this whole matter.  When our national debt was first created we have seen it could be paid either in legal-tenders, silver, or gold.  First you took from the people the right to pay it in legal-tenders, and made it payable in coin.  Secondly, you demonetized silver, by which you compel them to pay it in gold, and in addition to this all the time you have been contracting the currency.  Is it any wonder gold has appreciated and everything else depreciated ?  We only have about $180,000,000 in gold coin and bullion in the United States, as shown by the last report of the Director of the Mint.  It requires more than half of that to pay our annual interest on the national debt, to say nothing of the principal.  Where is your gold to come from to pay the principal and interest on the untold millions --some, say, $10,000,000,000-- of our State, county, municipal, and corporation debts ?  Where will my friend from New York get the gold to pay your State taxes, for you have passed a law compelling your citizens to pay them in gold after January, 1879 !  Where will the citizens of New York get the coin with which to pay their private debts contracted after January 1, 1879 ?  For you have passed a law compelling them to pay such debts in coin.  Where will you get the gold to resume specie payments, to pay the $300,000,000 of legal-tenders ?  For it is all folly to say that they can be reissued after they have been redeemed, for if such be the proper construction, that the Secretary of the Treasury, or any one man, has the power to contract or expand the currency at his will, it ought instantly to be repealed.  No such wonderful, startling power should for a day rest in the grasp of any mortal man.  Truly indeed would we have a union of the purse and sword, which could and would be wielded for the purpose of swaying elections and controlling legislation.

Mr. President, I have already detained the Senate longer than I should.  I have sought in my humble way to put forth one plea for justice to the American citizen.  I do not know that I can bring my remarks to a close more becomingly than by reading and commending to the American Senator the language of one of England's greatest men as he was quitting power after having just made a masterly struggle for the suffering poor of his own country.  It is the last speech of Sir Robert Peel, in abdicating his position, not only as prime minister, but as the leader of a great party.  He thus concluded his address upon this memorable occasion:

In quitting power I shall leave behind a name severely blamed, I fear, by many men, who without any personal interest, but only with a view to the public good, will bitterly deplore the rupture of party ties from a belief that fidelity to party engagements and the maintenance of great parties are powerful and essential means of government;  that I shall also be blamed by others, who, without personal interest, adhere to the principle of protection, which they regard as necessary to the prosperity of the country;  that I shall leave a name detested by all monopolists who, from less honorable motives, claim a protection by which they largely profit;  but I shall, perhaps, leave a name which will sometimes be pronounced with expressions of good-will by those whose lot in this world is to labor, who in the sweat of their brow eat their daily bread, and who may remember me when they renew their strength by food at once abundant and untaxed, and which will be the better relished because no longer imbittered by any feeling of injustice.