The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
The Silver Bill.
SPEECH
OF
HON.
RICHARD
P. BLAND,
OP M I S S O U R I ,
In
the
H
ou se
of
R e p r e s e n t a t iv e s ,
Saturday, July 12, 1890.
The House having under consideration the report of the committee of con
ference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. R. 5381)
directing the purchase of silver bullion and the issue of Treasury notes thereon,
and for other purposes—
Mr. BLAND said:
Mr. S p e a k e r : I do not know that I can begin better than to an
swer the gentleman who has just taken his seat. I concur in his
statement, when he hopes the next House of Representatives will be
a free coinage House; but I want to remind my friend that if it is
so it must come from those who advocate free coinage and stand by
their colors. It will not come from the advocacy of the gentleman
from Iowa £Mr. C o n g e r ] who has during this whole session opposed
free coinage, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. C u t c h e o n ], and
the Republican party in its organization, in this House by gag rule,
unprecedented maneuvers, and caucuses, have fought down ana
stifled free coinage in this House. It will not come from your party,
but for my part I say, in God’s name let it come from your party or
any other, but if it comes at all it will come from that party on ac
count of the efforts of men here who have stood firm to the flag of
free coinage, and not surrendered at the beck of Wall street and the
gold bugs.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Iowa says this - bill is the
result of a free and fair conference. I deny it. We had but one
meeting of the conference committee in which all the conferees were
represented. That was the meeting appointed for last Thursday.
We were to have another meeting of tnese conferees, but before the
date of that meeting arrived I was notified that my presence was no
longer needed, and that when my services were required I would be
notified. In the mean timesecret meetings or caucuses were held by
the Republican members of that conference, and this bill was con
cocted and prepared by them; and I never received a notice to at
tend'another meeting of this conference until this bill was agreed to
and the report ready to be signed; and I was simply asked whether
I agreed to it or hot. That is all I had to do with the conference.
Is that a free, a full, and a fair conference?
Mr. CONGER. Will my friend permit me to ask him a question?
Mr. BLAND. Yes.
Mr. CONGER. Were you not offered full opportunity to discuss
that matter f
2
Mr, BLAND. Not at all. We met there and did not spend more
than twenty-five or thirty minutes in conference, and there was no
proposition made or discussion had, and no bill was formulated in
any way.
Mr. CONGER. Did you propose anything ? Did you make any
suggestions?
Mr. BLAND. I could not. We had a meeting on Thursday and
adjourned over to meet again on the following Saturday. I received
a note from the gentleman from Iowa that we would not have a
meeting on that day.
Mr. CONGEE. Will the gentleman answer another question I .
Mr. BLAND. But the Republican members of the conference
committee organized themselves into a caucus, and the gentleman Will
not deny that they concocted this bill, and that I was not present.
Mr. CONGER. Well, you do not object, because I notified you
that the meeting had been declared off, and that I did not desire you
to come there when there was to be no meeting.
Mr. BLAND. As I said before, I did not want to attend a Repub
lican caucus.
Mr. CONGER. And you did not want to sign a Republican report.
Mr. BLAND. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I will not be interrupted.
I will take pleasure in answering any question suggested to me if I
make any misstatements, but I want to discuss this measure.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us for a moment examine this bill in regard
to the great principle involved on the subjects of free coinage and
bimetallism. This is the question here. The (Juestipn is, how far
does this bill depart from the principles of bimetallism and free coin
age? In the first place, Mr. Speaker, the principles of bimetallism,
as plainly stated and understood to me, are that the two metals shall
be coined into money at a fixed ratio. I will come to that part of
the bill in a moment that declares that it is the policy of this Gov
ernment to keep the two metals at par.
Now, Albert Gallatin discussed this question of the parity of the
metals—and he was one of the greatest financiers this country ever
produced—and when he alluded to the difficulty of keeping them at
a parity he advanced the true theory of bimetallism when he said
that the best system of coinage rests upon both metals and the free
coinage of both, and if one metal went above the other, debtors
would have the benefit of paying in the cheaper metal, which now
is silver. I refer to his financial report in 1829; and he alluded to
the fact that at that time gold was above silver. That is to say that
bimetallism means the use of both gold and silver at a fixed ratio,
and if either goes up from extraordinary demands, raising the price
of one metal above the other, the cheaper metal would be used, and
was the most equitable standard of payments if it had not lost its
purchasing power as compared to commodities.
Now, I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a false statement that it has
ever been the practice of this Government to keep the two metals at
a parity. I deny that we have ever had the two metals at a parity
in any true sense up to 1834. When the ratio between gold and
silver was changed we were practically on a silver basis, because
silver was the cheaper metal. The ratio was then changed and gold
was made the cheaper metal, and we came to the gold standard,
practically. Why ? Because silver was worth more as bullion than
as coin at our mints, worth more at the European ratio, and it went
there, and we used gold when it was from 3 to 6 cents below par of
silver. I say the financial history of this country is that we never
BLAN D
3
liave coined the two metals at an absolute par, and now this bill
undertakes to incorporate into a statute the false doctrines of the
Secretary of the Treasury and the gold men that we should not use
silver or pay it out unless at par with gold, a thing which the bi
metallists of this country have contended against from the begin*
ning, a proposition that J have never assented to and that no bi
metallist, so* far as I know, has ever assented to. Rulings and con
structions of the Secretary of the Treasury are ingrafted into this
bill to fix us on the gold basis and the gold standard.
And this is the result of the tyranny of party caucuses in this
House. From the beginning we have appealed to you gentlemen on
the other side of the House to stop your party caucuses, and bring
measures in here and permit them to be discussed in the regular
tray, with freedom of debate and freedom to offer amendments, in
order that we might secure a fair bill. But when this bill passed
the House the Speaker, sitting in his chair, absolutely refused to
recognize any gentleman on either side of the House to offer a; freecoinage amendment. Under that gag rule the bill was passed
through this House, and when it went to a committee of conference
the Democratic members of that committee, both of whom were in
favor of free coinage, were ignored in the preparation of this con
ference bill. This measure comes to us now, the gentleman from
Iowa tells us, as a Republican measure, agreed to in caucus by the
Republican party, and he claims that that party is the father of oar
financial system and of all our financial measures. So be it, Mr.
Speaker. This is in harmony with the rest of them. How was sil
ver demonetized in 1873 ? It was demonetized by a conference com
mittee, where men met in secret caucus and concocted a measure for
the demonetization of silver which passed both Houses, and now
again to-day, by a party caucus, you propose to stifie fair debate as
you have, already stifled an opportunity to get a fair bill before the
Senate and the House upon tnis silver question. Well, if the gen
tleman from Iowa claims that the Republican party is responsible
for all the financial policies of this Government since that party has
been in power, let him answer how it was that in 1873, by a darklantern caucus of that party, silver was demonetized, and how it is
now that by that same means you propose practically to demonetize
it again ?
Mr. Speaker, let us examine this bill for a moment. It provides :
That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to purchase from time to
time silver bullion to the aggregate amount of 4,500.000 ounces, or so much thereof
as may be offered, in each month, at the market price thereof, not exceeding, etc.
It is a singular fact, Mr. Speaker, that there is no bill that can be
agreed to as a party measure upon the silver question that has not a
tang to it. This bill reads all right until you come to that part of
it which says: “ So much thereof as may be offered in each month
at the market price thereof.” Why, the pill that we are to swallow
is like a sugar-coated quinine pill. On the first reading it means
that the Secretary of the Treasury is to purchase $4,500,000 ounces
of silver bullion per month, but when we come to ruminate it, when
we roll it around in our mouths a few times, we begin to taste the
bitter tang which is found in these words: “ or so much thereof as
may be offered in each month at the market price thereof.
Mr. MORROW. Do you find also the stimulating quality of the
quinine pill ? [Laughter.]
Mr. BLAND. I will come to that in a moment. That is the dif
ficulty. It will stimulate you for a while and then lay you out as
BLAND
4
flat as any man that ever got drunk over night and woke up in the
morning with a sick headache. [Laughter.]
Mr. MORROW. This is quinine, not whisky.
Mr. BLAND. I am indebted to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
C o n g e r ] for his frankness, because he does not differ with me in his
construction of this clause. He admits that it i&put there for a purpose
and that that purpose is identical with the purpose which appeared in
the original Windom bill. This provision was that the Secretary
should purchase silver bullion from month to month at its market
price, to be fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury with the right on his
part to suspend purchase when in his opinion there was a “ corner ” on
silver. That has been stricken out. It was too plain. Nobody could
be deceived by a plain honest proposition of that sort. Nobody
could be deceived by it and there could be no difference of opinion
about it. While the gold party could stand upon it, the silver party
could not do so without exposing themselves to public reprobation
and contempt. So, instead of that, we have this quiet, stealthy pro
vision engrafted upon this bill which has the same force and effect,
which provides that whenever the Secretary of the Treasury believes
that the market is being over-stimulated by speculators, he may de
clare that he can not receive any more bullion because he can not
purchase it at its market price. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
C o n g e r ] admits that construction and the provision does not admit
of any other construction, so that practically the amount of money
that is to go into circulation under this bill, or the amount of bullion
that is to be purchased, is to be at the discretion of the Secretary of
the Treasury, and when the gentleman from Iowa says that fifty, or
sixty, or seventy millions will go into circulation, he omits to say
that it all depends upon whether or not the Secretary of the Treasury
in his construction of the law will permit that money to go into cir
culation or not. The interpretation of the law is left open for the
purpose of regulating the amount of silver that may be purchased
from month to month.
But my friend from California [Mr. M o r r o w ] wants to know how
about the stimulus. Now, Mr. Speaker, as this is claimed to be a Re
publican measure, I think 1 can state about what the stimulus will
be. I want to make a prophecy. They say that prophets are
honored in all countries save their own. I do not know whether
this prophecy will be verified or not, but I want to make it now and
the future will determine. These purchases will go on as the silver
men want them to go on, and claim they ought to go on, until after
the next Presidential election; for I do not think any party in power
could stand against public sentiment and refuse to execute this law
in the spirit in which it ought to be executed—first, for the purpose
of getting more money into circulation in accordance with the popular
. demand, and secondly, to prevent any uprising of the friends of silver
1in this country to denounce the administration in the execution of
the law, while the necessities of the Presidential election are being
tided over. But when that election has passed and the next Presi
dent of the United States has been chosen, whether he be Demo
cratic or Republican, or whatever he may be, if he is a “ gold-bug”
you will find that the purchases will be made to suit Wall street and
nobody else. Now mark that prediction.
I want to say to my friends on the other side of the House, you
have abandoned the true friends of silver; you have abandoned
those who have stood by the free-coin age policy; you have made
friends with Wall street and the gol d advocates; you have cornBLAND
5
promised so as to get their votes, ignoring onrs. You have gone to
Wall street to concoct a bill to suit the advocates of the gold stand
ard and you have brought them to your support because they know,
this is a gold bill. You have forsaken and left in the lurch the gen
tlemen on this side of the House constituting the vast majority in
favor of free coinage. You have left the people of the country also
in the lurch, those who are demanding something looking towards
free coinage, something in the interests of the remonetization of
silver.
Now, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. C o n g e r ] , in alluding to the
last section of this bill which provides for paying out the money
now held for the redemption of bank notes—about $65,000,000 or
$70,000,000 of lawful money now deposited in the Treasury—said
that this would have the effect of increasing the currency. It will
for a while; but that is another one of those false stimulants. That
lawful money is held there for what purpose ? To redeem the notes
of national banks that have gone out of existence or are now going
out of existence. Those notes are now in circulation—some $65,000,000 or $75,000,000—corresponding with the amount which will be
put in circulation by this bill. Now these notes are constantly
coming into the Treasury and being redeemed, canceled and de
stroyed ; and by the measure proposed you do not gain one dollar in
circulation except for a short time. You do immediately, I suppose,
to meet the exigencies of the Treasury; for you will have a deficit.
By reason of the high protective tariff, and your enormous appropri
ations for pensions and other matters of that kind, there will be a
deficiency in the Treasury; and that deficiency must be met in some
way . That is the idea of ingrafting this feature upon this bill—to
meet that deficiency, to get that money into circulation. But when
the bank notes come back and are canceled, there is a contraction
of the currency equal to the amount you have put in circulation.
I do not myself object to this feature of the bill; but I say there
is that difficulty about it—whatever good it may do it will result
finally in a contraction of the currency to the amount that is put in
circulation, because that fund is there to redeem bank notes outstand
ing ; and when the bank notes come in the contraction commences,
and as fast as they come in the currency is* contracted.
Now, my friends, had you desired to consult the interests of the
people of this country, the great mass of the people, on this subject,
you would have made a different provision from that. You would
not only have provided, as this bill does, that this lawful money
should be covered into the Treasury, but you would have provided
further that when a national-bank note comes in for cancellation a
new greenback should issue in its place; and these Treasury notes
or greenbacks would take the place of national-bank notes and you
would have no contraction at all. But you have not done that. The
interests of the masses of the people have not been consulted. Wall
street, Wall street alone, has been consulted.
Now I want to call attention to a peculiarity of this bill in regard
to the redemption of these notes. The second section provides in
Reference to this subject—
That the Treasury notes issued in accordance with the provisions of this act
shall be redeemable on demand in coin at the Treasury of tne United States or at
the office of any assistant treasurer of the United States; and when so redeemed
may be reissued.
Now here is one redemption provided for; why do you want two 1
Where was the necessity for providing another redemption of these
BLAND
6
notes, and a different one? That is all right. No one can object to
that. When it is presented for redemption they shall be redeemed
in coin, and that is enough. But when you go a little further you
find a very different sort of redemption for the same note, having a
very different purpose. When you come to another portion of the
same section you find:
That upon demand of the holder of any of the Treasury notes herein provided
for, the Secretary of the Treasury shall, Tinder such regulations as he may pre
scribe, redeem such notes in gold or silver coin, at his discretion, it being the es
tablished policy of the United States to maintain the two metals on a parity with
each other upon the present legal ratio or such ratio as may be provided by law.
Now, I ask, why was that necessary ? In the beginning of the sec
tion it is provided that the notes shall be redeemed in coin. There
was no necessity for going a step further. But there was an ulterior
purpose in going a step further, a hidden purpose so far as this bill,
I may say, discloses, when yon give it careful consideration in refer
ence and in relation to the construction the Secretary of the Treasury
has heretofore placed upon the provisions of the law now in existence
in his dealings with silver.
But I want to take this section in its regular order and call your
attention to it. It goes on to provide:
But no greater or less amounts of such notes shall be outstanding at any time
than the cost of the silver bullion, and the standard silver dollars coined there
from, then held in the Treasury purchased by such notes, and such Treasury
notes shall be a legal tender, etc.
Now, before coming to this redemption provision again let me al
lude to this: Here is the “ fine Italian hand” of Wall street so plain
that I do not see how any man can misapprehend its meaning. Un
der our present law, the law of 1878, the Secretary of the Treasury
is compelled to purchase not less than $2,000,000 worth of silver bull
ion per month and not over $4,000,000 worth, and to coin it into
standard silver dollars on which the silver certificates are issued.
There is no discretion vested in him at all except as between the
limits of purchase, namely, between $2,000,000 and $4,000,000 worth.
There are no such words as “ so much as may be offered ” under that
law at all. It is absolutely mandatory upon him that he shall pur
chase not less than the amount specified, and not more than the
maximum amount fixed in the bill, and coin it into standard dollars.
Now I say here is fixed a legal ratio of 16 to 1. The bullion is pur
chased of course at the market rate, but the money is issued at the
coin rate. The dollar is coined at the ratio of 16 to 1, and the silver
certificate is issued on the dollar; so that you keep up the ratio of
your coinage at 16 to 1 in the issuing of the money that may be
coined under the existing law. But under this bill you issue ac
cording to the gold value of the bullion and not the coinage value
of the bullion; and the claim that you thus keep the two metals at
par with the present ratio, or some future ratio to be fixed by law,
is a self-stultifying assertion. You do not issue the money at the ratio
of 16 to 1, but you issue it by what may be and will be a varying
ratio; and you declare that the notes outstanding shall not exceed
the gold value of the bullion; in other words, that the amounts
outstanding shall be no greater and no less. Now, gold value of
course will fix the ratio, and that is not 16 to 1 by any means, but is
about 20 to 1. You have thus changed the ratio in the interest of
Wall street, and the gold standard from 16 to 1 to 20 to 1 under this
bill, or whatever the market ratio may be, for it may be 21 to-day
and 25 to-morrow, and less or more the next day/as the market
price varies. You have departed from the legal ratio; and to tell
BLAND
7
me that it is the policy of the Government to keep the two metals
at par at their legal ratio and yet refuse to issue money on that
legal ratio is a dishonest and deceptive declaration; it is an at
tempt to cover up what the bill proposes to do; is a fraud upon the
people; is a departure from bimetallism at the fixed ratio which
we have established in this country, and is a direct blow at free
coinage of silver in the United States.
Now, Mr. Speaker, had the bill provided that the outstanding
notes should not be less than.the cost of the bullion, nor exceed its
coin value, you would then have kept up the legal ratio; that is to
say, the Secretary of the Treasury could have issued the money on
the coining value of 16 to 1, which would have kept up the par
between them. But you do not do that. You do not intend to do
it. Wall street did not propose that you should do it when you went
into your Republican caucus and depended upon that way alone of
getting a silver bill. You have cheated the people of this country
out of at least twelve million of dollars of circulation under the bill
according to your own theory. You .have given the bullion owner
or the silver-mine owner a market for his silver, it is true. The Gov
ernment buys the bullion from him, but the difference between the
coining ratio and the bullion ratio is so much capital piled up in the
Treasury at the expense of the people.
Senator S h erm an , when Secretary of the Treasury, and Secretary
Manning, and the Wall street papers of New York have all declared
from the beginning, and it has been stated over and over again on
the floor ot the House, even as late as to-day in the debate, that
when you put silver sufficient in the'dollar to make up the differ-*
ence between the coining value of gold and the silver that there is
no danger of silver inflation. They are demanding that sufficient
silver shall be placed in the dollar; that a dollar’s worth of the
bullion shall be behind the note issued upon it, and by this ratio or
proportion of silver in that way they hope to keep up the gold
standard and prevent silver from performing its part of the measure
of value.
You have come to their proposition. You have joined the gold
standard, and you are now marching under that standard, and when
you come back here in the next Congress and say “ we want the
free coinage of silver ”—oh, yes, you want it, but how are you going
to get it ? Wall street will say to you, “ gentlemen, here is the law
of the land. You have put yourselves on record by a vote in this.
House, and passed a law that says you no longer shall issue money
on silver at its legal ratio, but on its cost price. You have declared
that you will keep the two metals together in this way, by permit*
ting the Secretary of the Treasury to redeem in gold.
The bill says:
That npon the demand of the holder of any of the Treasury notes herein pro
vided the Secretary of the Treasury shall, under such regulation^ as he may pre
scribe—
What sort of regulation?
cretion—
No one knows.
It is left at his dis
redeem such notes in gold or silver at his discretion, it being the established
policy of the United States to maintain the two metals on a parity with each other,
upon the present legal ratio, or such ratio as may be provided by law
That is to say, if you can coin silver free when it reaches a parity
with gold under this bill at its present legal ratio, all right, but not
before. The established policy is to keep the two metals at a parity
at the pres ent ratio, and unless they are at par under the present
BLAND
8
ratio you have no right, after the passage of this law, to demand
the free coinage of silver. That will be the contention of the oppo
nents of free coinage. I shall not be bound by this act, for I will not
vote for or subscribe to any such proposition.
Now, my friend from Iowa [Mr. C o n g e r ] says that I may read
from the newspapers upon this subject. Mr. Speaker, it takes a
good deal of time to read newspapers and the time for debate is
t^o short. I may read a few extracts before I close. The New York
Evening Post, the New York Tribune, the organ of the Republican
party and of Wall street, they all in editorials construe that clause
to mean that the Secretary of the Treasury must use his discretion
in keeping the two metals at par, and the Tribune goes as far as to
say that he ought not to pay out, and it means that he must not pay
out, a silver dollar until the bullion silver is at a par with gold.
Now whenever the Secretary of the Treasury comes to the conclu
sion, as he has heretofore—Mr. Sherman thought that after he had
coined fifty millions of dollars of silver, the coinage of any more was
endangei ing the gold standard and wanted it stopped, and Mr. Folger felt the same way, and so also Mr. Manning. They all refused to
pay out silver except when they could do it safely without disturb
ing the gold standard, and the present Secretary of the Treasury is
no exception. In fact, I do not know but he is more hostile in his
attitude towards silver than the others. What will he construe
this law to mean ? He will construe it to mean that whenever a
inan demands gold for these Treasury notes, that we will go to a
single silver standard if he does not pay in gold. That was the the
ory of Secretary Sherman, and it is the theory of all the gold party—
that when you present a note to the Treasury Department and de
mand gold and the gold is refused, you are on a silver basis. Now,
gentlemen, all know that. You understand that. Mr. S h erm an in
the debate the other day stated that, and he stated the same thing as
Secretary of the Treasury, and so did Mr. Manning. That is the
theory of the gold party, that the moment the Treasury refuses to
pay gold on demand for any note of the Government, gold goes to a
premium and you are on a silver basis and your paper is depreciated.
That is, when the Government fails to redeem its paper in gold,
on demand, the note-holder will be compelled to sell his paper to
get gold to meet his demands and sell it at a discount. This would
at once put gold at a premium.
Well, how is the Secretary to get the gold ? He has one hundred
millions of gold, procured under the resumption law, for the redemp
tion of the greenbacks,, and the New York Tribune and the Evening
Post refer to this law by which he is to keep silver at a parity with
gold.
That on and after the 1st day of January, A. D. 1879, the Secretary of the Treas
ury shall redeem in coin of the United States the legal-tender notes then outstand
ing—
Now, these are United States legal-tender notes—
on their presentation for redemption at the office of the assistant treasurer of
the United States, in the city of New York, in sums of not less than $50. And to
•enable the Secretary of the treasury to provide for the redemption in this act au
thorized and required he is authorized to use any surplus revenue in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated, and to nse, sell, and dispose of, at not less than par, in
coin, either of the description of bonds ot the United States described in the act
of Congress approved July 14, 1870, entitled “ An act to refund the national debt,”
etc.
Five per cent, bonds were sold under that act for the purpose of
keeping the Treasury notes of the United States at par, and there is
BLAND
9
no limitation to it. These are Treasury notes and legal-tender.
And whenever it may become necessary to sell those bonds for the
purpose of getting coin—and that will be gold coin, because gold
coin, when demanded and not on hand, is compelled under the letter
of this bill, that says that it is the policy of the Government to keep
the two metals at par—he would not only be authorized but com
manded to execute the resumption law and sell bonds for the pur
pose of getting gold to redeem these sliver notes. And yet this is
called a silver bill.
Now, I have alluded to the coinage provision of this bill which
requires the coinage of 2,000,000 of ounces for eleven months. Prob
ably it will be eleven months. The bill takes effect thirty days after
it is passed and signed by the President. It may be signed by the
20th of this month, or before. But in July of next year the coinage
ceases, so that you will have only about eleven months for the coin
age of silver, except at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treas
ury. There will after that be no coinage of silver, because none will
be demanded. The note-holder will demand gold; that is his
right by the terms of the bill. The Secretary will be compelled,to
pay gold, for where gold is demanded and is refused there the Gov
ernment has failed to redeem its notes as promised, that is at the
gold standard. It the Government refuses gold, then according to
the theory of the gold bugs and of this bill our money becomes de
preciated to the silver basis.
Now, Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned personally I can well
see how an advocate of free coinage might agree that it was not
necessary to compel the mints to coin 4,500,000 ounces of silver per
month. Probably that could not be done without increasing the
facilities for coinage; and when we can not get free coinage, if we
could get a bill otnerwise unobjectionable, that would have pro
vided for the coinage of 2?000,000 ounces, but not for its discontinu
ance, and not to put it m the discretion of the Secretary of the
Treasury, it would be more satisfactory; but there ought to have
been absolute coinage of at least $2,000,000 per month of the bull
ion. The mint ought to have been kept coining this bullion.
I know of no provision in the Constitution of the United States
under which we have any legal authority to deal in silver bullion,
except for the purposes of coinage; and while we might say that we
can not coin all that is purchased, yet the great principle of coinage
should have been retained. It should have been compulsory that the
mints should be kept constantly coining a portion of this bullion. I
find but one provision in the Constitution giving us any authority
over gold and silver, and that is to coin it into money, “ to regulate
the value thereof, and of foreign coin”—not of bullion. It would be
better to coin it all, but, as a compromise, we should provide for
compulsory coinage equal to $2,000,000 a month. In that way we
would draw a distinction between silver bullion as a commodity and
for coinage. You are constantly drawing the distinction at the mint
when you are coining silver j but when you stop coining and using
it only as a commodity the distinction is gone.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the contention that this is the best bill that
could be had at the present session of Congress will not answer. It
is not the best bill that could be had. The conference committee
met, and resolved itself into a party caucus without consulting the
conferees on this side of the House. We had n<f opportunity to
amend this bill, and if we had offered an amendment it would have
been voted down, This side of the House has had nothing to do
BLAND
10
with it. I say, if the friends of free coinage would stand to their
guns on this floor, refuse to agree to this report, and let us have an
other conference, we would get another bill. There is no question
about it. It may be, gentlemen, you can not get your party in a
caucus to agree to it ; but we will stand with you on this side. If
you will refuse our overtures and refuse our assistance, you must
take the responsibility, for it rests on you. You silver men on that
side of the House can get a better bill than this if you will vote this
down. You do not like i t ; you know it is not right; but party
exigency stands higher with you than that of silver, and then it is
you part with us on this question. [Loud applause on the Demo
cratic side. ]
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not mistaken about it. There is another
oversight in this bill. These Treasury notes ought to be taxable.
We know that the greenbacks are issued in large denominations and
are left in the banks in Wall street, New York, and not taxed. When
tax day comes round they can not be taxed, because they are not
taxable under the law. I do not think we ought to have issued any
more money of that sort, and especially in these large denominations
that will accommodate the banks in escaping taxation. Now, the
law is pretty plain upon that subject. It says:
All stocks, bonds, Treasury notes, and other obligations of the United States
shall be exempt from taxation under State or municipal authority. (See Revised
Statutes, section 37C1.)
That is a statute of the United States, and these notes are denomi
nated Treasury notes in the bill and made a legal tender. They are
permitted to be issued in sums of a thousand dollars, so that when*they
go out to purchase bullion they may be issued in sums of a thousand
and locked up in the banks to escape taxation. I think that is an over
sight. That is one of the difficulties with these conference reports or
caucuses on bills. They are fixed up without due consideration;
without due debate and investigation; they are hurried in and hur
ried through without being properly matured, and the difficulty is
that the Treasury notes issued under this bill and thus outstanding
under this law are not made taxable by law. I think they ought to
be taxed like any other property.
I have a little extract here, Mr. Speaker, that I desire to read, for
it reminds me of some other legislation that occurred in these halls.
It is an extract from the New York Tribune. As stated awhile ago,
whenever you want to ascertain what construction the Secretary of
the Treasury will place upon a particular law in regard to gold and
silver, and what will be done with it, as a rule heretofore all you
had to do was to see what the Wall street papers said he ought to
do; and whatever they have heretofore said he ought to do, he has
done.
This bill requires the purchase of 4,500,000 ounces of silver, “ or so much thereof
as may be offered, in each month, at the market price thereof.” If there is an
attempt to force up the price of silver none may be offered, and in that case none
will be purchased for the month. When there is expectation that the price will
advance offerings may naturally fall below the limit, and consequently purchases
may be curtailed.
Coinage at the rate of $2,000,000 monthly is continued until July 1,1891, but
stopped after that date except in such amounts “ as may be necessary to provide
for the redemption of the Treasury notes.” Continued coinage for another year is
foolish, but not important. The provision for free coinage when silver shall have
reached par is stricken out, and that is a definite and important gain.
The' Treasury notes to be issued for silver bullion will represent its market
value and not its coinage value. The provision for their safety is this:
“ Upon demand of the holder of any of the Treasury notes herein provided for,
the Secretary of the Treasury shall, under such regulations as he may prescribe,
b i<and
11
redeem such notes in gold or silver coin, at his discretion, it being the estab
lished policy of the United States to maintain the two metals on a parity with
each other u on the present legal ratio, or such ratio as may be provided by law.”
The latter clause will,
first glance, seem empty and foolish to many, but the
Secretary has no power, under this provision, to redeem in silver coin while that
coin is lu>t, in market value of bullion contained, "on a parity with” gold, be*
cause such redemption would defeat the purpose declared.
I f silver should reach par he could redeem in silver coin. Otherwise he must
redeem “ under such regulations as he may prescribe” in gold coin, and he has
ample power under provisions of the redemption act to sell bonds for gold in
order to redeem Treasury notes. True, the new notes proposed are not precisely
those which the Treasury was authorized to redeem in 1879, but they are of pre
cisely the same legal character, and the redemption of the old le^al-tender notes
from the bullion fund would at any time give the Secretary authority to purchase
more gold for the replenishment of that fund.
The new notes provided are to be a legal tender in payment of all debts*, public
and private, “ except where otherwise stipulated in the contract.” This latter
clause avoids the obvious impropriety of invalidating or altering private contracts
which have been made or may be made on a gold basis. Its result will be a ma
terial increase in the number of contracts so made. 'With that provision the
grant of legal-tender quality to the notes proposed is of no practical importance;
it will not make the notes worth the thousandth part of a cent more if redemption
in gold should at any time fail. But a nation which ha»paid a thousand millions
of debt within ten years can not suffer redemption to fail without crime.
This compromise has been accepted by all tne Republican members of the con
ference, Messrs. S h e r m a n , J o k e s , C o n g e r , and W a l k e r . When it has passed
both Houses t here will be time to discuss certain of its practical results.
The silver S enators who have contended for tree coinage have this definite rea
son for accep ting the conference measure without delay; probably none more
nearly approa ching their views could by any possibility receive the Presidient’s
approval, and with no action at this session their position would not be enviable.
And they say that he ought to sell bonds to keep these gold notes
(for that is what they will be) at par, that he ought to stop the pur
chase of silver whenever in his opinion there is a disposition to spec
ulate in silver bullion and not to offer it at the market price. Gen
tlemen who are silver men and who want to excuse themselves for
voting for this bill will contend that the Secretary of the Treasury
will never exercise this discretion, that it would be an impeachable
offense, while on the other hand the gentleman from Iowa and the
gold party will contend that the Secretary will execute it, and in
that way will justify themselves for voting for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, is it hot possible for us to pass a bill upon this great
question without this double-headed construction, without leaving
to the Secretary of the Treasury the power to purchase or not to pur
chase, and leaving us without knowledge beforehand of what inter
pretation will be made of the law ? Of course it is impossible to do
that if this is to be legislation to subserve party purposes, if this is
to be a bill upon which the gold men and the silver men in the Re
publican party can agree, so that each may give it their own par
ticular construction, one section in the East and another in the West,
for the purpose of justifying their votes. This is pretty plain lan
guage, but you know it is true.
An article in the New York Evening Post says:
The silver compromise bill will probably pass the Senate to-day. Senator T eller
having declared his intention to vote for it, there is no reason why it should not
receive every Republican vote, together with those of the Eastern Democrats.
Congressman Bland is quoted as saying that the b{U “ puts silver in a worse po
sition than it now is.” From the Bland standpoint that is true. This is not the
first time that enterprising persons have gone forth to gather wool an<l come back
shorn. Something very similar took place in 1874, when Senators Morton, Logan,
and others started out with the inflation bill and ended with the specie-resumption act. From the point of view of Blaki> and T eller, silver is in a worse posi
tion than before, but from the standpoint of common sense it is In a much better
position, and the country is in a much better position. The silver dollar will be
BLAN D
12
kept at par with, the gold dollar under this bill. No such assurance has been
given in any previous legislation. Silver ought to be much obliged for this atten
tion.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it does remind me very much of the legislation
alluded to in this article. I happened to he a member of Congress
at the time when that resumption act was passed. I remember that
Senator Morton in the Senate and Senator Logan, stalwart advocates
of the interests of the West, insisted on the increase of the legaltender notes to $400,000,000. There were then about $360,000,000
of those notes in circulation, and they wanted the amount increased
to $400,000,000, and a provision requiring that the circulation should
be kept at that amount continuously, so as to prevent any further
contraction. That bill passed the Senate and came to this House,
and was passed here. I voted for it. That was at the first session
of the Forty-third Congress. The bill went to President Grant, and
he vetoed it.
[ Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. BLAND. Mr. Speaker, I have not concluded my remarks, and
I ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes longer.
B y unanimous consent, Mr. B la n d was allowed further time.
Mr. BLAND. That bill, I say, provided for fixing the amount of
greenbacks to be ke pt in circulation at $400,000,000, making an in
crease of about $40,000,000 over the amount then in* circulation. It
passed both Houses at the first session of the Forty-third Congress, and
was vetoed by the President. At the second session of the same Con
gress that identical Senate and that identical House passed what is
know as the resumption law, a part of which I just read, which pro
vided for the contraction of the greenbacks and gave free banking.
A Republican House and Senate did this, and thus changed front. Underthat law greenbacks were to be contracted down to only $300,000,000. It was a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate that after
wards passed a bill requiring the outstanding greenbacks to continue
at $346,000,000, and prohibiting further contraction. So in this Con
gress we have contended again for the free coinage of silver; we
have been here all this session advocating free coinage. We have
been resisted by the gold party and those who believed that silver
ought to be limited in its coinage and in its use as money, and now
our friends have finally come to a compromise on a bill which
practically suspends the coinage of silver altogether, fixes a gold
value for silver upon which money is to be issued, and declares in
words which can not be misunderstood that the Secretary of the
Treasury shall institute such regulations as he may prescribe to re
deem the notes in gold instead of silver. He may fall back upon the
resumption act for that purpose, changing the whole system of bi
metallism that we have advocated heretofore, and making silver
simply a commodity whose value shall be measured by gold, a com
modity on which money may be issued at its gold value and only in
that way.
Mr. HOOKER. Will the gentleman permit a question for informa
tion ?
Mr. BLAND. Certainly.
Mr. HOOKER. Was not the preservation in circulation of the
$346,000,000 of greenbacks the act of a Democratic Congress at a
time when the Secretary of the Treasury construed the law to re
quire him to destroy the whole of them as they came irito the Treas
ury?
Mr, BLAND. Under the resumj)tion act the Secretary had no
BLAND
13
authority to destroy them after they reached $300,000,000. When
the bank notes were issued, a like amount of greenbacks was re
tired until the limit of $300,000,000 was reached, after which there
was no further destruction. When the amount reached $346,000,000
Congress stepped in and fixed that as the amount which should be
kept in circulation at all times.
Mr. PAYSON. The gentleman does not intend the House to under
stand that that was regarded as a party measure ?
Mr. BLAND. I do not know whether it was a party measure or
not. I think the House and Senate that passed it were Democratic,
but I believe it received Republican votes.
Mr. PAYSON. Does not the gentleman know that the bill which
made that provision was introduced by my predecessor from the
Ninth district of Illinois, Colonel Greenbury L. Fort ¥ I assert that
to be the fact, and the R e c o r d will show it.
Mr. BLAND. There were various bills .introduced. I remember
the gentleman’s predecessor—a man for whom I had the highest re
spect; we always agreed on the currency question; and 1 am sorry
my friend from Illinois [Mr. P a y s o n ] does not agree with jne now.
Mr. Fort may have introduced that bill-----• Mr. PAYSON. He did.
Mr. BLAND. And that bill as introduced by him may have be
come a law. I do not remember how the fact was-----Mr. PAYSON. It passed under his charge.
Mr. BLAND. Nor do I care; but the circumstances to which the
gentleman refers shows the difference between a Democratic Con
gress and a Republicon Congress. When the Democrats in that Con
gress were in the majority in the House and in the Senate they per
mitted your party to participate in legislation; they recognized your
right to introduce bills; and when they approved such bills they voted
for them; and there were no party caucuses upon questions of this
kind. And, Mr. Speaker, since I have been a member of this House,
for the last eighteen years, I have never seen any Congress in which
great public measures of this sort, on which there is no necessity for
party issues—in which all questions relating to the public business
were relegated to a party caucus, in which party caucuses met to
formulate bills and the Committee on Rules fixed the time and limit
for debate and amendment and conference committees ruled off mem
bers of opposite political views in determining upon bills, all legis
lation being framed to meet the approbation of the Republican party,
and the determination appearing to be that the Democrats should
have nothing whatever to do with it. This is the first time in the
history of Congress since I have been here that such proceedings
have been resorted to.
The Democratic party always recognized the right of Republicans
to meet with them in committees—conference committees and other
committees—and to use whatever arguments or influence or votes
they had in shaping legislation. They have never undertaken to
deny to their political opponents the right of amendment and the
right of consideration; they have never sought to put everything
into the hands of a party caucus, to strip the Representatives of the
people on one side of the House of all power save that of protesting
against the infamous measures presented to them.
Mr. Speaker, I have said about what I intended to say in regard
to this bill. I have given in as succinct a manner as possible my ob
jections to it. Gentlemen claim it will put more money in circula
tion. Under the present law we coin $24,000,000 worth of bullion
BLAND
14
per annum, equal to about thirty-two million silver dollars. If the
Secretary would execute the present law by coining four millions
worth of bullion monthly, it would be better than this bill. This
bill at the present price of silver will probably put into circulation
fifty-six or fifty-seven million dollars. That is a slight increase, it
is true, but it is an increase brought about by a concession to'the
gold standard and an abandonment of silver as money—a concession,
so far as this Congress is coucerned, that you will make no further
fight in the interests of silver, and will not stand up for a better bill
than this.
Now, as I have before said, under the present law the seigniorage
is utilized in the currency. But under this bill the seigniorage—
that is, the difference between the cost of the bullion and its coin
value—amounting to about $12,000,000 every year, will be locked
up in the Treasury as idle money. What is that done for ? That
amount of circulation under this bill is denied to the people in the
interest of the gold standard, in order to preserve the standard, in
order to prevent silver from having fair play.
In two years you will have $24,000,000 locked up; in three years
$36,000,000, and so on. In a short time, under such a bill as this,
you will have $100,000,000 locked up in the Treasury of the United
States as idle money for the purpose of maintaining the gold stand
ard, and for the purpose of maintaining the circulation of silver, not
at its legal ratio, but at the gold ratio as fixed in this bill. Here, I
say, is a denial of currency to the people of this county which ought
not to be consented to.
Mr. CONGER. Will the gentleman allow me a question ?
Mr. BLAND. Certainly.
Mr. CONGER. I would like the gentleman to state whether he
thinks it would be better to have this seigniorage go directly and at
once to a lot of wealthy bullion or bonanza mine owners, or have it
locked up in the Treasury f
Mr. BLAND. Well, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman can harp on that
all he chooses; I care nothing about it. I am here in the interest of
the great mass of the American people who want money ; and when
you say that $12,000,000 annually shall be placed in the Treasury to
lie there idle, simply for the purpose of preventing the bullion
holders from getting it, I ask who, in God’s name, will get it f You
deny it to the people; you make no profit out of it; it is dead capi
tal ; and by such a policy you are simply “ cutting off your nose to
spite your face.” The bullion holder has nothing to do with it; he
has got his pay. Why not put it into circulation ?
Mr. CONGER. Then the gentleman concedes there will be no de
mand for the coined dollar.
Mr. BLAND. Why, sir, what a travesty on the ideas embraced
in this bill. Who is going to demand a silver dollar under this bill?
Nobody. The dollar will be demanded in gold. The right is given
to every holder of a note to demand it in gol 1; and as I said before
the very moment you refuse a gold dollar when demanded, then, ac
cording to Mr. Windom, Mr. S h erm an , and all the gold-favoring
Secretaries of the Treasury that this country has had, you are upon
a silver basis. There is no use in trying to escape that argument;
there is no use in trying to deceive yourselves or the country. You
know that under this bill not a note will be redeemed in a silver
dollar. Mr. S h erm an has declared, as Secretary of the Treasury
and on the floor of the Senate—every Secretary of the Treasury has
so declared from the time we began to coin silver—that whenever
BLAND
15
the holder of a note presented it at the Treasury Department de
manding gold, and that gold is denied to him, you are then on a
silver basis, and your paper is depreciated below the gold standard.
And that is the object. To talk to me about coining silver or pay
ing out silver under this bill is simply adding insult to injury.
Mr. TAYLOR, of Illinois. I would like to ask the gentleman a
question.
Mr. BLAND. Very well.
Mr. TAYLOR, of Illinois. Is it not in the power of this body at
any time to give away the twelve millions to which you refer, or a
hundred millions that you are asking to give away ?
Mr. BLAND. It is if you do not resort to party caucuses to pre
vent it. It is in your powers now if you vote with me against the
adoption of this conference report and to make proper disposition of
that money which this bill proposes to leave in the Treasury; and I
dare you to do it. Now is your time. Do not skulk behind future
possibilities. If you believe it ought to be done, then you are much
less of a man than I take you to be if you are not willing to come to
the front and take a bold stand upon it.
Mr. TAYLOR, of Illinois. But I am in favor of keeping the peo
pled money and not giving it away for nothing.
Mr. BLAND. Oh, no; I guess you are not willing to go with me
on this question. You are in with the gold-bugs. [Laughter.] Let
the money be issued to pay public debts.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if this was purely a greenback bill and did not
profess ,to be anything else, I should not object to voting for it. I
do object to its sailing under false colors. And if you take all of the
silver out of it and do not make it discretionary with the Secretary
of the Treasury to buy so much bullion or issue so much money, and
make it mandatory and compulsory that he shall issue four and a half
millions of greenbacks per month, not based on silver bullion but on
the wealth of the United States, and have no twang in it, no gold
standard, and no uncertain conditions, I will vote for it. But when
you claim this is a silver bill, where silver is slaughtered in the in
terest of the gold standard, when you give power to the Secretary
of the Treasury to limit the amount of his purchases, or the amount
of money that shall go out under it in the shape of circulating notes
I denounce it as a fraud. It is neither a good greenback bill nor a
silver bill. It is simply a political exigency bill, concocted here to
tide over a party difficulty. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker,
I am not bound by the terms of this bill. I denounce it as a fraud,
and as long as I am a member of Congress I will on the floor of this
House denounce it, and I intend to denounce it and show its falsity
and will continue to advocate free coinage, the high principle of
which in the interest of the people of this country I will never sur
render for one minute. [Applause on the Democratic side.]
I know gentlemen may say that free coinage will come in the next
Congress. I know they may say that this will be a great question
at the coming elections, and that the people will pass upon it. That
is true; but when the bill of f878 passed, it passed the House a purely
free-coinage bill, and went to the Senate, where it was amended so
as to provide for the purchase of the two millions’ worth and not
exceeding four millions of silver bullion every month. It was re
turned to us in the shape of a compromise measure; and what was
the position of every free-coinage adv ocate on the floor of the House
at that time ¥ What was the position in which they were placed ?
They said we will take this bill as the very best we can do now.
BLAND
16
We were told that the President would veto the bill. I fell into
line and got into the trap set for us, and I am sorry, for I have had
some experience since then. But it was said, and we believed it,
that it could not pass the Senate in any pther shape than as they
returned it to us.
Now, the Senate come and say this bill can not pass the House in
any other shape. I say that I fell into that trap once; I fell into
it in 1878, and the bill became a law over the veto of the Presi
dent. But every free-coinage man in the House at that time was
confident that the next President of the United States would sign a
free-coinage bill. That was our hope and our honest belief. That
bill passed the House by a vote of three-fourths of its members, and
it passed the Senate by a vote of two-thirds of that body. There
was excitement in the country that amounted almost to a revolu
tion, demanding the free coinage of silver ; and no one supposed
but that free coinage was in sight, and all that was necessary was
an appeal to the people. And yet, Mr. Sp eaker, notwithstanding
the pressure exerted by the popular mind on Congress at that time,
and upon the President, there has never been a day from that time
to the present when this House would pass a free-coinage bill.
But I allude to this only to commend that piece of history to gen
tlemen who are willing to compromise on the present measure. I
commend it to gentlemen who are willing to stifle their free will in
this matter and adopt a measure which will check and retard the
very interest they have at heart. I commend it to gentlemen who
are willing to accept this compromise so eagerly and unnecessarily,
let me say, in the hope that when the next Congress meets it will
be a free-coinage Congress. I simply refer them to the history of
the House on this subject before to show that there is no certainty
in such things. If you have not a satisfactory bill, now is the time
to vote against it. You Have had but one conference on this subject,
and if you vote down this report you can have another, and have
the bill amended and these objectionable features to the silver men
stricken out." It ought to be done, and it is what I propose to un
dertake to do, so far as I am able. [Applause on the Democratic
side.]
BLAND
O
@FedFRASER