REMONETIZAIiOim 
 
 (v-e uuf 
 
 OUju ..ge of silver. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 HON. JOHN M. BRIGHT, 
 
 OF TENNESSEE, 
 
 0 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 JANUARY 26, 1878. 
 
 WASHINGTON. 
 
 1878 . 
 
H 
 
# 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STEECn 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. JOHN M. BRIGHT. 
 
 Tli^ House being as in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for 
 general debate— 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT said: 
 
 Mr. Speaker: I propose to offer some remarks ripon the subject 
 of the remonetization and free coinage of the silver dollar and the 
 legal tender thereof. Ido not propose to indulge in the platitudes 
 and the clap-trap of financial theorists, because the question is too 
 intensely practical to justify any one in attempting to allay or mis¬ 
 lead the minds of the country with such philosophical disquisitions. 
 
 The question is so vitally practical that it pushes its fibers into 
 every man’s pocket and sends its roots into all the channels of in¬ 
 dustry. 
 
 I feel deeply interested in this measure. I believe I can say with¬ 
 out vanity that I was the first person to call the attention of this 
 body and of the country, in January, 1875, to the remonetization of 
 the silver dollar. I followed it up in the Forty-fourth Congress and 
 pressed it with zeal upon the attention of the democratic party and 
 of this House. I am here to-day to follow it up with equal zeal, and 
 to press it still further upon the consideration of this body and of 
 the country. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, it is very proper to know what is the gist of the ques¬ 
 tion before the country. The question is not whether we shall have 
 a bimetallic currency; that question lias been settled by the Consti¬ 
 tution of our country. It is no longer an open question, being im¬ 
 bedded in the Constitution, the organic law of the country. Why, 
 sir, it is idle for us to consume the time of this body and that of the 
 country in such a discussion. Beyond question the right was reserved 
 to the States to make gold and silver a legal tender. In considerat ion 
 of that reserved power to the States, the power was conferred by the 
 States on the General Government to coin money and to regulate the 
 value of foreign coins, clearly showing that the General Government 
 had assumed the obligation of domestic coinage, and also guaranteed 
 the iuliow of foreign coins. By these provisions the people supposed 
 that they would be secure in all their money facilities. 
 
 In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the important question arises out 
 of these constitutional provisions, that the people as well as the 
 States should have the power to make gold or silver a legal tender in 
 the solution of the debts of the States and in solution of the debts of 
 private individuals. What was to be the extent of this tender ? It 
 was to be commensurate with the wants either of the States or of the 
 individuals; and if such right existed I should like to know why it 
 is that the question is agitated now and the right arrogated under 
 
4 
 
 the Constitution of the United States to demonetize silver at the ex¬ 
 pense of the Constitution and the rights of the people ? 
 
 Sir, it is not an open question ; it is a question settled; and when¬ 
 ever the Congress of the United States attempts to disturb that well- 
 settled principle it overleaps the barriers of the Constitution and 
 runs riot over the rights of the people and the States. I am sup¬ 
 ported in this. Here is the argument of Mr. Thomas H. Benton, 
 who was considered the father of the hard-money doctrine and called 
 “ Old Bullion.” If gentlemen are interested enough in the question 
 here is his argument, and I shall only read a paragraph from it. I 
 read from volume 1, page 444 of his Thirty Years’ View : 
 
 Mr. Benton believed that it was the intention and declared meaning of the Con¬ 
 stitution 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 n 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 Con¬ 
 stitution, 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. 
 
 If the fact be so, Mr. Speaker, I come to the iraportaut question 
 and announce that the demonetization of the silver dollar was a 
 breach of the Constitution, that it was destructive of the rights of the 
 States, that it was an invasion of the rights of the people, that it was 
 striking down one of the elements of legal tender for the solution of 
 contracts in the United States. I, sir, stand here and propose to 
 meet the question precisely as it is. I say, sir, that the demonetiza¬ 
 tion of the silver dollar was a fraud upon the people of the United 
 States by depriving them of one of their constitutional coins; that it 
 was a fraud on the General and State Governments by lopping off one 
 of their financial arms ; that it was a fraud on the legislation of the 
 country by an undue advantage in cutting off legislative considera¬ 
 tion ; that it was a fraud on the President of the United States, from 
 whom the fraud was concealed by the artful phraseology of the law, 
 as shown by his Cowdry letter; that it was a fraud on the mining 
 resources of the country by depreciating the value of our vast silver 
 mines; that it was a fraud on posterity by an attempt to double the 
 value of the public debt which goes to them by inheritance. 
 
 I happened to be a member of Congress at the time of the passage 
 of that bill. Its passage is not susceptible of vindication, notwith¬ 
 standing the puerile apologies in its behalf. It was passed by fraud in 
 the House, never having been printed in advance, being a substitute for 
 the printed bill; never having been read at the Clerk’s desk, the read¬ 
 ing having been dispensed with by an impression that the bill made 
 no material alteration in the coinage laws; it was passed without 
 discussion, debate being cut off by operation of the previous question. 
 It was passed to my certain information under such circumstances 
 that the fraud escaped the attention of some of the most watchful 
 as well as the ablest statesmen in Congress at the time. It was 
 passed near the closing days of the session, when in the bustle and 
 precipitate rush of business it was most favorable for the conceal¬ 
 ment of fraud. It was passed without previous discussion or agita¬ 
 tion before the people and without having been voted upon by the peo¬ 
 ple. Ay, sir, it was a fraud that “ smells to heaven.” It was a fraud 
 that will stink in the nose of posterity and for which some persons 
 mn«»t give account in ttiA day of retribution, and God grant “that no 
 guilty man may escape!” 
 
I state furthermore, Mr. Speaker, that the attempt to hold the 
 fraudulent advantage which lias been secured by that legislation is 
 indefensible, in my opinion, upon any principle of either law or 
 morality. 
 
 But, sir, we will notice now an apology or two for the passage of 
 this act. We are told, sir, that under the law of 1834 gold was over¬ 
 valued and forced silver out of the country. Then, sir, if gold had 
 been overvalued it ought to have been reduced in value by appro¬ 
 priate legislation which would bring it to the equation of silver so 
 that both metals should harmonize as a currency in the country with¬ 
 out resorting to the unphilosophic, unconstitutional mode of banish¬ 
 ing the unoffending metal from the country. The error of the former 
 legislation ought to have been corrected. To show the evils of that 
 legislation I call the attention of the House to an extract from Mr. 
 Seyd’s valuable work on Metallic Currency in America: 
 
 The American silver coinage was always liable to exportation , for the simple reason 
 that it contained an UNDUE I’UOPORTION of SILVER. In all countries where the 
 double valuation prevails, the relative proportion of value between gold and sil¬ 
 ver stands at 1 to 15$, and the market value of silver in countries where it is not 
 a standard give on the average the same result. In the United States alone the 
 rate taken was 1 part of gold to 16 of silver, (15 988.37,) the proportion resulting 
 from the Eagle at 258 and the silver dollar at 412$ grains. The dollar, therefore, 
 contained 3$ (3.29) per cent, more silver than it ought to have contained according 
 to its nominal value. No wonder, then, that the dollar was rapidly exported and 
 that no one found inducement to bring silver to the mints for coinage. And let it 
 be understood that the supply of gold had little or nothing to do with this. Long 
 before the discovery of gold in California, ever since 1837, has the effect of this 
 premium on the United States silver dollar made itself manifest. In exchange for 
 it the foreigner need not have supplied gold; other commodities served the pur¬ 
 pose of realizing elsewhere the large profit which the United States gave to the 
 exporter of her silver coin. Much that has been doubtful, peculiar, and unsatis¬ 
 factory in the history of the United States currency between 1837 and 1850 owes 
 its origin to this astounding mistake on the part of the Government, which must, 
 as every one can see, have given rise to general disorganization of the curreney 
 and to disappointment in the capacity of the country to retain metallic currency. 
 I go farther and say that it was the cause why America was obliged to make so 
 large a use of paper money, with all its evils of unequal'interests, extravagant 
 habits and expenditure.— Seyd on Metallic Currency , pages 52, 53. 
 
 In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, they tell ns that the old dollar 
 was dead. Dead! Why, Mr. Speaker, if dead it needed no enact¬ 
 ment. But if it was not for the time needed, the dormant right to 
 it remained in the Constitution, as many dormant powers remain there 
 to be called up and exercised as occasion may demand; therefore 
 the argument is without reason, and I shall proceed to notice another. 
 If it was dead then I suppose they enacted that it should be buried, 
 and the funeral ceremonies were performed here under the act of 
 1873, which was the winding-sheet of the old silver dollar—the old 
 dollar of the fathers, with all its historic memories. Sir, they bore 
 it away as in the case of a burial of old under circumstances which 
 are familiar to every one : 
 
 Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note. 
 
 As his corse to the rampart wo hunied. 
 
 ★ * * * * 
 
 AVe carved not a line, and we raised not a stone 
 
 But left him alone with his glory. 
 
 But, Mr. Speaker, it ought to have been sufficient for those who were 
 apologizing for the demonetization of the old silver dollar to have told 
 the truth about the old veteran that had stood and battled with all 
 the financial storms of the Government from 1792 down to 1873. 
 Investigation shows it was not dead, but that it was alive. From 
 the report of the Director of the Mint in 1870, pages 33 and 34, it ap- 
 
(3 
 
 pe&rs—and I have the table here—that for t 
 its demonetization there was more of the ol 
 the American Mint than in any five years be 
 the evidence: 
 
 The following statement shows the silver dollars 
 from 1792 till 1873; and that in 1872 and 1873 more sil> 
 United States Mint than in any five years from the cc 
 ment. It will be seen, then, that these reasons assigi 
 the silver dollar are pure fabrications. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Number. 
 
 
 1793 ) 
 
 
 1848 . 
 
 1794 V . 
 
 204, 791 
 
 1849 . 
 
 1795 ) 
 
 1850 
 
 1796 . 
 
 72, 920 
 
 7, 796 
 327, 526 
 
 1851. 
 
 1797 . 
 
 1852 . 
 
 1798 . 
 
 1853 .. 
 
 1799 . 
 
 432[ 515 
 
 1854 . 
 
 1800 . 
 
 220, 920 
 54, 454 
 
 1855 .. 
 
 1801. 
 
 1856 . 
 
 1802 . 
 
 41,650 
 
 1857 . 
 
 1803 . 
 
 66, 064 
 
 1858 . 
 
 1804 .. 
 
 19, 570 
 
 1859 . 
 
 1805 . 
 
 321 
 
 1860 . 
 
 1806 to 1835. 
 
 None. 
 
 1861. 
 
 1836 . 
 
 1, 000 
 
 J 862. 
 
 1837 > 
 
 None. 
 
 1863 . 
 
 1838 3 . 
 
 1864 . 
 
 1839 . 
 
 300 
 
 1865 . 
 
 1840 . 
 
 61, 005 
 
 1866 .. .*.. 
 
 1841. 
 
 173, 000 
 
 1867 . 
 
 1842 . 
 
 184, 618 
 
 1868 . 
 
 1843 . 
 
 185,100 
 20, 000 
 
 1869 . 
 
 1844 . 
 
 1870 . 
 
 1845 . 
 
 24, 500 
 169, 600 
 
 1871. 
 
 1846 . 
 
 1872 . 
 
 1847 . 
 
 140, 750 
 
 1873, three 
 
 
 The true reason, Mr. Speaker, was to be 
 Germany was attempting the demonetizat 
 thought she was becoming affluent in gold b 
 German indemnity and commenced the proje 
 that the apprehended engorgement of Arneri 
 suit in the depreciation of the American bo 
 movement commences abroad and reaches 
 have the foreign bondholder uniting with t 
 and beseeching the Congress of the United 
 manner; and the project for the solution of 
 demonetization of the silver dollar, because 
 in that coin. That would make gold highei 
 -cheaper; it would make our bonds, if they s 
 tization of the silver dollar, 1.20 to 1 of tin 
 The American statesman sees the bondholder i 
 mon ” amid his boxes of gold and bonds; he 1 
 national honor and his heart melts and the l 
 old silver dollar is buried out of sight for tl 
 the hard-handed people, upon whose broad 
 of this country rest for their prosperity, get 
 nickel and the subsidiary silver coins 7 pe: 
 leled American smartness! 
 
i 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, I propose to offer some reasons wliy the silver 
 dollar should be recoined. In the first i>lace, the obligations of the 
 Constitution require that it should be remonetized. 
 
 Second. It is needed for general circulation to pay the debts, the 
 taxes, and the judgments which may be rendered against pri¬ 
 vate individuals. California, we are told, can consume and utilize 
 $100,000,000 herself. 
 
 Third. It is needed by the States for revenues to pay their bonds 
 and other debts. The General Government has taxed State banks 
 out of existence, expelled foreign coins, and deprived the States of 
 facilities which they had from the foundation of the Government in 
 the discharge of their obligations. Hence it is right that we see that 
 this currency is restored to them. 
 
 Fourth. It is needed by the banks for reserves, for deposits, and 
 for a ballast against inflation, and for specie resumption if they ever 
 reach that point. 
 
 Fifth. It is needed for foreign trade with Mexico, South America, 
 Canada, China, and all the other specie-using nations of the globe, 
 forming two-thirds of the population of the globe. 
 
 Sixth. It is needed to utilize our vast silver mines, to employ our 
 mining labor, and to turn the silver streams into the channels of 
 trade. It is needed for the encouragement of our languishing indus¬ 
 tries and the employment of our starving laborers. 
 
 Seventh. It is needed for national revenues, and to pay the national 
 debt according to contract. 
 
 The act of 1869 provides “for the payment in coin or its equiva¬ 
 lent” of the notes, “ and of all the interest-bearing obligations of the 
 United States, except in cases where the law authorizing the issue of 
 any such obligations has expressly provided that the same may be paid 
 in lawful money or other currency than gold and silver .” 
 
 Here the law defines that the word “coin” as used means 11 gold 
 and silver.” 
 
 The act of 1870 provides that the bonds issued under it shall be 
 payablein coin, at its(then) standard value. Both gold and silver had 
 their legal standard value at the time, and the coin mentioned could 
 have referred only to the legal standard coins of the United States, 
 gold and silver. 
 
 Then if it be lawful to pay in silver, there is no reason why it should 
 not be done, though it were as plenty “ as the stones in the street.” 
 And it would be unjust to a distressed people to throw away the poor 
 advantage of paying the public debt in silver as well as gold. Mr. 
 Seyd, in his excellent treatise on Metallic Currency in the United 
 States, page 55, says : 
 
 I am convinced that if America again introduced the free coinage of silver she 
 would be enabled to retain many millions per annum, would be able to resume 
 specie payments, and pay off her national debt much sooner. 
 
 It is needed, in the eighth place, for the resumption of specie pay¬ 
 ments, as Geueral Grant said, to aid in paving the way to it, and he 
 was right for ouce. He was in favor of hoarding three or four hun¬ 
 dred millions of dollars by the people, and the people must always 
 have coin to sustain the solid specie payments of the country as I 
 will demonstrate in another connection. 
 
 Ninth. I propose to show that resumption, in its proper sense, is 
 impossible in gold in the United States. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, what are the requisites of specie resumption for a 
 nation? I apprehend there is much disagreement upon this point: 
 I apprehend that there is much misunderstanding upon this subject. 
 
8 
 
 Now, sir, what is the rule? but before I enter upon the rule, I will 
 make a statement with reference to the amount of outstanding cur¬ 
 rency and obligations that have to be met in order to put the coun¬ 
 try on what might be called a solid specie basis. 
 
 The attention of the House is respectfully invited to a few figures: 
 
 National-bank notes in circulation November 1, 1877, 
 
 as per report Comptroller Currency. $315,881,990 
 
 United States notes, same date. 354, 490, 892 
 
 Deposits in national banks, same date. 691,900,000 
 
 Deposits in State and saving-banks. 1,377,520,000 
 
 Total. 2,719,792,882 
 
 These large figures confront us in our road to resumption. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, the point to which I wish to call the attention 
 of this body particularly is this, that the rule of resumption, as 
 has been supposed by many and as has been adopted by the United 
 States, should be considered as 3 to 1; but, according to Amasa Walker, 
 the rule in fact has been an average of about 4 to 1 and even greater 
 in the United States. But this rule of 3 to 1 has been supposed only 
 to apply to the circulation of the banks of the United States. It is 
 borrowed or pretended to be borrowed from the English rule upon 
 the subject. I propose to call the attention of the House to the En¬ 
 glish rule so that America as she has been indulging her imitative 
 faculty will be disposed to give due consideration to the English 
 rule which has been made imperative by statute as to specie pay¬ 
 ments. I call the attention of the House to the work of Mr. Benton, 
 volume 2, pages 128, 129, who explains and quotes the English rule. 
 
 Here is the rule: 
 
 [From Benton’s Thirty Tears’ View, volume 2, pages 128 and 129.J 
 
 This is a point of great moment—one on which the public mind has not been 
 sufficiently awakened in this country, though well understood and duly valued in 
 England. The charters of banks in the United States are usually drawn on this 
 principle, that a certain proportion of the capital, and sometimes the whole of it, 
 shall be paid up in gold or silver before the charter shall take effect. This is the 
 usual provision, without any obligation on the bank to retain any part of this 
 specie after it gets into operation; and this provision has too often proved to 
 be illusory and deceptive. In many cases the banks have borrowed the requi¬ 
 site amount for a day and then returned it; in many other cases the proportion of 
 specie, though paid up in good faith, is immediately lent out or parted with. The 
 result to the public is about the same in both cases; the bank has little or no specie 
 and its place is supplied by the notes of other banks. The great vice of the bank¬ 
 ing system of the United States is in banking upon paper, upon the paper of each 
 other, and treating this paper as cash. This may be safe among the banks them¬ 
 selves ; it may enable them to settle with one another and to liquidate reciprocal 
 balances ; but to the public it is nothing. In the event of a run upon a bank or a 
 general run upon all banks it is specie and not paper that is wanted. It is specie 
 
 and not paper which the public want and must have. 
 
 * ★ * ~ ★ * * 
 
 The true proportion is one-third, and this to apply to all the circulation and de¬ 
 posits, except those which are special. This proportion has been fixed for a hun¬ 
 dred years at the Bank of England ; and just so often as that bank has fallen be¬ 
 low this proportion, mischief has occurred. This is the sworn opinion of the pres¬ 
 ent governor of the Bank of England and of the directors of that institution. 
 Before Lord Althorpe’s committee in 1832, Mr. Horsley Palmer, the governor of 
 the bank, testified in these words: 
 
 “ The average proportion, as already observed, of coin and bullion, which the 
 bank thinks it prudent to keep on hand, is at the rate of a third of the total amount 
 of all her liabilities, including deposits as well as issues.” 
 
 Mr. George Ward Norman, a director of the bank, states the same thing in a 
 different form of words. He says: 
 
 “ For a full state of the circulation and the deposits, say twenty-one millions of 
 notes and six millions of deposits, making in the whole twenty-seven millions of 
 liabilities, the proper sum in coin and bullion for the bank to retain is nine millions. 
 
<) 
 
 Thus, the average proportion of one-third between (he specie oil hand and the cir¬ 
 culation and deposits must be considered as an established principle at that bank, 
 which is quite tne largest and among the oldest—probably the very oldest bank of 
 circulation in the world.” 
 
 The Bank of England is not merely required to keep on hand in bullion, the 
 one-third of its immediate liabilities; it is bound also to let the country see that it 
 has or has not that proportion on hand. By an act of the third year of William 
 IV, it is required to make quarterly publications of the average of the weekly 
 liabilities of the bank, that the public may see whenever it descends below the 
 point of safety. Here is the last of these publications, which is a full exemplifi¬ 
 cation of the rule and the policy which now govern that bank: 
 
 t 
 
 ‘ Quarterly average of the weekly liabilities and assets of the Bank of England from 
 
 the \2th December, 1837, to the 6th of March, 1838, both inclusive, published pursuant 
 
 to the act 3 William IV, cap. 98.” 
 
 Liabilities: 
 
 Circulation. £18, fiOO, 000 
 
 Deposits. 11, 535, 000 
 
 30, 135, 000 
 
 Assets: 
 
 Securities. ‘22,702.900 
 
 Bullion. 10,015,000 
 
 32, 807, 900 
 
 “ London, March 12.” 
 
 The proportion in England is one-third. The bank relies upon its debts and 
 other resources for the other two-thirds in the event of a run upon it. 
 
 So you find, Mr. Speaker, that the rule adopted by the B auk of 
 England, or rather under the act of Parliament, was that one-third of 
 the liability in coin and bullion should always be in the bank, and 
 that when a run was made on the bank by the time it had exhausted 
 that one-tliird it could, from its loans, collect the two-thirds re¬ 
 mainder in coin from the country, so that it might be prepared to pay 
 off all its liabilities to every individual who had a claim against the 
 bank. That is the rule, and I propose now to apply that rule to the 
 currency of the United States and the currency and deposits of the 
 banks, to see whether we can compass the much-coveted object of 
 specie resumption, as it is called. 
 
 Now, sir, what are the facts as to the amount necessary to start 
 the resumption machinery ? Let us see. Here are the outstanding 
 United States Treasury notes in full, amounting to $354,490,892; one- 
 third of the circulation of the national banks, $101,960,003; one- 
 third of the deposits of the national banks, $230,033,000 ; one-tliird of 
 the State and savings-banks deposits, $455,500,606; to pay the annual 
 interest and sinking fund, $130,000,000; making $1,272,045,554, that, 
 is, to pay the outstanding Treasury notes of the United States in full 
 and to pay one-third of the liabilities of banks, national and State. 
 But it does not stop there, Mr. Speaker; but suppose by the English 
 rule that the people hold two-thirds of the bank circulation and de¬ 
 posits in gold which may be collected from loans while paying out 
 one-third while a run is made on these institutions. Then the people 
 in the United States, to support the Government and banks, ought to 
 have in circulation two-thirds of the bank circulation, deposits, and 
 annual interest on the bonds and sinking fund in gold, which would 
 make in the hands of the people $1,050,877,992. Add to that $1,272,- 
 645,554, which is supposed to be held by the banks, and you have the 
 grand total of $2,929,523,540 required to put the United States upon 
 the specie basis of the English government. 
 
 France has $1,200,000,000 of metal in her banks and in the country, 
 and $520,000,000 of currency besides her deposits. Yet she cannot 
 
10 
 
 venture to become specie-paying without detriment to herself. In¬ 
 stead of resumption oil the 1st of January, 1878, as contemplated, she 
 has instead recently issued $50,000,000 more paper currency. Ger¬ 
 many has $300,000,000 of gold, and she is making an effort to get to 
 a gold specie basis. But the coveted goal is far before her. 
 
 Let us apply the facts and see how far the United States is from 
 this specie resumption, as it is called. According to the report of the 
 Director of the Mint, we have in coin and bullion in this country 
 $185,000,000 of gold. Understand that the proposition is to resume. 
 Of this amount of gold the Government holds $32,595,000 and the 
 banks hold $5,000,000; so that the Government and the banks are far 
 behind. 
 
 Now let us take this $185,000,000 and subtract it from $2,929,000,- 
 000, and we still have $2,744,000,000 to be provided in gold to enable 
 us to reach the English specie basis. Whence is this to come ? The 
 Director of the Mint, in his report for 1874, page 20, uses the fol¬ 
 lowing language. Will gentlemen now give me their attention ? I 
 am using the argument and testimony of an adversary. Let us see 
 what he says upon the subject of gold supply in the world and in the 
 United States. Here is his language: 
 
 [From Report of the Director of the Mint, June 30, 1874, page 20.] 
 
 The opinion has often been advanced that the large amount of gold yielded by 
 the mines of the United States and Australia has produced an engorgement in the 
 markets of the world. That such was the eliect during the first five years after 
 these mines were opened and during which time the maximum production was 
 reached, and that a general advance in prices followed, may he safely admitted ; 
 but the undeniable fact that leading countries, like the United States, Russia, Aus¬ 
 tria, France, and Italy, are compelled to use inconvertible paper-money, not from 
 choice, but because they have not sufficient coin for a specie basis, would appear 
 to show conclusively that there is not too much gold , and especially as no one country 
 appears to possess a redundancy. This fact, and particularly when it is considered 
 that the annual production of gold is gradually decreasing , should dispel any fears 
 which may be entertained of its future decline in value relatively to land, labor, 
 and commodities. 
 
 That is the testimony of a witness who is a gold bullionist, a man 
 who is in favor of the demonetization of the silver dollar. We find, 
 therefore, that there is no engorgement of gold, no redundancy of gold 
 in Europe or America, and gold is on the decrease. The United States, 
 Russia. Austria, France, and Italy are compelled to use inconvertible 
 money for the want of gold. 
 
 Then, what is the conclusion of the argument ? 
 
 Where will you go in quest of your gold ? Will you go to Europe? 
 The countries there are in a scramble for it; it is not there. Will 
 you go to your own mines? From them the flow of gold, like the 
 fabled stream of Pactolus, flows only to bear the golden treasure to 
 other shores, leaving but a little sediment in your own country as it 
 flows through. 
 
 An effort was made to introduce the gold standard into India ; but 
 Mr. Bagehot, an Euglish writer and a gold bullionist, argued that it 
 was impolitic and impossible. 
 
 Our Government has found it impossible to introduce foreign gold 
 into our country through the powerful medium of our national bonds 
 with their large rate of interest. If anything can attract the gold 
 from Europe it is the American bond. It is not to be introduced 
 through the skill and management of the syndicate. But what is this 
 syndicate ? It is part English and part American—might be styled a 
 compound of the British lion and the American eagle. Its prototype 
 was a fabulous monster of the ancient Greeks, called a griffin, which 
 had the head and wings of an eagle and the body of a lion, and was sup- 
 
11 
 
 posed to u watch over mi lies of gold.” Its image was sometimes stamped 
 on ancient coins. At present it is not active, but it is watching the 
 issue of the silver bill. In plain English it is an association formed 
 for the purpose of practicing a feat in financial hocus-pocus, by which 
 lhe 3 r extract coin-interest-bearing bonds of the United States, under 
 the acts of 1870 and 1875, in exchange for non-interest-bearing Treas¬ 
 ury notes, without increasing the gold coin of the country a single 
 dollar. But how can that be done ? The Secretary of the Treasury 
 gives notice that on a certain day ho will sell live millions of bonds 
 for gold for the purpose of redeeming legal-tender notes under the 
 act of 1875. • 
 
 We will say that there are fifty banks and gold brokers, English 
 and American, that have five millions of gold on deposit in the vaults 
 of the banks. They have also hoarded five millions of Treasury notes. 
 On the day appointed they appear before the Secretary of the Treas¬ 
 ury and they propose to buy five millions of bonds if he will take 
 checks for that amount of gold on deposit in the vaults of the banks 
 The Secretary accepts the proposition, knowing that the gold is never 
 moved in largo transactions. The bonds are exchanged for the gold 
 checks; hut just here the syndicate presents $5,000,000 of legal-tend¬ 
 ers for redemption, and the Secretary exchanges the gold checks for 
 the legal tenders. The result of the transaction is the syndicate has 
 t he interest-bearing bonds and the gold unmoved in the vaults of the 
 banks; the Secretary has the legal-tenders, which are carried to the 
 destruction account and burned up ; the people have lost their money 
 from circulation and have gained a new burden in the interest on 
 the bonds. 
 
 The syndicate only repeats the process at as many calls as the Sec¬ 
 retary may choose to make. The gold remains in the banks, the syn¬ 
 dicate holds the interest-bearing bonds, and the legal-tenders are 
 abs^bed, and so the process is continued until the whole legal-tenders 
 of the United States are “ wiped out,” and $5,000,000 have done the 
 whole work. 
 
 Well, Mr. Speaker, will the House permit me to tell a little anec¬ 
 dote in illustration of this matter, which is said to have occurred to 
 a western forester, a man of celebrity in his day, the well-known 
 Colonel Davy Crockett. Silence gives consent, and I will tell it. He 
 went on one occasion, with a number of his jolly friends, to a grocery. 
 He had a single coon-skin, which was currency in that day, with 
 which he wished to buy a quart of whisky. He laid his coon-skin on 
 the counter and got his whisky. He asked what he should do with 
 it, and was told to throw it into the loft, which he did. After they 
 drank their whisky, the colonel went around and twisted the coon- 
 skin out of the loft with his ramrod, and, bringing it back to the 
 counter, bought another quart of whisky. The coon-skin was again 
 thrown into the loft and again the colonel twisted it out and again 
 he brought it back and bought another quart of whisky. So he re¬ 
 peated the process and they drank whisky the whole day upon a 
 single coon-skin, just as the syndicate are consuming the legal-tenders 
 of the United States with the sum of $5,000,000 of gold which re¬ 
 mains in the vaults of the hanks. [Laughter.] But, Mr. Speaker, 
 I have not time to dwell longer on that subject to-day. 
 
 Again,the gold cannot he introduced through our commerce. There 
 is a reported gold balance against us of $15,000,000, and to this should 
 be added the carrying trade of the United States, which paid to for¬ 
 eign vessels, according to Mr. Grosvenor, $(50,000,000, and, according 
 to the same authority, for smuggling, $50,000,000, making the true 
 balance of currency against the United States $125,000,000. 
 
12 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, while all Europe is in a scramble for gold, 
 I inquire, whence is it to come, to put this country upon a specie 
 basis? All the orifices are open for outflow from the United States, 
 through interest upon our bonds held abroad, through interest upon 
 State bonds, and through the private indebtedness of our people. 
 
 Ay, sir, Mr. McCulloch, in 1866, thought he could reach it in 1869. 
 Tie pursued the golden phantom. So with Mr. Richardson, so with 
 Mr. Boutwell, and so with Mr. Bristow. All pursued the phantom, 
 and failed in the effort. 
 
 Now, to change the figure, the present Secretary of the Treas¬ 
 ury takes it up, and is going to force the camel through the eye of 
 the needle, though he may crush every bone in the body-politic. 
 
 No, Mr. Speaker, we will need all our mountains, both of gold and 
 silver, to pay the interest upon our bonded debt, to pay the debt 
 itself, and to furnish a curreucy for the people. 
 
 Therefore resumption is impossible in gold. It will take ages to 
 recover us from the Serbonian bog into which we have marched and 
 to reach the solid road through a specie basis for our country. The- 
 little we collect of gold as it percolates from our foreign commerce, 
 the little sediment left from the outflow of our mines, will never fur¬ 
 nish ns with that metal while the continent stands unless there is 
 some other resource. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, our country is in distress and staggering under the 
 burden of its public debt. If we look for relief by payment in gold 
 the debt will cling to us like the curse to the wandering Jew. While 
 Germany and the Scandinavian states are demonetizing silver and 
 our silver mines are unmeasured in their resources, now is our oppor¬ 
 tunity. Now is the time to take the tide at the flood which ‘‘leads 
 «/ # 
 
 on to fortune.” If the occasion is lost, I here leave it on record for 
 the eye of posterity that our public debt will not be paid in gold in the 
 next half century. • 
 
 We are told, Mr. Speaker, that we ought not to remonetize the sil¬ 
 ver dollar, because it is too fluctuating in value. That argument 
 has often been made before ; but is it truthful ? I maintain that it 
 is not, and I am supported in my judgment by the facts of history. 
 I have an extract from Mr. Benton’s speech, who gave the history of 
 currency in 1837 when it was under discussion. They arrayed all the 
 facts from the time of the Roman emperors down to the present time, 
 and it resolved itself into the practical question, as he states in the 
 extract—which I will not read but will furnish—that the silver dol¬ 
 lar maintained its relation to gold for over three hundred years in. 
 silver countries, in Mexico, Spain, and South America. 
 
 [From Benton’s Thirty Tears’ View, First volume, pages 4G9 and 470.] 
 
 REVIVAL OF THE GOLD CURRENCY. 
 
 A measure of relief was now at hand before which the machinery of distress was 
 to balk and cease its long and cruel labors; it was the passage of the bill for 
 equalizing the value of gold and silver and legalizing the tender of foreign coins 
 of both metals. 
 
 ★ ★ * ★ * ★ ★ 
 
 The difficulty of adjusting this value so that neither metal should expel the other 
 had been the stumbling-block for a great many years; and now this difficulty 
 seemed to be a- formidalile as ever. Refined calculations were gone into, scientific 
 light was sought, history was rummaged back to the times of the Roman empire, 
 and there seemed to be no way of getting to a concord of opinion either from the 
 lights of science, the voice of history, or the result of calculations. The author of 
 this View had (in his speeches on the subject) taken up the question in a practical 
 point of view, regardless' of history, and calculations, and the opinions of bank 
 officers, and. looking to the actual and equal circulation of the two metals in differ-. 
 
ent countries, he saw that this equality and actuality of circulation had existed for 
 above three hundred years in the Spanish dominions of Mexico and South America, 
 where the proportion was 16 to 1. Taking his stand upon this single fact as the 
 practical test which solved the question, all the real friends of the gold currency 
 soon rallied to it. 
 
 The good effects of the bill were immediately seen. Gold began to flow into the 
 country through all the channels of commerce; old chests gave up their hoards ; 
 the mint was busy, and in a few months, and as if by magic, a currency banished 
 from the country for thirty years overspread the land and gave joy and confidence 
 to all the pursuits of industry. 
 
 But I do not stop there, Mr. Speaker. We have the testimony fur¬ 
 nished by the Director of the Mint from his own tables and in a state¬ 
 ment here compiled in decades, showing that the general average for 
 the one hundred and fourteen years from 1760 to 1873 is 15.18 ; being 
 15 and nearly one-fifth instead of the present standard which we have 
 adopted, the ratio of 1 to 16. During the above period the ratio of 
 the highest monthly average in the United States was 1 to 15, in July, 
 1859, at which rate a silver dollar of 412} grains was worth $1.05f in 
 
 £ old ‘ . 
 
 During this period there were but three years in which the ratio 
 fell below 1 to 16; in 1809, when it was 16.25; in 1810, 16.15, and in 
 1815, at the close of the British war, when it was 16.30. The ratio 
 for the lowest monthly average in July, 1876, after it was demonetized, 
 was 1 to 19.19, at which rate the dollar Avas worth 83£ cents. 
 
 Table showing comparative value of gold with silver by decades from 1760 to and in¬ 
 clusive of the year 1873, being one hundred and fourteen years , being condensed from 
 tables found in the report of the Direotor of the Mint for 1876, pages 46-47. 
 
 1760 to 1769 (both inclusive) gold compared to silver averaged as. 1 to 14. 506 
 
 1770 to 1779 (both inclusive) gold compared to silver averaged as. 1 to 14. 491 
 
 1780 to 1789 (both inclusive) gold compared to silver averaged as. 1 to 14. 451 
 
 1790 to 1799 (both inclusive) gold compared to silver averaged as. 1 to 14. 945 
 
 1800 to 1809 (both inclusive) gold compared to silver averaged as. 1 to 14. 854 
 
 1810 to 1819 (both inclusive) gold compared to silver averaged as. 1 to 15. 405 
 
 1820 to 1829 (both inclusive) gold compared to silver averaged as. 1 to 15. 802 
 
 1830 to 1839 (both inclusive) gold compared to silver averaged as. 1 to 15. 764 
 
 1840 to 1849 (both inclusive) gold compared to silver averaged as. 1 to 15. 877 
 
 1850 to 1859 (both inclusive) gold compared to silver averaged as. 1 to 15. 400 
 
 1860 to 1869 (both inclusive) gold compared to silver averaged as. 1 to 15. 446 
 
 1870 to 1873 (both inclusive) gold compared to silver averaged as. 1 to 15. 672 
 
 The general average for the above one hundred and fourteen years is 15.1885. 
 
 Thus, Mr. Speaker, you find from Mr. Benton and the testimony of 
 the Director of the Mint that we have shown by unquestioned au¬ 
 thority that silver has maintained its uniform relation to gold for 
 four hundred years ; and having maintained this relation, the charge 
 is untrue that it is too variable in its value. Then, sir, if that argu¬ 
 ment be answered, why the main argument is taken away from them. 
 Besides all that, Mr. Speaker, its value did not fall until it was de¬ 
 monetized. It did not cease to be coin until it was demonetized and 
 until the prohibition was made by the Government itself. It was a 
 direct assassination by national legislation, instigated by the con¬ 
 spiracy of European bondholders. So, then, this was only an apparent 
 depreciation of it, superinduced by the means I have indicated. 
 
 Another objection is that if remonetized it should be made of equal 
 value to gold. Why, Mr. Speaker, I answer that the parties who 
 aided in the demonetization are estopped from interposing an argu¬ 
 ment of that description. They will not be permitted to take ad¬ 
 vantage of their own wrong. But the true answer is: Whenever it 
 is remonetized, when the work which they undid is restored, it will 
 be restored to the equation with gold itself. Ay, sir, the value was 
 
14 
 
 fixed in 1792 at 371£ grains of fine silver, and it was made only 3-J- 
 grains light in the alloy in 1837. It has not only held its own, but 
 was worth 5 percent, in 1860. Even the i per cent, of line silver that 
 was added to it in 1792 withstood all the financial vicissitudes and 
 storms down to 1873. 
 
 It was too fine to stay in the country. Our average was about 16 
 to 1. In other countries the average was 15^ to 1, ours being 3£ per 
 cent, more according to Mr. Seyd, to whose statement of this point I 
 call the attention of the House as giving the true reason why Amer¬ 
 ican silver in part had left the country. 
 
 [Here the hammer fell.] 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman’s hour has expired. 
 
 Mr. EWING. I ask unanimous consent that the time of the gen¬ 
 tleman be extended. 
 
 Mr. DEERING. For how long ? 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. I would rather not be limited, because I would 
 thereby be forced out of the channel in which I am following out 
 my line of thought. 
 
 Mr. DEERING. I object. 
 
 Mr. EWING. I ask unanimous consent that the time of the gen¬ 
 tleman from Tennessee be extended for half an hour. . 
 
 There was no objection. 
 
 Mr. BRIGHT. I will not trouble the House with reading the opin¬ 
 ion of Mr. Seyd in relation to the high value of silver and the occa¬ 
 sion for its leaving the country in part, but will embody it in my 
 remarks: 
 
 The plea that do silver "bullion was brought to the United States, and that an 
 actual stoppage in the coining of silver dollars took place, advanced as a reason to 
 prove the indisposition of the Americans to use silver money, is quite false, for who 
 indeed, I repeat, would bring silver to the United States mints when lie could 
 obtain 3^ per cent, more for it elsewhere ? 
 
 I maintain that these incongruities in the American silver currency have done 
 much harm to the country. Besides the silver produced in the States, or which 
 came from abroad and could not maintain itself, the vast treasures of Mexico have 
 passed by instead of flowing in part into the United States for the development of 
 her interior commerce, and for the formation of a solid basis to her international 
 trade. And now the United States are iu this remarkable position, that the richest 
 silver deposits are opened in their own territories, producing vast sums of solid 
 precious metal, which instead of serving herself as money all go abroad to swell 
 the currencies of other nations, while the great Republic herself labors painfully 
 under the weight of a depreciated paper currency .—Seyd on Metallic Currency, 
 pages 54, 55. 
 
 But, Mr. Speaker, our contract was for standard value of 1870. 
 Hence we were not bound to keep it at an equation with gold so that 
 we kept it within the limits of the contract. 
 
 “ But,” it will be said, “ it does not matter much, for if we send 
 away all this silver we get something else in return for it, either gold 
 or goods; we pay with it, and it thus turns the exchange in our 
 favor.” I deny the truth of the mathematical meaning of this say¬ 
 ing. Supposing the silver was not produced, would not the United 
 States import less, or rather be compelled to import less luxuries ? 
 And so if by the operation of the present laws silver were not driven 
 away from the country but were to some extent permitted or encour¬ 
 aged to remain in it, this result would follow: the benefit of its 
 present production would take two directions; one portion of it would 
 go abroad, another portion would remain in the country for the en¬ 
 couragement and development of the home industry. The direct 
 unfavorable law of tenders, amounting practically to a forbidding of 
 the proper use of silver, creates an inequality whose influence is irre¬ 
 sistibly strong, destructive of neutrality, and therefore most injuri¬ 
 ous. 
 
15 
 
 The third objection is, we ought not to fix a value to operate 
 twenty years hence. Why, Mr. Speaker, our obligation runs with 
 the contract. As we maintain, these bonds were payable in silver 
 and some of them were running forty years hence, and the holders 
 have a right to claim the standard value under the act of 1870. And 
 they may run for centuries yet to come. Hence to restore the silver 
 dollar is only providing one of the means for the deferred payment 
 of the bonds. 
 
 The fourth objection is, that we ought not to add to our depreci¬ 
 ated currency. This was depreciated by law. It was not the depre¬ 
 ciation of commercial considerations alone. We propose to appre¬ 
 ciate it by law and restore it to its original position. By making it 
 a full legal tender it will spring at once to a par with gold. 
 
 The fifth objection is, that England, Germany, and the Scandina¬ 
 vian states have adopted gold as a sole legal tender, and we ought 
 to follow their example. 1 answer they have no right to impose an 
 obligation upon us to change our Constitution or to change our con¬ 
 tracts, for we change our contracts when we contract our currency 
 and destroy our silver. And whenever we adopt the example which 
 has been inaugurated we cripple all our industries that they may 
 reap the profit.* I suppose they will want us to have a king next, in 
 imitation of their example. 
 
 The legal-tender coins of the United States are fixed bv the Con- 
 stitution. In Europe they are fixed by statutory law or the will of 
 the sovereign. 
 
 It is impossible, sir, to abolish silver. Three-fourths of the nations 
 of the earth use it—two-thirds of the population of the globe. If it 
 could be done it would increase the value of gold more than twofold 
 and the taxes and debts iu proportion; and after it had done its per¬ 
 fect work of contraction, desolation, and destruction of industries, 
 and inaugurated an unparalleled reign of poverty and distress, it 
 would be succeeded by a deluge of paper currency throughout the 
 world to supply the deficiency occasioned by the destruction of one 
 of the great coins of the earth. So says Mr. Bagehot, the English 
 writer on the subject, and who shows conclusively that there is not 
 gold enough in the world for a currency. 
 
 Again, we need the money at home. We do not need money to 
 circulate in foreign countries. We deal in exchange with foreign 
 countries. Our coins when they go abroad go to the mints of the 
 European nations. When we regulate the operations of our mint, let 
 it be done to the advantage and interest of our own people. It is not 
 only wise but profitable to take care of ourselves. Every nation ought 
 to have and maintain a home currency with its stability secured by 
 constitutional law. 
 
 The sixth objection is that it should be only made a partial legal 
 tender limited in the collection of debts. I answer this would demon¬ 
 etize it in part, would make it a subject of speculation, and would 
 cripple the United States ahd the State governments and the people 
 in the collection of taxes and in the payment of debts and in all the 
 commercial uses of money. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I will now call the attention of the House to another 
 matter of grave consideration—the subject of the free coinage of 
 the silver dollar. The operations of the Mint at present are with 
 oppressive discriminations against the people. I maintain, first, that 
 there ought to be free coinage of the silver dollar, because such was 
 the policy of the Government from 171)2 to 1853, a period of about 
 sixty years. From 1853 to 1873 there was a charge of \ per cent ; 
 
16 
 
 from 1873 to 1875 the charge for gold was 1 per cent. The act of 
 1875 made the coinage of gold free of charge. In the second place 
 I maintain, not only the policy of the Government, that it should be 
 free, but because the expense ought to be borne by the country and 
 not by the depositor. The Director of the Mint, in his report for 
 1873, gives the reasons why gold should be coined free, and his argu¬ 
 ment is equally applicable to the free coinage of silver. 
 
 [From report of the Director of the Mint, June 30, 1873, pages 13 and 14.] 
 
 EARNINGS AND EXPENDITURES. 
 
 * * * With respect to the expenses of the mints, it should be stated that it never 
 was intended that they should be self-sustaining, and that prior to 1853 no charge 
 for the coinage of either gold or silver was imposed ; the evident intention of the 
 framers of the original mint law having been to invite foreign bullion and coin to 
 the mint for coinage. In the year above stated a law was enacted authorizing and 
 requiring a coinage charge of one-half per cent, to be imposed, which continued in 
 force down to the 1st of April, 1873, when the new coinage act took effect, reduc¬ 
 ing the charge to one-fifth of 1 per cent. 
 
 ****** 
 
 The reasons for a free coinage of gold are simple and direct, and are briefly 
 stated as follows: 
 
 First. By throwing the cost of coinage on the depositor the cost of production is 
 correspondingly increased. 
 
 Second. The coining value of gold is lowered, which tends to i;epel it from the 
 mint and encourage its export. For the same reason it repels foreign gold. 
 
 Third. It is unjust to the depositor, as he pays the entire expense of coinage, in 
 which the whole public are as much interested as himself. Coinage of the stand¬ 
 ard metal is indispensable to the public, and the expense should accordingly be 
 contributed by all. 
 
 It should also be stated that, under the coinage act, the melting of the bullion 
 to bring it to a condition for determining by essay the proportion of gold and sil¬ 
 ver contained, or the “ fineness,” as it is termed in mint language, is made a sub¬ 
 ject of charge to the depositor, and will bring to the Treasury a sum approximat¬ 
 ing somewhat to that accruing from the coinage charge. The imposition of this 
 new charge should be considered an additional argument for abolishing the coin¬ 
 age charge. It is not subject to the same objection for the reason that a charge 
 for melting is made in London. 
 
 Again, the coinage of silver ought to be free because the coinage 
 of gold is free and silver is the most used by the people. The dis¬ 
 crimination is unjust and oppressive upon the people. It is a tax to 
 pay the expenses of the coinage on gold, as Mr. Sherman calls it “ the 
 money of the rich/ 7 and is throwing a burden on the people. I say 
 it is unjust, and to show the prostitution of the mint in this particu¬ 
 lar, first, we purchased under the act of 1875 silver bulllion with which 
 to coin fractional silver to supersede the fractional paper currency. 
 We purchased it with gold-interest-bearing bonds. The people of the 
 United States are paying now about $2,000,000 annually interest on 
 these bonds for a subsidiary coinage. 
 
 No only so, but according to the report of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury the seigniorage which was collected for the coinage of silver 
 for the last year, and covered into the Treasury, was $3,273,239, as 
 also appears from the report of the Director of the Mint, making 
 $5,273,239, which was thrown as a burden and tax upon the people to 
 pay for the expense of coining “the money of the rich,” as stated by 
 the Secretary of the Treasury. Sir, it is a burning shame upon the 
 legislation of the countryj! Why will you do it? England does it! 
 What does Mr. Seyd say on the subject? I will call attention to a 
 few paragraphs: 
 
 The expenditure of the Mint falls on the taxation; the expense for coining gold 
 is consequently borne by all classes, although gold is used principally by the 
 smaller number, the wealthier portions of the community. The mere assertion 
 that the coining of gold is intended for the benefit of all classes does not, in face 
 •of the patent fact that the poor use it but rarely, meet the justice of the case. In 
 
17 
 
 England the extreme injustice of this matter becomes all the more glaring when it 
 is borne in mind that the British silver coinage, that upon which more than three- 
 quarters of the nation are dependent for their intercourse with each other, is 
 charged with a heavy seigniorage of from 8 to 10 per cent., a profit which serves 
 the mint as a set-off against the free coinage of gold. Gold, it may be said, is 
 coined in England gratuitously for the higher classes at the cost of the lower 
 classes, which deal in silver. Moreover, while the coinage of gold is thus of full 
 value, open and free to all, and the supply unrestricted within the natural bound¬ 
 aries of commerce, the silver coinage is debased ; the mint refuses to coin it for 
 the public ; it has but a strictly limited legal-tender value, and the amount in circu¬ 
 lation thus becomes restricted within narrow and unnatural boundaries— Seyd on 
 Metallic Currency , page 18. 
 
 Let any member who votes to tax the coinage of the silver go and 
 tell his constituents that he did it to pay the expenses of coining 
 gold, “ the money of the richlet him tell them that he did it to 
 raise revenues from the people by the clandestine means of a mint 
 tax on their money ; let him go and tell them, by way of apology, 
 that England does it and thus grinds the faces of the poor for the 
 benefit of the rich. That is the reason you have the silver taxed 
 on your mints for the advantage of the rich of the country, while 
 $5,000,000 are ground out of the poor aud laboring men of the country 
 per annum to favor the gold-mongers who get their coinage free of 
 expense. Sir, that measure had a double object. It was not only to 
 favor the gold, but it was to drive silver out of the country, and a tax 
 upon it always has this tendency. But what should be the policy of 
 our country ? Why, sir, instead of driving it out of the country our 
 policy ought to be that which was intended by the fathers of the 
 country, to throw our ports open as wide as the gates of heaven and 
 admit it from the four quarters of the globe, and give our own people 
 the advantage of coinage and placing our currency upon the terra 
 firma of a specie basis. Sir, the Constitution of our country has been 
 violated by the policy that has been forced on and is ruining this 
 country. 
 
 Oh, but they tell us there is to be an Atlantic flood of silver in 
 consequence of its demonetization in Germany. Sir, in the language 
 of a distinguished orator of the Revolution, “ Let it come. I repeat 
 it, Let it come,” and we will roll back the silver billows upon them 
 in payment of our national debt. 
 
 Why, sir, we have a debt redeemable now of $660,000,000, and bv 
 the 1st day of January, 1881, we shall have a debt of $1,452,000,000, 
 according to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury. And if 
 we adopt proper measures in this era, they will galvanize our trade, 
 our industries will spring from the dust, and again the march of 
 prosperity will begin. Sir, France is not so delicate as the United 
 States. When her obligations in part were payable in silver to Ger¬ 
 many she did not scruple upon the point of honor when she fell short 
 to go into Germany and purchase $20,000,000 of silver there and take 
 it to her own mints for coinage to pay her own obligation with. 
 France did not scruple to do that. It is time we were getting down 
 from our stilts and showing some dint of pity for the bond-ridden, 
 bank-ridden, monopoly-ridden, mortgage-ridden, tax-ridden, and pov¬ 
 erty-ridden people. 
 
 And yet, sir, still .we are told about bad faith. When they talk 
 about bad faith we hurl the slander back into the teeth of the slan¬ 
 derers. We propose to pay according to contract. The bondholder 
 shall have his pound of flesh, but we do not intend that his victim 
 shall be bled to death in addition to that pound which the law gives 
 him. 
 
 Why, sir, the bondholders have no right to complain. In the first 
 
 2 BR 
 
18 
 
 place, we funded their debt and gave a double value to it; in this 
 way we gave a double rate of interest upon it and paid the interest 
 in gold, making it now equal to 15 per cent, of the original value of 
 the funds. In addition to that, under the act of 1869, at a time when 
 the five-twenties and other bonds were payable in legal-tenders, they 
 prevailed upon Congress to bullionize the debt and thus we gave them 
 $500,000,000 more in value. They prevailed upon us to pass the act 
 of 1870 to secure coin at its then standard value and prevent its alloy 
 or depreciation by the act of the Government. And by an amend¬ 
 ment in 1871 they required the quarterly payment of the interest, 
 making at this time a difference in their favor of $5,000,000 per an¬ 
 num, the difference between the semi-annual and quarterly interest. 
 In addition to that we passed the act of 1873 for their accommoda¬ 
 tion, demonetizing silver and giving a contraction to the currency 
 and an addition to the purchasing power of their capital which is 
 now distressing the country. 
 
 Congress passed the resumption act of 1875 to contract the currency 
 and at the same time to avoid a stipulation in the act of 1869, which 
 provided for the payment of the bonds in “ coin or its equivalent .” 
 That term “ equivalent ” meant that whenever the legal-tender notes 
 should be equal with coin, gold or silver, then the 5.20 bonds should 
 be payable in such notes. And these bonds are now payable in legal- 
 tender notes, because they are now “ equivalent ” to silver coin—even 
 admitting, for the sake of the argument only, that they were not 
 originally payable in legal-tenders. This explains the reason of the 
 merciless war which is waged against the legal-tender notes. With 
 a heart as hard as the adamant of the desert, the foreign bond¬ 
 holder would rather see every industry of our country strangled 
 in the tightening folds of contraction and the whole land blasted 
 with mildew than have his bonds paid in legal-tender notes. The 
 bondholders are moving heaven and earth to get to gold resumption. 
 Conscious of their power they have become insolent, intolerant, and 
 abusive. They denounce all as financial dunderheads who dare to 
 thwart their policy and defend the people against their boundless 
 rapacity. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, there is no enlightened financier that will contend 
 that a forced resumption of specie payments can be of any practical 
 advantage to the country. It will bring desolation and ruin in its 
 wake. It will bring every industry of this country to its crutches. 
 It is already making our great commercial cities financial grave¬ 
 yards. It is emptying our shops and mills and blasting our fields. 
 Millions of laborers are this day rolling in shoals from one side of the 
 country to the other, praying for wages and for bread. And after 
 vainly trying every avenue of escape from misery and wretchedness, 
 they wail out their despair in the language of Milton’s fallen angel: 
 
 ■Which way I fly ia hell! 
 
 Resumption, so called, is tearing the very heart of this nation to 
 pieces and throwing it to the vultures. When the bondholders are 
 made to tremble on their throne of gold and bonds by the earthquake 
 of popular discontent, they have no language of relief except “Give 
 them the bayonet!” They would re-enact the appalling tragedy of 
 English resumption from 1819 to 1823, when one hundred and sixty 
 thousand landholders were reduced to thirty thousand, the description 
 of whose horrors baffled the eloquence of the British Parliament and 
 defied the graphic pen of England’s most eloquent historians. 
 
 But there is another startling fact which lies in the path of resump- 
 
19 
 
 tion. When we reach resumption we will reach another conclusion : 
 the national debt will never he paid ; not because it will he repudiated, 
 hut because the nation cannot pay it. It will he an inheritable burden, 
 under which posterity will groan and swelter for ages. Such is the 
 fate of England. 
 
 A recent able English financial writer uses the following language: 
 
 To us (says the author of The Bank Charter Act and the Rate of Interest, Lon¬ 
 don: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., 1873) it is indeed a melancholy reflection and one v 
 withal worthy of grave pondering, that when the United States shall return again to 
 a convertible currency the liquidation of this national debt must cease. Our own 
 sinking fund, devised for a similar object, we know ceased to receive any important 
 payments after the abrogation of the bank-restriction act. No currency, doubtless, but 
 one that was able to sustain a great war need be expected to liquidate its cost. 
 
 Then, sir, when we reach resumption this country must pass un¬ 
 der the yoke and be perpetually enslaved to the money oligarchy. 
 For them our commerce will climb the liquid mountains of every 
 sea to gather gold from every coast, to bring it back and empty it 
 into the lap of the bondholder. Then will our Government reach for 
 the “ Midas fingers” of taxation to rob the nests of the people’s earn¬ 
 ings to fill the coffers of the bondholder; then, sir, will the shops and 
 mills ply the spindle and the loom for the benefit of the bondholder; 
 then will the farmer, converted into the vassal tenant, pursue his rug¬ 
 ged toil and the fields yield their golden harvests for the benefit of the 
 bondholder; then will the miners delve like slaves to tear the golden 
 bowels from the earth to enrich the nation’s lords; then will our 
 Mint, prostituted from the common good, coin gold, free of charge, 
 “the money of the rich;” and lastly, for them our armies will move 
 to overawe and quell the outbreaks of plundered and starving labor. 
 
 Let the nation’s creditors beware and moderate their extortions. 
 They have already heard one roar of maddened labor sound like a 
 trumpet-blast of prophecy. Endurance has its extremity. Let them 
 remember that the snowflake is the nucleus around which congeals 
 the avalanche of the Alps, which a sunbeam may loosen and send it 
 plunging like mad thunder on the plains. Let them remember that 
 their accumulating wrongs may rise mountain-high and stand out 
 like Ebal, the Jewish mount of cursing, on which some avenging 
 prophet may stand and loosen the nation’s curses on the authors of 
 the people’s wrongs. 
 
 But let us hope in the triumph of equity and justice. Let us inau¬ 
 gurate an era of relief and reform by remonetizing the old silver dol¬ 
 lar of our fathers; repeal the resumption act and loosen up the coagu¬ 
 lated currency in the money centers, and send it like vital blood into 
 all the arteries and veins of commerce. Then will the land again smile 
 with contentment and plenty, and the oceans blossom with our sails. 
 
 c