The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
DEMONETIZATION
OF
SILVER.
SPEECH
09
HON. JOSEPH C. S. BLACKBURN,
OF
KENTUCKY,
IN THE
S E N A T E OF T H E U N I T E D
STATES,
W e d n e s d a y , OCTOBER 4, 1893,
W A S H I N G T O N .
1S93.
Remonetization of Silver.
S P E E C H
oe
HON. JOSEPH 0, S. BLACKBURN,
OF
KENTUCKY.
I N T H E S E N A T E OP T H E TTNITEP S T A T E S ,
Wednesday, October 4,1893,
The Senate having under consideration the bill (H. R. 1) to repeal a part of
an act, approved July 14,18^0, entitled "An act directing the purchase of silver
bullion and the issue of Treasury notes thereon, and for other purposes
Mr* BLACKBURN said;
Mr. PRESIDENT; I am not an expert infinance,nor an authority upon political economy. I may not hope after the very elaborate and exhaustive debate which has been had upon this measure to throw any additional light upon the question we are to
pass upon, nor to aid the Senate in any degree in reaching the
conclus^op to which it is to come, and yet X am tempted to trench
upon the patience of the Senate, and upon the impatience of the
American people sufficiently to put upon the record some of the
reasons that shall control my action upon the pending bill.
This debate has developed the fact that wide differences of
opinion exist among us as to many of the phases of the issue
involved, but it Ji^S developed one other fact, that we all seem to
be agreed upon, the one proposition that the law of 1890, known
as the Sherman law, is a bad law, and should never have been
enacted. Jt has been very justly and truthfully described as a
homeless, an owperless, and a friendless cur whose putative father
even denies its paternity. X am not here, sir, as its friend, nor
am I willing to appear even in the role of its apologist. , The
records of the Senate show thatl opposed its passage, and I have
never seen cause to change the opinion I then held.
I am opposed to it for more reasons than one. I believed then,
ag I know now, that its purpose was not an open nor an honest
one, it never was intended to defeat or to prevent the passage
of an unlimited silver-coinage bill. There was neither probability nor possibility of such an act being passed at that time,
Both Houses of Congress were Republican; the Executive belonged to the same party, and whatever may be said in criticism
of the late President, it must be admitted that upon that ques540
3
4
^tion he at least had been candid and fair in his dealings with the
people of this country. He had announced publicly more than*
once that if Congress should pass an unlimited coinage bill he
would not hesitate to disapprove it.
The act of 1890 was not passed to prevent the enactment of ah
unlimited silver-coinage bill, nor was it passed as a measure
friendly to the silver metal. Proof incontestable crops out on
the very face of the act to establish this conclusion. It is not
entitled "An act to provide among other things for the coinage
of silver;" its title reads, "An act directing the purchase of
silver bullion and the issue of Treasury notes thereon, and for
other purposes." It was never intended by that act to aid those
who were clamoring for the admission of the silver metal to the
mints of this country. Aye more, it was the purpose of that act
to stop the coinage of the silver metal, and it has answered its
purpose. In its fifth section it provides—
That so much of the act of February 28,1878, entitled—
Mark the difference of titles—
entitled "An act to authorize the coinage of the standard silver dollar and
to restore its legal-tender character," as requires the monthly purchase and
coinage of the same into silver dollars of not less than $2,000,000 nor more
than $4,000,000 worth of silver bullion, is hereby repealed.
The purpose of that carefully prepared, if not cunningly devised, piece of legislation was to stop the coinage of the silver
metal, to increase the amount of silver bullion to be purchased,
I grant you, that more than double the minimum amount provided for in the act of 1878; but, mark you, this act of 1890,
known as the Sherman act—and for convenience sake hereafter
I shall so designate it—goes further. It was approved upon the
14th of July, 1890, and it provides for the stoppage of silver coinage altogether within less than a twelvemonth from its promulgation.
It does make provision for the coinage of silver up to the 1st
of July, 1891. That provision is compulsory upon the Treasury
Department; but there it stops. Prom that time the coinage of
silver is left discretionary with the Treasury Department. But,
mark you more. The Bland-Allison law required not only the
purchase, but the coinage of not less than two nor more than
four million dollars per month. The Sherman law of 1890 provides for the coinage for less than a twelvemonth of the minimum amount required by the law which it repealed, and after
the 1st day of July, 1891, no provision is made for the coinage
of this metal at all, except in the discretion of the Secretary of
the Treasury; and I beg you to tell me what Secretary has presided over that Department from the date of the passage of the
Bland-Allison act in 1878 who has ever yet gone to the maximum or gone beyond the limits of the minimum requirement of
the compulsory law.
I did object to the passage of the Sherman act in 1890 because
I then believed, as I and you and all of us now know, that it had
another purpose, and that was to make the silver metal ridiculous in the eyes of the world as a money metal by purchasing it
in large quantities, refusing it mintage, and storing it as pig
metal, not to be used even in the arts. But bad as this measure
was, unfair, uncandid, as I believe it to have been and as the re540
5
suits of its operation prove it to have been, still, while reiterating my declaration that I am neither its friend nor its apologist,
let justice be done.
I do not believe that it is the cause of thefinancialwoes under
which the country now suffers. Nofinancial^ disaster ever
came upon a people save from over investments in the shape of
speculation or from a contraction of the currency. That it did in
a measure contribute to the disturbance of business with which
we are now afflicted, I doubt not; but that it was the sole cause,
productive of all thisfinancialtrouble and panic, I do not believe, nor do I believe that its repeal would prove the panacea
for all thefinancialills under which we are now struggling.
I do not favor either the bill passed by the House of Representatives nor the amendment in the nature of a substitute reported by the majority of the Committee on Finance in this
Chamber; and in what I may submit to-day, I avow frankly and
openly that I speak from the standpoint of a man who still cherishes the convictions of a lifetime.
I have never held an opinion on the question here under discussion which I have changed or modified in all these years. I
never gave utterance to a conviction upon this monetary question which I do not mean here upon thisfloorand now to repeat
and to reiterate. By what I say to-day I ask to be judged hereafter. I am a bimetallist in the broadest and truest sense and
signification of that term. I do not want to see my country put
upon a single standard. I am opposed to a single silver standard just as I now oppose a single gold standard, because either
the one or the other means the striking down, in round numbers, of one-half of the money of the world. I do not intend by
my vote or by my action to give aid or comfort to any measure
or to any effort which tends to contract the circulating medium
of this country; but I shall get to that later.
If I were forced to an election between the two metals for a
single standard of value, I confess frankly that I should prefer
the silver standard to the gold standard, for the reason that we are
the largest producers of silver of all the nations of the earth. We
hold in our circulation to-day one-eighteenth of the silver of the
world. It is par excellence our metal, and if driven to a choice
between those two alternatives, I should sooner see the destinies
of my country launched upon a silver basis than to go into the
wild scramble with the powers of the older world for the infinitesimal output of gold, which year by year would prove insufficient to meet the growing demands of our population and
our business. I mean in every word that I shall utter to-day to
employ the fullest measure of candor. I am willing to admit,
and I do admit, that in any suggestions which I may submit, I
speak from the standpoint of one who believes that the measure
pending on report from the Committee on Finance forces me to
choose between a single standard and a d ouble standard.
I believe more than that, that either the bill sent to us from
the House or the substitute for it reported here in the Senate,
leaves me no alternative except to take my choice between the retention of the act of 1890 and the regstablishment of the demonetization act of 18*73. From my standpoint I can regard it in no
other light, except that I must oppose the adoption of the bill
540
6
which is pending or practically cast my vote for that nefarious
piece of legislation which blotted the statute books of thiscbuntry.
I do not believe that there is a man who sits upon my side of
the Chamber, who, as an original proposition, would vote for the
demonetization act of 1873.
If the bill pending here to repeal the purchasing clause of the
Sherman law of 1890 is passed, I ask you, sir, pray tell me what
follows then? Cheerfully would I give it my support if it remitted the country to the then existing condition of affairs.
If a repeal of the purchasing clause of the Sherman law put
the country b..ck into precisely the condition which it occupied when that law was unfortunately enacted, it would have
my vote and my support; but it does not do it. When you repeal the purchasing clause of the law of 1890 without a substitute, without an amendment, an unconditional repeal, you send
the country back to the law of 1873, which was a naked act of
demonetization.
I can not go upon the record as an advocate of that act of 1873.
I can not support the measure reported by the Committee on Finance without taking that position upon the record, and that,
whilst life lasts me, I shall never do.
As to the act of 1873, it were perhaps better to say no more.
It has been discussed enough; it has been denounced; it has
been abused, and never, in my judgment, has justice in that direction been done to it yet. It changed every contract within
the broad limits of this land, whether evidenced by note, by
bond, or by mortgage. It put into the pockets of the creditor
class more than 30 per cent beyond their righteous dues, and
piled a corresponding burden, which had never been earned, by
sheer force of legislation, upon the shoulders of the debtor class
of the country.
According to the estimates of a recognized English authority
(a momometallist, Robert Given) prices declined upon an average
24 per cent from 1873 to 1879 because of the demand for gold
from Germany and America to meet the requirements of their
single standard legislation.
X may be permitted. Mr. President, just here to say of that act of
1873, what I took occasion to utter from my place in this Chamber
upon the 9th day of January, 1891. I repeat it now. It is as true
tp-day as it was when it was uttered:
Human ingenuity lias not yot been able to furnish either justification or
excuse for the demonetization of silver in this country. In 1873, when this
foul deed was done, our silver dollar commanded a premium over gold. In
the very hour of its taking oft it stood confessedly the more popular and better metal of the two on which the country and its business rested.
Surely it was not stricken down because of its baseness; surely it Was not
rejected because the people discredited it. It had stood the strain of war,
performing all of its vital functions as Well as it had ever done throughout
the ages that lie behind it. The volume of currency at that date, no man
dare say, was too large for the country's wants, and yet, Tor purposes that
may be suspected, but which may not be admitted, it fell, the victim of a
blow delivered in the dark.
That language I reiterate now. .That act changed the unit of
value in this land from the silver unit which had obtained from the
foundation of this Government until, by a dark-lantern process,
this law was crystallized upon the statute book. It changed the
unit of value from silver to gold; it dropped the silver dollar
540
7
from the list of coin metals; it put this country upon a single
standard without warning or notice, without any preparation
whatever. It is this law, it is this demonetization act of 1S78, to
which you will remit me by the passage of the act now before
the Senate for adoption.
v Bad as the Sherman law of 189Q may be, bad as we know it to
be—everything in this world, sir, goes by comparison—compared
with the act qf 1873,1 prefer the retention of the Sherman law.
That, at leasts recognizes silver, and that metal the act of 1873
demonetize'^. Hard lines, Mr."President, have we fallen upon
when between these two alternatives we must choose; but I trust
that the wisdom and conservatism of this Senate will find still
another, a fairer, a wiser, and a more righteous basis of adjustment.
, .,
" I do not believe th^t silver should be dispensed with as a money
metal in this country." I remember that five-sixths of the civilized nations of this earth to-day stand upon a silver basis either
wholly or partially. I remember that of the $10,000,000,000 that
constitutes the money qf the world, the silver and gold are well
nigh evenly balanced. The estimate, in round numbers, from
{he best authorities that can bo had—I refer to the Mint reports
Of my own country—is, I believe, that there are $3,600,000,000 of
gpld and $4,000,000,000 of silver. Thefluctuationbetween these
two metals is inevitable and unavoidable.
Jt has been comparatively but a few years since, under the
leadership of the great French economist, Laveleye, we saw the
German nations demonetize gold in the year 1857, because of the
heavy output from the recently discovered mines both of California and Australia. Silver was then the precious metal. Gold
was the cheaper one. That was to be guarded against. In the
very center of that older eontinent we saw the wisest and most
experienced of its nations, Prussia, Austria, Belgium, and others
of the now German confederation, seek to protect themselves
from a disturbance of their business concerns by striking down
the yellow instead of the white metal.
These fluctuations car; not be avoided, and, in common fairness, not speaking fropa the standpoint of an expert, but from
the stodpoint of common sense, tell me, pray, sir, if stability
of currency is what you want, which is the safer method by
which to obtain it? 'Is it to rest upon either metal, or is it to
accept an axiom infinancethat it is the sum of these two metals,
the aggregateof gold and silver, which constitutes the universal
measure of value.
In times of disturbance the one operates as a check upon the
other. Will you undertake to summon to your aid prophetic vision and tell me that in the dim and distant future that stretches
out before us no other mines, whether of silver or of gold, like
those of Australia or of our own western border or of the Soutji
American countries, or of India or of Africa, are ever to be discovered and developed? Who will stand your sponspr if you undertake to guarantee to me that we may safely adopt either gold or
silver as a standard and look for no disturbaiices by reason of an
unexpected output in that individual metal? Then, if you adopt
the bimetallic basis, if the output of one is unexpectedly and
without warning increased, is doubled, trebled, or quadrupled,
540
8
the other stands stationary as a check against the results, the
disastrous results, always attending such a sadden disturbance
^ I ^ n o T L ^ ' M r . President, that that act of 1873 was constitutional. I do not believe that the passage of the bill now
pending, which does substantially in effect revive and put back
into operation the act of 1873, is a constitutional measure The
great expounder of this organic law, who made the State that
sent him here forever famous by reason of his abil^y, his brilliancy, his patriotism, and his invaluable service, Mr. Webster,
of Massachusetts, not only in his day, but down to the present
hour, stands confessedly the representative expounder of the
Constitution of this country. I believe with him in that declaration that gold and silver, at a ratiofixedby Congress, constitute the standard of value in this country, and that neither
Congress nor any State has the power to substitute another
standard nor to displace that standard.
With all respect for the great tribunal, thefinalarbiter under
our form of government, the court of last resort, the shelter and
the shield under which our liberties find their last and I hope,
their safest protection—with all respect for that court, I do not
believe that the act of 1873 could ever have been held to be constitutional save for that inevitable political bias which creeps
into judicial tribunals and which creeps into legislative halls
like this that biases human judgment; and those justices, like
ourselves, are at last but human.
,
But, sir, I protest upon other grounds, more than I shall tax
the patience of this Senate to allow me to submit; I protest
against striking down the silver metal here, because of the burdens that it will add to the debtor classes of this country, and
not alone because of the unfair advantage it will give to the credit( Whv sir, what do you propose? You strike down silver, which
to-dav is an unlimited legal tender among these people, and is
there a man upon thisfloorwho will deny that if that act should
pass it will change the terms and conditions of every contract
existing and unperformed to-day within the land? Is there a
man here who will deny that if you destroy one-half of the money
of the country you double the value of the remaining half, and
e v e r v penny unearned that you put into the pocket of the creditor
represents a penny of additional burden upon the bowed back of
'the debtor? What remuneration are you going to give to the
debtor classes of this country?
Sir. in the very opening years of this century, as far back as
1819, not a free republic like this, but a monarchy of the older
world, demonetized silver. History tells us that m 1839 the
Kingdom of Portugal demonetized the silver metal; but it was
fairer than our friends upon the other side are willing to be today . In the very act that struck down the silver metal m Portugal it was declared that the addition made to the burden of
debtor class of that country would be so heavy, the shrinkage of values would be so great, injustice would be so clearly
wrought, that 20 per cent of every debt, public, corporate, and
private, within the realm of Portugal should be taken from the
9
face of the obligation; and it was done in the act of demonetization.
Mr. MORGAN. But no abatement of the burden of the debtor •
is proposed here, except a bankrupt law,
Mr. BLApKBURN. I thank the Senator from Alabama for
the suggestion.
In 1819 Portugal was unwilling by means of class legislation
to rob the debtor classes of that country. She passed the bill,
and Doubleday, in his life of Sir Robert Peel, tells us that in
the same act she incorporated a provision that scaled every
debt, corporate and private, within her realm 20 per cent. As
the Senator from Alabama suggests, there is no abatement of
the burdens of thp debtor proposed here, except a house of refuge in the shape of a bankrupt law.
Mr. President, I have opposed the passage of a bankrupt law.
I have stood in both Houses of Congress for well nigh twenty
years opposing the passage of any bankrupt law that Carried^ a
compulsory provision. I admit that conditions may arise in
which the debtor classes may need such legislation, and will be
entitled to it; but I deny that under any conditions which have
yetobtained, a bankrupt law is a relief to the creditor class where
it carries a compulsory provision. If silver is to be stricken
down in this country, if the country is to be put upon a gold
standard, it may be that even a compulsory bankrupt law may
afford some relief from the evils that will be imposed upon this
country.
Who is it that is clamoring for the demonetization of this
metal. With five-sixths of the civilized nations of the earth
standing either upon a silver standard or a bimetallic standard,
who is it that clamors for its destruction? Not a majority of the
people of this world; not a majority of the nations of the earth.
Russia stands to-day upon a bimetallic standard nominally, but
in point of fact she stands upon a naked paper basis. She stands
practically to-day upon the samefiat-moneybasis as does Brazil.
Germany is upon a single basis, and yet it is not Germany that
is clamoring for this legislation.
England is the only country upon the earth that is demanding
the degradation of this metal. Her motives are not difficult to
fathom. England is to-day the heaviest creditor nation upon
the earth, for the rest of the world, it is estimated, owes her
$10,000,000,000. Is it to be wondered that England wants the
single gold standard? If it be to the interest of that great creditor nation to insist upon it, then, in candor, tell me can it consistently be to the interest of a debtor nation to grant it? Conditions being reversed, policies must be reversed. What is to
the interest of the debtor nation can not be to the interest of
the creditor nation.
But we are told during the progress of this discussion—not
from the other side of the Chamber, but from this side of the
Chamber; not from avowed monometallists, but from avowed bimetallism—that we must wait. I was amazed to be told that we
should pass this unconditional repeal bill and go back to the demonetization law of 1873, and wait until a fortunate day should
dawn to inaugurate legislation looking to the establishment of a
bimetallic currency* Ah, the counsel did not stop there. The
W
10
advicp went further, and told us that we must wait until India
reopened her mints to the silver of the world. What! India, a
dependency of Great Britain, and we must wait until England
directs her colonies to adopt a double standard, and then we may.
be permitted to follow in the wake! England dictates the financial policies of India, but, thank God, more than a hundred yearsj
&ave passed since she was allowed to treat these States as her
colonics or dependencies. Have Senators 'forgotten that mor§
than a, century ago, rather than submit to the domination, the
financial exactions of the mother country, the people of our land
resorted to the last argument to which liberty ever appeals—
they went to the sword. And now, after a hundred years and
inore, are we to be remitted to thatfinancialserfdom?
" Mr. President, it is not within the compass of human power
to calculate in dollars and in cents, amounting to millions and
billions, what it is to cost this country to pass the bill that is
pending *here. We know that every product of human industry
within the limits of this land rises and falls in price with silver
as its barometer. It was in 1892, year after the Sherman law
went into operation, that silver touched 82 cents per ounce, the
lowest point ever reached within its history. It was upon the
1st of July, 1891, that the coinage of silver practically ceased.
Between 1873 and 1879, or from 1873 to this blessed^ hour, the
shrinkage in value of every sort and of every description has
passed beyond the power of human computation. Thirty per
cent, 50 per cent, 60 per cent has marked the shrinkage in the
value of your farming lands and the products of the farm.
A contraction of the currency always brings a shrinkage of
values, and every recognized authority upon the subject that has
ever written or ever spoken tells us that in the train of that
shrinkage of values and contraction of currency come disaster,
wreck, and ruin to the farmer, to the manufacturer, to the mechanic, and to all who depend upon them for their sustenance.
Why, sir, if England can have the silver money in this country
demonetized, it will be a long stride in the direction of its universal demonetization. What is to become of the single silver
standard countries, because in this day of enlightenment and
civilization ao nation can afford to tread the selfish road whioh
looks alone to the promotion of its own interests? Its neighbors
must be consulted and their interests considered. The common
interest that binds the world together can not be ignored.
"^Vhat is to become of China, holding a population of 400,000,000
$ouls, which stands alone upon a silver basis? Looking to the
southward, to the neighboring Republic of Mexico, and to the
South American continent, what is to become of them, for they
are silver people?
Suppose you demonetize silver, what then? You must
strengthen your gold reserve. How? By a sale of bonds, another mortgage upon labor, and a purchase of the only metal left
by which to measure values. In what amount, I ask? The answer comes, $200,000,000 of bonds; an addition to this gold reserve of $200,000,000 must be made. Aro we to go into the general scramble for the possession of this metal?
' Europe is hoarding gold to-day, not for commerce, but for
war. Is there any need why we should enter the list as a cpm540
11
petitor to bid against her? Suppose we do; suppose that we
rush into the market to bid for $200,000,000 of gold, do we not
drive and force other silver countries of the world to follow our
example?
There is but $3,600,000,000 of gold in all the world. If wo need
$200,000,000 to strengthen our reserve, surely it is a modest estimate to claim that the other silver and bimetallic countries of
the world will need at least $1,COO,COO,000 more. What shall we
pay for it? Whatever rate the holder sees fit to ask. Where
will its premium stop? No mortal man can tell. What need
have we for it? Are we threatened with invasion? Is there
upon the earth an enemy against whose hostile approach we
must provide? I think not. Europe is to-day an armed camp.
That Continent is rocking to-day beneath the tread of more than
6,000,000 of armed men. Each day brings its renewed threat of
invasion over the border.
4
Look at Russia, a silver country, whose unit of value is the
silver ruble—a paper country, in point of fact. Will any man
answer and tell me how much gold Russia is hoarding to-day?
No, sir; because the man does not live upon this earth outside
the Russianfinanceministry who can form even an approximate
idea. Her gold reserve to-day is estimated at between $450,000,000 and $800,000,000. Why is she hoarding it? She does
not transact her business upon a gold basis; she .does not transact it upon a bimetallic basis. She is hoarding it for war. If
you need proof of it look at the facts known to us. Whilst we
can not tell how much she has, it is an open secret that she
holds to-day $20,000,000 of gold in England's bank and she holds
to-day $20,000,000 in Germany's bank. What for? To meet any
demand of trade? No, sir. She holds it there for war purposes.
Let a rumor of disturbance come between that Western empire
and the English people and at once she withdraws $20,000,000 of
gold from England and disturbs thefinancesof that nation perhaps as sadly as the recent outflow of $38,000,000 of gold from
this country seems to have upset our commercial relations.
The same is true of Germany. Look at the gold holdings of
every prominent power upon the Continent of Europe, and it
must convince you beyond cavil or dispute that the gold of the
world, infinitesimal in amount as compared to the business of
l i e world, is being hoarded, not for commerce but for war. Yet
there are those who would advise us to go into this scramble to
gather that gold, to bury $300,000,000 of it in the vaults of the
Treasury, where it would rust and rot, awaiting the invasion of
Our borders.
, ^ ,
We are told, Mr. President, that silver should be disgraced
because it has depreciated in value. My answer is a denial; it
is not true; silver has not depreciated in value, measured by any
product of human industry, save gold. In the open markets a
dollar in silver to-day will buy as much of food or clothing, as
much of the necessities Of life, of the products of human labor,
as it ever did before, or as will a dollar in the other metal. A
silver dollar to-dav will pay as much debt as it over paid before,
or will pay as much debt as a gold dollar will do to-day. Silver
has not depreciated in value. The fairer, because the truer,
way to state the proposition is that gold, and gold alone, has
510
12
appreciated in value. The reason for that is not difficult to dis
cover. You need not search below the surface for it lies patent
upon the face. The one metal, by such acts as this now proposed
has been petted and fostered by the legislation of this country
the other has been debased, degraded, and converted into a com
modity.
Silver stands to-day the only honest measure of value m this
country. If the price of an ounce of silver has gone down, so
has the price Of your bushel of wheat or corn, or your pound of
pork or beef or cotton. Silver stands to day where it has ever
stood, the money of traffic and of trade, the money of the masses,
the standard by which their labor has been measured, and you
can not escape it. I venture the assertion that neve r in the history
of the human race was any metal subjected to the test that this
white metal has endured. Denounced as a commodity, put under
the ban of the law, refused mintage except in limited quantities,
stored in the vast storehouses of the country as you would store
old broken furniture in the garret of your house; yet, despite
its despised character, it stands to-day as the representative of
every lick of labor that is struck by the 67,000,000 people who
live upon this continent.
We have heard, Mr. President, more than once about an hon
est dollar, and a clamor has been raised that none but such as
that should be issued or emitted by the Government. So say I;
but let us determine what constitutes an honest dollar. Is it the
dollar that pays 100 cents of debt? Is it the dollar that buys 100,
cents of labor? If that be the honest dollar, then the stamped
silver dollar of this land is that. Or is the honest dollar one
that pays $1.30 by reason of the legislation of which it has been
made the beneficiary? Is the gold dollar worth by comparison
with silver bullion to-day $1.30 upon the dollar? Is that an honest dollar?
Who is the repudiator? Answer me? Is he the repudiator
who offers to discharge the obligation of a dollar by paying you
one that represents 100 cents in the open markets, or is he the
repudiator who claims that you, his debtor, shall pay him when
you owe him a dollar or 100 cents, a dollar that represents §1.30?
How easy it is to change the terms upon which you submit your
statement.
But, Mr. President, I am tempted to ask where and whence
comes the demand for the demonetization of this metal. It does
not come up to us in a gathering thunder chorus from the farm
nor the workshop nor the mine. It comes from behind the grated
vaulted door of the banks. Who is it who has too much money
here? Surely not the people. Surely not the West and South,
the great producing sections of this country that to-day are unable to move their crops, to pay their debts, to relieve their
mortgages, or to support their families. We are in the midst of
financial distress. Everyone charges it and everyone admits it.
We are told by some of our people that the Sherman law is responsible for this condition. I do not believe it. Bad, as I know
it is, it never brought all this trouble on us. It did not shrink
our trade with the foreign nations of the earth. It did not transfer one-half of the aggregate wealth of the American people into
the Dockets of less than twenty-five thousand souls. Overproduction did not do that. Underconsumption, brought about by
540
13
the hampering restrictive features of your tariff system, tho
shortening and closing of your markets for the products of'your
labor, a fatally defective banking system, wild speculative investments, and criminal extravagance in public expenditure—
these are . some of the causes which produced the tro ubled'condition in which wefindourselves. The Sherman law did not do
all that.
But the advocates of repeal, the advocates of a single standard,
tell us that we must have an international standard of values.
Mr. President, an international standard of values is a myth*
There never was an international standard. There never will
be. There never heed to be. That it would be a convenience
to commerce I confess, but that it is a necessity to commerce I
deny. Neither the gold sovereign of England, nor the gold
Louis d*or of France, nor the gold eagle of America bears the
same relative value to the silver coin of its respective country,
and yet each stands as a representative of value in its country.
What need have we for the international standard. Only onetwentieth of our trade is with foreign nations, nineteen-twentieth s of it is among ourselves. Neither the one nor the other
ever crosses the borders of its domain that it must not be adjusted upon a basis of relative value, its commercial value.
There is no such thing in the ordinary employment of the term
as the intrinsic value of a metal. What intrinsic value has the
silver bullion? What intrinsic value has the gold bullion? You
can not pay your debts with it. Y ou can not transact the ordinary
business affairs of life with it. It is a commodity. It is a dead
substance until the stamp of a responsible government is put
upon it which vitalizes it.
Mr. President, the destruction of silver as one of the moneyed
metals of this country would entail untold loss, suffering, ruin
upon this psople. The repeal of the Sherman law will not cure
the distempers under which we suffer. He who so diagnoses
this case is but a quack in the profession of political doctors.
The disease 4ies deaper. The trouble lies further back. Your
tariff system nesds revision. Yourfinancialsystem needs overhauling.
I stand here to-day to advocate both of these necessary works.
It would ssem that it was scarcely necessary either in this
Chamber or in this country to make an argument or to enter a
plea in behalf of a bimetallic currency. If there be one postulate in the current politics of the American people upon which
all parties seem to be agreed it is that of the establishment and
the maintenance and the perpetuation of a double standard of
values in this country. The Republican national convention
which met upon the 7th day of June, 1892, in the city of Minneapolis, incorporated into its declaration of principle, into its
declaration of promises to the American people, the following
plank:
The American people, from tradition and interest, favor bimetallism, and
the Kepublican party demands the use of both gold and silver as standard
money, with such restrictions and under such provisions, to be determined
by legislation, as will secure the maintenance of the parity of values of the
two metals, so that—
What?—
so that the purchasing and debt-paying power of the dollar, whether of silver,
gold, or paper, shall be at all times equal.
540
14
That is the condition we are in to-day. The purchasing- and
debt-paying power of every dollar of money circulating in this
realm to-day is equal, whether it be gold or silver or paper
Let it be remembered, whatever the practice of the Government
may be. that where two metals are made legal tender, the right
of option belongs to the debtor and not to the creditor. If the
debtor may not discharge his obligation in the metal that he
selects, then that metal is not a legal tender. Who proposes to
disturb that condition? That is what the party to which you
gentlemen upon the other side belong has declared tobeitspui>
pose. Are you willing to make good that pledge to the American people? You promised to do it in the last authoritative utterance that you ever made to the American people. The
question confronts you to-day,' Will you make good that promise
or will you break it?
Mr. WASHBURN. I should like to ask the Senator from
Kentucky a question right here.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Kentucky
yield to the Senator from Minnesota?
Mr. BLACKBURN. With pleasure.
Mr. WASHBURN. Would we comply with the promise if we
should agree to vote for the free and unlimited coinage;of silver?
Mr. BLACKBURN. I will answer the Senator by saying that
the term free coinage of silver " is a misleading term. There
never was such a thing in this country as the free coinage of
silver. The correct term is the unlimited coinage of silver.
From the foundation of this Government until 1873, when that
metal was demonetized, silver never was coined free. A tax,
called seigniorage, of 10 per cent was always put upon it; and
henpe the distinction in your dollar as described in your laws
of finance. Up to 1873 the holder of silver bullion went to the
mint with his silver bars of 412i grains of pure silver, and he was
entitled to its mintage.
Mr. BUTLER. Three hundred and seventy-one and a quarter?
Mr. BLACKBURN. No, sir; he must carry 4121- grains of
pure silver to the mint. He was entitled to its mintage, and the
Government exacted a toll, called seigniorage, of 10 per cent.
Forty-one and one-fourth grains of that pure silver belonging to
the bullion holder, to the miner, the smelter, was taken out and
covered into the Treasury of the United States^ and 4li grains
of alloy was substituted in its place. Hence the distinction. The
silver dollar is described as a dollar of 412£ grains nine-tenths
fine, or a silver dollar of 3711 grains pure silver, which meant
the same dollar. The profit of the Government consisted not in
the 41£ grains of pure silver subtracted from this bullion, but,
measured exactly and accurately, the profit of the Government
meant the difference between the value of 41i grains of pure
silver metal and the cost of 41i grains, infinitesimal, incalculable,
of the mixed alloy metal that was used as a substitute.
Now, I will say to the Senator from Minnesota that if he will
unlock the mints of this country, if he will restore to the silver
metal the same right of coinage and of mintage that it held prior
to 1873, he will make good the promise contained in the platform of his party, which I have read and ventured to call tq the
attention of the Chapaber.
'40
15
Mr. WASHBURN. There is whero thfc 'difference of opinion
arises. My judgment is, and I think it is the judgment of the
men who formed that platform, that by adopting the free coinage
of silver we would go"to the monometallic basis of silver.
Mr. BLACKBtJRN. Now, will the Seiiator froih Minnesota
rsrmit me to ask him a question, and I do ii in all sincerity and,
need not add, with all respect? Does the Senator from Minnesota feel that he is making good this pledge that his party gave to
tho American people by voting for a bill that demonetizes silver
and strikes it from the list of money metals of this country?
Mr. WASHBURN. I believe the repeal of this law (which
the Senator and every member on his side admits is a;vicious
law) will be taking the first step towards genuine bimetallism;
and until that thing is done I do not belie vo genuine bimetallism
is possible.
Mr. BLACKBURN. Then, with alldue respect, will the Senator permit me to suggest that the proposition as he states it
suggests to my mind the employment of the most heroic methods
ever known infdesperate cases, that is, to decapitate the patient
bef ore you can begin to build up his depleted system. Does the
Senator mean that after we have slain it we shall be gracious
enough not to bury it and trust to the interposition of the Almighty to bring about a resurrection?
Mr. McPHERSON. Will the Senator from Kentucky yield
J J
to me?
Mr. BLACKBURN. With pleasure.
Mr. McPHERSON. As the Senator is upon the platforms of
the two political parties I should like to ask him Whether ha
finds in the Democratic platform any mahdatbry instructions t'd
Congress from the national Democratic convention to proceed to
the free and unlimited coinage of silverupOnanyratid whatever,
either before or after the repeal of the Sherman Jaw?
Mr. BLACKBURN. I will take pleasure in trying tb tower
the Senator from New Jersey.. I will state what I find inth'6
body of the last Democratic national convention's platform. I
dsked the attention of the Senator ahd the country to the pladgas
£iveh by my friends upoh the other side, but I trust no one believed me to bo unfair enough to fail to call attention to the pledges
that were given by my side. Sere it is. I will read ih answer
to the Senator from New Jersey. I find that the seventh sectibh
of the platform adopted by the last Democratic national convention, held in the city of Chicago upon the 21st of June, 1892, rfc&ds
thus:
We denounce the Republican legislation known as the Shermaii act of 1890
as a cowardly makeshift, fraught with possibilities of danger in the f 'uttird
which should make all of its supporters as well a$ its author-
It seems to have had no author—
anxious for iti speedy repeal. We hold-
Here is my answer to the honorable Senator—
We hold to the use of both gold and silver as the standard money of the
country* and to the coinage of both gold and silver without discriminating
against either metal or charge for mintage, but the dollat uiiit of coinage Of
both jnetals must be of equal intrinsic and exchangeable value, or be &dj\isted through international agreement "or by such safeguards of legislation
as shall insure the maintenance of the parity of the two metals and the equal
power—
540
16
I crave the Senator's especial attention—
and the equal power of every dollar at all times—
Where?
In the markets and in'the payment of debts; and we demand that all paper currency shall be kept at par with and redeemable in such coin. We insist upon this policy as especially necessary for the protection of the farmers and laboring classes, the first and most defenseless victims of unstable
money and afluctuatingcurrency.
For whom? Not for the banker, not for the board of trade,
not for the bondholder, not for the hoarder of gold, not for
England.
We insist upon this policy as especially necessary for the protection of the
farmers and laboring classes, the first and most defenseless victims of unstable money and afluctuatingcurrency.
There is the platform of my party on the question under consideration, and I stand here to-day ready, willing, anxious, pleading, appealing for the chance to crystallize into law ever sentence, every line, every word, every syllable contained within
the limits of that platform.
Mr. MCPHERSON. The Senator will not fail to observe that
the platform of the Democratic party presents three distinct
propositions. The first one is as follows:
We denounce the Republican legislation known as the Sherman act of
1890 as a cowardly makeshift, fraught with possibilities of danger In the future which should make all its supporters, as well as its author, anxious for
Its speedy repeal.
Here was the injunction of a Democratic national convention
speaking to this Democratic Congress—a Democratic convention
made up of delegates representing every township and every
community of people in this country. That was the first order.
Now, President Cleveland in conformity with th it declaration
of faith of the Democratic convention has called us together in
extraordinary session and recommended repeal. So far we have
reached. The bill is now before the Senate, reported favorably
by the Committee on Finance. But say som$ Senators, including the honorable Senator from Kentucky, before proceeding to
repeal the Sherman law there is some other provision of the
Democratic platform which requires notice from us.
Now, the next clause in this section of the platform, as I read
it here, contains these words:
We hold to the use of both gold and silver as the standard money of the
country.
Well, we do hold to it.
And to the coinage of both gold and silver without discriminating against
either metal or charge for mintage, but the dollar unit of coinage of both
metals must be equal in intrinsic and exchangeable value.
We hold to the use of both metals. That means a disuse of
neither metal. If by the use of silver, as the Senator from Kentucky and those who think with him are to-day advocating, the
effect would be to demonetize gold and drive gold out of the
country, then surely the Democratic platform does not demand
legislation under this provision. The Senator himself has declared that he is not in favor of a policy which demonetizes gold
or demonetizes silver. He is in favor of the use of both gold and
silver, as the platform declares the Democratic party to be.
W
17
I was honored with a position as a member of the committee
on resolutions at that convention, and I know something of what
happened there. I was also a member of the subcommittee on
resolutions. The advocates of the free and unlimited coinage
of silver in that convention demanded that the word "free"
should be placed before the word "coinage," upon the plea that
the Democratic platform gave no promise that silver could have
free coinage at the mints. This amendment was voted down in
the committee on resolutions and it was voted down in the convention with one loud acclaim.
Now, let me ask the Senator this question: If the Democratic party stood pledged to free coinage under one clause why
did you have an alternative proposition?
We hold also to '1 an international agre ement." We hold still
to another proposition, and what is it? That silver and gold
may be used under some "safeguardof legislation." The Democratic Congress has a choice to adopt any one of these three
propositions and be in full compliance with the terms of the
platform.
Mr. BLACKBURN. I am glad to yield any portion of my
time to the Senator from New Jersey, for he is not only always
courteous and fair himself in extending such a recognition to
other Senators, but he is fair in the statementof his proposition.
But the Senator hardly quoted the platform from which he and
I have so recently read when he said that that platform demanded as a condition precedent to the unlimited coinage of silver, the result of an international agreement. I did not say that
the bill now under consideration was not in line with the platform as I have read it, for it is. My objection to the pending
measure is not that it is contravention of the declarations of my
party, but it is because it does not come up to the promises that
my party gave.
Sir, you may divide and you may subdivide that plank of the
platform, if you wish; you can not break it into fractional sentences so as to warrant the presentation of the bill pending before this body. The party never told you in that platform to
come here and repeal a portion of the Sherman law. It told
you to repeal the " cowardly makeshift" that was denominated
the Sherman law. The bill that your committee has submitted
to us here to pass does not even conform to that one section of
the platform. That plank in the platform told you to do more
things than one. It told you to repeal the Sherman law of 1890.
Are you proposing to do it? Does the substitute bill now before
the Senate—does the bill as it came from the other wing of this
Capitol propose it? Neither. You propose to do one part of an
infinitisimal portion of what your platform told you to do. You
propose to repeal one clause in what is known as the Sherman
law and leave the rest of it to stand. You propose to repeal
nothing in the Sherman law except that which reSnacts the
demonetization law of 1873.
Now, Mr. President, the difference between the Senator from
New Jerseyhnd myself upon this issue is easily stated and easily
comprehended. He stands here proposing to carry out the platform to the extentpf one sentence in one section of one plank of
his own platform.
540
2
18
Mr. McPHERSON. I propose to stop the purchase of silver
bullion.
Mr. BLACKBURN. I stand here, on the contrary, proposing
to execute that platform to the letter. I say incorporate in your
bill more than a repeal of the purchasing clause of the Sherman
law. The platform of my party, which lies before me, nowhere
mentions or alludes to the purchasing clause of the Sherman
law, the only thing which you propose to repeal. My platform
demands the repeal of the whole of that law and so do I, because
I meant to tell the truth when I accepted that platform, and X
mean now, God helping me, to make that promise good.
Mr. McPHERSON. Will the Senator from Kentucky yield
to me for a moment?
Mr. BLACKBURN. I trust it is not more than a question.
Mr. McPHERSON. Will not the Senator observe that he has
already stated he does not wish to go to silver monometallism?
Mr. BLACKBURN. I do not, and I never will agree to go
there.
Mr. McPHERSON. Very well. Does not the Senator observe
that if we were to repeal all the sections of the Sherman law the
certificates already issued would be payable in silver, and we are
then at once upon a silver basis and going to silver monometallism?
Mr. BLACKBURN. The difference between the Senator
from New Jersey and myself just there is still easily stated and
easily comprehended. I am trying to get him to carry out the
platform of the party. I want to repeal the Sherman law as
badly as he does. He wants to repeal a piece of it. I want to
repeal all of it, and in the place of it substitute that which is
necessary to guard against silver monometallism just as he de*
scribes.
But I want to ask the Senator from New Jersey a question of my
own now. However widely he and I may differ as to the construction of that plank of the platform* there is one thing upon which
I do not believe there is room enough for any difference between
him and myself. I ask the Senator from New Jersey whether
he believes that his construction of the platform will be carried out by reviving the law of 1873 and demonetizing silver and
striking it from the list of precious metals in this country?
Does the Senator believe in the light of his own construction of
the platform that he is obeying it or making its pledges good
when the platform demands bimetallism? Does he believe that
he is redeeming the promise given in that platform when he
strikes the metal down and demonetizes it altogether?
Mr. McPHERSON. Will the Senator give me time to answer?
Mr. BLACKBURN. I would rather the Senator should take
his own time, as he told me he was going to do.
Mr. McPHERSON. I will gladly answer the Senator when I
have an opportunity.
Mr. BLACKBURN. I am sorry to miss the honorable Senator
from Minnesota [Mr. WASSBUKN] from his seat, for I had a question that I wanted to put to him, which was suggested by hi3 interrogatory submitted to me.
We are told by the advocates of a monometallic standard that
what this country wants is an international currency that will
640
19
circulate abroad. What for? Here within the last few months,
when a drain of $38,000,000 was made upon gold in this country,
the whole nation was thrown into a state of convulsion and panic.
Do you want a money that will go abroad, and yet hysterics ensue
the very instant that it takes its flight across the ocean?
Mr. President, I hold, and it may not be denied, that under any
construction which any man can give to the financial plank of
either platform both parties have demanded in good faith and
have promised the people, I trust in good faith, not to put this
country upon a single standard of gold, but now and hero to put
it upon a bimetallic standard of gold and silver without discrimination as to either metal.
There is not ai political organization upon this continent that
challenges the confidence of the American people or that asks
for their support or vote that has dared to hold a convention and
announce a platform without swearing and avowing to the people
that their purpose was to put the country upon a bimetallic basis.
Who can tell what the result of the last election would have been
but for the pledge given in the platform I have read? The fight
was made not between the parties upon the silver question, for
the Minneapolis convention and the Chicago convention in 1892
had vied with each other to see which could go tho furthest in
promising bimetallism to the American people.
Mr. President, I am pleading ior the life of a metal. I announced in candorat the outset that I spoke from the standpoint
of a man who honestly believes that the question we are confronting to-day is either a gold standard or bimetallism for this
people. I am pleading for the life of a metal that has rendered
faithful service and discharged every mission intrusted to its keeping, whether in peace or in war, for more than three thousand
years that lie behind us. I am pleading for the life of a metal that
has ever been the metal of the masses, upon which the daily transactions of life have ever rested. It was not gold, but it is silver
that provides the lamp with oil, which redeems from darkness
the humble home of the toiler. It was not gold, but it is silver
that provides and purchases the loaf of bread that stays the pangs
of hunger when the son of toil seeks his rest at the close of each
day of his treadmill existence. It was silver that fed and paid
and clothed and maintained your armies in the darkest hour of
your country's peril. It was silver that survived the storm of
•war and came down to us in peace still the choicest metal of the
two. ruling at a premium whether in war or in peace, until that
dark hour in that dark night on the 12th of February, 1873, when
without a note of warning to the country, without notice to the
millions who were to be plundered and made the victims of the
enactment, the precious metal fell never to rise again except
when wearing the shackles of limitation that the law of 1878 was
only able to impose.
#
Mr. President, the metal in whose behalf ! speak to-day is the
basis upon which the business offive-sixthsof the human race is
predicated. It is the corner stone upon which rests the prosperity and the thrift, the happiness and the hope of the vast
majority of the human family. It has not lost any of its intrinsic
value. If it stands to-day a debased coin, it is only when compared with that one single product of human industry, gold.
540
20
Subject it to any other test you will, however crucial or severe,
it stands as it has ever stood, the fairest, the most honest of all
the standards of values that this people have ever known. We
hold to-day one-eighteenth of the silver of tho world.
I pray you not to strike it down. Who may tell what the next
step is to be? What is to become of the silver that we already
hold? I believe the estimate is that there are $350,000,000 of
coined silver, including the subsidiary coinage, now in use in
this country, and $150,000,000 of silver bullion stored away in
the 7aults of the Treasury. What is to become of this?
The question that I wanted to ask the honorable Senator from
Minnesota was to tsll me what would be that next step to which
he alluded? After passing this bill and demonetizing this metal
what is your next step towards redeeming the pledges and the
promises of the platforms? Is that next step to be to sell as a
commodity the $500,000,000 of silver that we hold to-day in order
to complete the elimination of this metal from the moneyed metals of the world? Or will you tell me that the §500,000,000 of silver that we hold, including the $150,000,000of uncoined bullion,
is to be circulated at par andfloatedas honest money in conjunction with our gold and paper circulation? If that be your answer, then I inquire further if it be honest to float $500,000,000
of silver at par which- are worth but 70 cents per 100, how does
it become dishonest to float one thousand million? If it be
good morals to force this country to take at face value as legal
tender 500,000,000 of dishonest dollars, in what school of ethics
have you been taught if you tell me that it becomes dishonest
tofloat800,000,000, or 1,000,000,000 of those same dollars? There
is no difference in the argument; it is only in the amount.
Mr. GRAY. May I suggest to the Senator frem Kentucky
that it is not a question of morals but a question of power in the
Government. While we may float $500,000,000 we may not be
able to maintain the parity of $1,000,000,000 or $2,000,000,000.
Mr. BLACKBURN. I ask the Senator from Delaware, with
all respect, if that is his opinion?
Mr. GRAY. I was not stating that the country could not
float $1,000,000,000. I only said it was a question of degree.
Whatever the point may be, there is a point, in my opinion,
when the Government will be unable to maintain the parity of
silver with its unlimited coinage or purchase. That is all.
What that point may be I have not stated except by way ofillustration.
Mr. BLACKBURN. The answer of the Senator from Delaware only shows what I have held to be the fact, that in the bill
pending before us it is proposed that we shall venture upon a sea
of experiment. It is empiricism in legislation. The past furnishes us no guide by which to shape our course.
But, Mr. President, in my judgment, the repeal of the so-called
Sherman law will not cure the evils under which we suffer. I
know the inconsistencies to which politics very frequently subjects the statesman. During the long years of my service in one
or the other House of Congress, whenever a tariff debate comes up,
there are those who remind us that we who advocate a tariff for
revenue are, if not the agents, the allies of Great Britain. I
540
?1
hear nothing of that sort upon this monetary question, at least
not from that quarter.
Just here I will ask the indulgence of the Senate for a moment,
convinced that lean not now put it in better shape than it
seems by the records of the Senate I d id succeed in putting it
upon the 9th of January, 1891, to what was then said by me
when a measure similar to the one now under consideration was
before the Senate:
When the tariff Is under discussion we are charged with "being the advocates of British theories, but upon this issue the tables seem to have been
turned. The British theory of a single gold standard finds its champions
in the Senator from Ohio anathosewho follow his leadership. He ana they
may not like England's tariff views, but they appear to be amazingly enamored with herfinancialor monetary policy, so long as it serves, the purpose,
here as it has served there of the annuitants, the capitalists, the money
holders, and the money-changers, even though it grinds to poverty the tolling millions of our land.
I repeat that language here and now, and I ask who are England's allies here, the only nation upon the civilized earth that
is clamoring for the demonetization of silver, the heaviest creditor nation in the world, and we, a debtor nation, advised to
follow in her wake, to adopt her policies, to enhance the value
of her investments, and increase the load of debt that we stagger under to-day?
Mr. President, the repeal of the Sherman law will not cure
the troubles that we are under. We must go further. The
treatment must be more thorough and it must be more heroic.
You must revise your tariff system. You must strike out and
eliminate its prohibitory features and in many cases those that
approximate so closely to prohibition. You must broaden your
markets for the products of your labor. You must open up a
wider trade. You must build up a demand for the productions
of American labor. You must remember that we feed the other
nations with the surplus of our products. You must bring the
tariff down to a strictly revenue basis. You must strike from it
the features of class legislation which have enabled less than
25,000 of our people to put into their pockets one-half of the aggregated wealth of this whole country, leaving the remaining
67,000,000 to divide up among themselves the remainder.
The Sherman law did not do that. It was a system of cunningly devised class legislation, not only in the taxing law and
the tariff system, but in the monetary system as well. You must
revise and you must remodel the financial system of your country. You must go back where the Constitution puts you and
place your country upon the bimetallic basis, which the organic
law of this land declares shall alone constitute the standard of
value in this country. You must adopt the gold and silver
standard according to the provisions and the promises and the
platforms pf all the parties on even terms; and then the paper
money that is issued to the people should be issued based upon
that bimetallic standard, and it should be issued directly by the
Government and not filtered to the people through the agency
Of petted and fostered national banks.
You must go further. You must repeal the 10 per cent tax
on State bank issues in order to afford a safety valve by which a
sudden, unnecessary, unusual and selfish contraction of the cur540
22
rency of this country can not be accomplished. In 1862, during
the war period, when amid the booming of cannon and the clash
of arms the laws were silent, the same cunning, selfish, contriving element of the American people, whose cloven foot is seen
to-day in the legislation pending, accomplished by indirection
that which they dared not attempt in a direct, fair, and manly
manner. There was not then, tnere is not now, either in this
Chamber or elsewhere, a man to be found who ever claimed of
dared to claim that Congress held any rightful or constitutional
power to prohibit the issue of money by a State bank institution.
It was not s tricken down by a blow from the front; but by indirections that was accomplished which not even in war was dared
to be attempted by more direct methods. The taxing power was
invoked to accomplish the result.
Congress passed a bill saying to the State banks,lt We admit
that we have nd power to refuse you the privilege or to curtail
or to deny your right to issue your State bank money, but we
will use the taxing power to accomplish that which we can not
reach in any other way, and we will charge you 10 per cent for
the privilege and the luxury of loaning your State bank issue at
6 and 7 per cent.'* So long as that State bank issue law stood unrepealed, so long as those State banks were allowed to emit their
currency, it was impossible for the commercial center of this
country ever to contract or expand the volume of currency at
pleasure. It was, as I have stated, a safety valve. You must repeal that 10 per cent tax upon State banks, and then never again
will Wall street bo able to make a corner upon the currency of
this country as the stock gambler makes a corner upon its wheat
and its corn. *
You must reduce your expenditures to an economic and an
honest basis. You must purge your pension roll, which now
reaches onoi hundred and sixty-odd million dollars every year,
of the heavy percentage of peculation and fraud by which we
all know it is encumbered. You must enact an income tax law,
forcing the wealth of the country to bear its just share of the
burdens of Government.
Wheia these things are done, if in God's providence they may
ever be done, then financial disasters and panics will be supplanted by prosperity and progress; strikes will be heard of no
more; tramps will give place to well paid and contented labor;
We will then exchange hunger for happiness and tears for smiles
amid the toiling millions of this land; every industry—agricultural, manufacturing, or mining—will gain new life; and then
we may hope to attain the destiny to which we are entitled—
that of the freest, the most prosperous, the happiest people upon
the earth.
But, Mr. President, the legislation that is proposed to us now,
in my judgment, is a movement in the backward direction, It
is not toward the great destiny that is in front of us. I trust that
the wisdom and the conservatism of the Senate will find some
adjustment of the vexed question which seems so difficult of settlement now. I reiterate the hope expressed this morning by
the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER] that a compromise may be reached which will be satisfactory to all shades of
opinion upon this question.
540
23
With Mm I agree, that in all the ^reat issues which have been
presented for the determination of the American Congress, compromise has been in most instances tho only available method
found at our command. In 1832, when the issue growing out of
the nullification ordinance of a State of this Union threatened
serious embarrassment and trouble, extreme men held to extreme
views upon both sides. Neither dominated, neither could, with
a peaceful solution to result. A compromise formed the basis of
the adjustment. Again, in 1820, when the great empire State,
so ably represented by the Senator in front of me [Mr. VEST],
was clamoring for admission to the Union, the storm clouds
gathered, and it looked as though the peace of the Union was to
be disturbed and its prosperity was to be blighted. But again
compromise was called in as the only available means of settlement. It answered its mission of mercy; it accomplished that
purpose; and we moved on in our upward road to prosperity and
power. And so again in 1840,
Again, in 1850, when the integrity of the Union was trembling
in the balance; when exasperated men, leading upon both sides,
refused and turned a deaf ear for months to all appeals to reason,
tLat same master spirit that had ruled the storm of 1832 and that
of 1840 came back, and towering up above the forms of those by
whom he was surrounded, the great commoner, the matchless
popular leader, again appeared, bent and bowed with age, to plead
the cause of peace, of compromise, of adjustment; and again the
storm clouds passed and the ship of state rode on into peaceful
waters.
Mr." President, in after years, when posterity shall come to
study the great characters that have loomed up boldest in our
history, the name of Clay will stand out brightest upon the pages
of his country's history, not as the magnetic orator, not as the
matchless leader, but as the great pacificator, who, by the employment of wisdom, of conservatism and prudence, had calmed
the angry feelings of his fellow-men and saved from wreck and
ruin the destinies of. his country.
I appeal now, as did the Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
BUTLER], let us look and see if there be no basis of adjustment
upon which this issue may be determined. There are those
who sit upon this side ,of the Chamber who know with what persistency and with what earnestness of effort I have struggled,
from the day this Congress was convened down till now, to find
a basis of compromise. I shall myself, sir, to-morrow submit for
the consideration of the Senate an amendment which I propose
to offer looking in that direction.
I am a compromise man. I will go as far as the farthest, and
then I will go farther to adjust the issue which wo are now considering.
If you say that you want seigniorage out of the silver metal, I
answer and say, " Take it." If there are those who think I am
making this fight for the owner of the silver mine, the Silver
smelter, they are mistaken. He constitutes too small, too infinitesimal a factor in the great calculation to be entitled to consideration. Where he would lose a penny by the demonetization of
Silver, the cotton, the corn, the wheat grower of the country
would lose his dollars. If you think that it is in the protection of
540
24:
the silver interests of the Northwest, I answer and say, "Put
your tax or your toll upon his metal." I do conceive, and I do
avow it, that it would not be fair for this Government, by legislation, to strike down the industries which have been built up in
those silver-producing States under the shield and shelter of "the
law—fifty millions a year to be struck down by one fell blow—
where honest men have invested their capital, not upon an implied, but an express contract that they were to have the protection of the law. But if you believe that that is what is inspiring
the opposition to this bill, I pray you to accept my assurance that
you are mistaken.
If seigniorage is what you want, take it; if the 10 per cent
charge before 1873 is not enough^ double it, take 20. I will
agree to that. If that will not suffice, take 25 per cent out of
every ounce of pure silver metal that goes to the mint. Let the
Government, if its necessities require it, strip the owner of onequarter of his possession. I admit that that would not be in accordance with the platform of either party, but I will take that
rather than to see this metal murdered. If it is not seigniorage, if it is the ratio you complain of, I beg you to allow me to
remind you that of all the nations of this earth that use silver
as a money metal there are but two or three whose ratio is as
high as ours. The Latin Union stands upon a ratio of 151;
South America stands upon a lower ratio than ours; all Europe
stands on a lower ratio than we, except, I believe, three of the
European nations. Our ratio is 16 to 1. If you tell me that
that ratio .is too low, in the spirit, not of justice, but of compromise, pleading ever for an adjustment of this issue, I say raise
your ratio, make it 17, make it 18, make it 19, make it 20; and,
for one, I will accept it rather than have this silver metal
stricken down.
I have but one condition to impose upon a compromise, and
that only because it. is essential, it is indispensable to the preservation of the life of silver. The only condition that I would
impose would be this: Unlock the doors of your mints to the silver metal, give it its right of entry there, then hamper it with
what conditions you choose.
Such is my faith in the metal for which I plead, that I only
want a day in court; I only want access to the mints with it, and
then leave it to work out its own well-assured salvation. If compromise can be had, Mr. President, it is that line upon which I
mean to act.
But important as this issue is, it is equally important that we
must settle it. I regret that in the course of this long debate—
for the debate has been exhaustive, elaborate, and able—Senators should have found it necessary either to threaten or to predict that the time was coming when the Senate would prove unequal to its duty or unwilling to discharge it.
Sir, in all the history of this body rules that were hinted at
on yesterday have never been applied. In all the history of the
Senate cloture and previous questions have been strangers to
this Chamber. I trust and hope that the day will never come
when they shall be needed in the deliberations of the Senate.
Surely no act nor utterance from this side of the Chamber has
warranted such apprehension.
640
25
But, Mr. President, the people who stand behind us are demanding a settlement of this question. I am the last man who
would ever seek to abridge the right of debate in the Senate of
the United States; I am the one who will stand to the last insisting that the freest, the fullest scope of discussion is the onlysure guide to an intelligent conclusion, and yet we must admit
that, irksome as these speeches may have become to us, they have
grown still more tiresome to the country. The very utterances
that we are making here to-day fall upon dull ears but impatient
souls. The people want this question settled. By " the people "
I mean those who are opposed to the demonetization of silver as
well as that smaller element that clamors for its degradation.
The people want to know their fate.
Mr. President, all of us are annuitants; there is not a man in
either House of Congress who does not draw a fixed salary for
the support and maintenance of himself and family; but the
Eeople behind us are not so fortunately situated. I have been
ome within the last week, I have been among them, and I feel
doubly assured that the people of my State stand where I do upon
the question we are considering. Gladly w.ould I select the State
from which I come as the jury to decide this issue and submit to
a vote of its people the question of remonetization, free coinage,
or demonetization of the silver metal. I know the verdict which
would come; and it would come in no uncertain tones.
But, Mr. President, the people behind us are impatient, and
have a right to be impatient, standing in the midst of the desolation which surrounds them, with their trade stagnating, with
their labor unemployed, with enterprise paralyzed, with 2,000,000 men to-day tramping our highways and our streets begging,
not for bread, but for labor by which to earn it, with strikes in
every community within the limits of the land, brought about
by hungry laborers who can not find work. No wonder that in
such a condition, shivering in their nakedness and taking counsel of their hunger, they demand that action shall be taken by
this Senate. It ought to be taken. The people want this issue
settled, and, for one, I here declare that I will have no part nor
hand in deferring or delaying its adjustment.
I shall support any substitute and every amendment that may
be offered which looks to the preservation of the life of the silver metal. I shall not give my vote nor my support to any bill
which demonetizes that metal and strikes it from the list of
measures of value, nor shall I seek by any obstructive tactics to
delay the settlement to which sooner or later we are bound to
C °The
Senate, thank God, is a deliberative body. I have abiding
faith in its conservatism and in its wisdom. I do not believe
that it will cross the track of its history for a hundred years and
refuse to decide an issue purely commercial and nonsectional,
and thereby make impossible the passage of any measure, tariff
or other, during the remainder of this Congress or any succeeding Congress. I have no war to make with anyone nor quarrel
to prosecute.
.
, ,
m
We are told th at this was a conspiracy. To that charge I bear
willing testimony, for I do believe it. We are told that this
panic was unusual in its features and its construction. That,
510
26
too, is true. It is a panic unprecedented in its character. It
was brought about by that element of our population who demanded an issue of bonds, and would be satisfied with nothing
less. Proof upon the face of the paper incontestable and indisputable is furnished in support of the allegation.
I regret to hear it charged or rather intimated that the Administration was a party to the conspiracy which had brought
these troubles upon the country. That is not true, and its
falsity is easy of demonstration.
I have heard references made to an interview held between
the head of the Treasury Department and the bankers of Wall
street on the 29th of April last in that great metropolis. I know,
now, as I knew then, the accidental character of that meeting of,
the Secretary with those bankers, and I knew in detail then, as
I know now, the result of that interview, what passed at it, what
subjects were discussed, and the unsatisfactory condition in
which the bankers of that city were left at its conclusion. But
I know of another interview, which was held by the representatives of the Rothschilds in New York, not in the city of New
York, but in the city of Washington, not at the request of the
Secretary of the Treasury, but on the seeking of the New York
Wall street bankers, not on the 29th of April, but on the 26th or
27th of April. I knew then that the demand was made for the
issue of $150,000,000 of bonds, So far from this Administration
being a party to that conspiracy, that demand was peremptorily, flatly, and unconditionally refused. A conspiracy! Yes;
it was a conspiracy, and by the same conspirators who have been
at work upon the finances of this country for more than thirty
years.
. . .. , ,
I know when war came on in 1861 and great armies had to be
raised and clothed and armed and fed and paid, that proportionately large sums of money must of necessity be raised. The
Government was unable to raise the millions necessary to prosecute that war to a successful termination, except through the
financial agencies of this money center, the bankers of New
York. They undertook the herculean taBk of raising the money
necessary for war, and they did it. They did it upon terms that
I apprehend did not cost them any sacrifice. It is true that
they bought our bonds at a discount in depreciated currency, it
is true that they made untold millions of money through the
financial transactions of which they became the agents; but, tQ
their credit, be it said, that it is equally true they raised the money
that the Government needed for the prosecution of that war, and
bridged it safely over to its conclusion in 1865. When that war
ended this Government found itself staggering under a debt of
$2,800,000,000 of money; it had an empty Treasury; its resources
were depleted; its producers for four years had been converted
into consumers; and the Government was unable to float that
debt except by a continuation of the same financial agenoies in
the moneyed center of the country.
The bankers of New York undertook to carry the debt until
the rebuilded resources of this country might from time to time
be able to discharge it. They carried through that contract.
The Government was bound to accept such terms as Wall street
offered. Helplesa and powerless itself, either to raise the money
640
27
for tho prosecution of the war or to float the debt that the war
had left upon them, they were exactly in the condition with the
farmer whose place is plastered over with a mortgage to the
banker—he must take the banker's terms, whatever they may be.
The Government continued thisfinancialagency, and it continued to shape thefinancialpolicies of the Government. How
could the Government refuse? But the truth of history must be
vindicated. From 1861 on, whilst the Government was in the
hands of those people, thefinancialpolicies of the Government
were fashioned by those bankers, and the Federal Treasury was
practically but a tender to the gambling machine of Wall street.
More than once when they needed their money in the shape of
interest upon their hoarded bonds, more than once, as the honorable senior Senator from Ohio and ex-Secretary of the Treasury [Mr. SHERMAN] knows, did they come to the Treasury here
at the capital and demand the payment of that interest months
in advance of its maturity, under pretext of easing matters in
Wall street and making money less tight—grinding us to death
in order that they might be paid their money before it fell due.
But the Government was helpless.
That same policy was continued and pursued until April last,
when that same set of bankers demanded of this Administration
the issuance of $150,000,000 of bonds. For thefirsttime since
1861 be it said—and be it said to the credit of this Administration—for the first time in thirty-two years Wall street was
taken by the throat and notified that her robber exactions would
no longer be countenanced. This Administration is entitled to
credit for that.
What brought on this panic? I beg you to tell me, if the
President and the Secretary of the Treasury had yielded to the
demand for those bonds, would this panic ever have come?
Financial trouble was staring us in the face and gathering force
for years, but by ho natural cause had the hour struck for its
culmination. It was precipitated by the demand for bonds, and
by the refusal of the present Administration to let the bankers
have them. Bonds are all they want to-day. The demonetization of silver was an afterthought. Mark you, if you need proof
of what I say, every man in this Chamber knows that an English
pound is worth, I believe, four dollars eighty-six cents and five
mills; every man within the sound of my voice knows that you
can not ship gold out of this country across the Atlantic except
at a loss, save when exchange ranges above 487.
The rscords of the country show that for days and weeks, beginning in the latter part of April, and it is more noticeably
true in the month of May, for days and weeks gold left this
country at the rate of five millions a week, until thirty-eight
millions had gone, until a panic had been produced, until values
had been upset and unsettled, until the business of the country
had been disturbed. At the rate of five millions a week your
gold was shipped out of the country, when never in one day nor
one hour nor one instant had foreign exchange been above the
rate I have named.
It is plain on the face of paper that one of two things was
true, either the shipper was paying ocean freights at a loss put
of his pocket or else he was receiving a commission from some
540
28
O
street were engaged in it. There are bankers there whose
itatalo^f tbey were either paying the ocean freights out of their
^°What did t h ^ g ^ ? ^ ^ to^urcfpe for? Did it go there to settle
anTforeign balances?gNo, sir. 'what drove it outof thecounfrv? You answer and tell me the S h e r n ^ law did xt Then I
quantities and in shorter time man it LOOK XO LEAVE.
« ,
wTshipped out of this country in the execution of a, threat
w h i c h S a t e d from the Wall street btuikers, and which was
disseminated through this country through the columns of the
meteOToUten press of New York. Just exactly at the time when
bonds were Refused to their demand, then came the threat that
the South and the West should be treated to a pinch of hard
^ These men deliberately started to work, not to produce the
financial™risis and disaster which has come upon the country.
No^ that was not their purpose, for they have been crippled in
it Thev started to raise a squall and stirred up a storm; they
started to produce a feeling of uneasiness through business cirp K this country just sufficient to amount to the pressure of a
thumbscrew when applied to the Treasury Department toextort
a compliance with thlir demands and the issuance of their bonds.
TUs^&e the man in the surf, who, by a receding wave, is swept
beyond his depth and is powerless to save himself . T h ^ turn
now with frantic appeals and ask Congress to do what? To pull
^ c o u n t r y out of t L very condition, into which they deliberately p K d it, without ever intending to go to the extent they
haThis is the history of the transaction. They had two motives
in shipping that gold from this country. Neither one was to
s e t t l e a n y balances of tradeagainst us.
One was to produce that
feeling of uneasiness which would enable them to extortthe
bond issue, and-the other I do not say. but the other might have
been the opportunity to speculate upon the depreciated securities of this country held abroad, by reason of the panic that the
withdrawal of that large amount of gold would of necessityjproduce. There is the history of that transaction as I read it and
liSTf
h°rTheryevide0nce be needed, it is furnished by the fact that
durine those days and weeks and months when the Federal
Treasury was pressed the hardest, when the gold reserve was
of necessity invaded, when .all the banks.of the West and South
were ffladlv giving up their daily receipts of gold to aid the
T r e a s u r y an<f maintain the credit of the country, not one penny
^
revived from Wall street or the banks of New York. The
29
metropolis, the moneyed center of the country, alone failed to respond to the appeal of the Treasury.
But, Mr. President, as I before said, it seems to me, in justice
to this great question, in justice to the interests which are
hanging and depending upon our action, in fair dealing towards
ourselves, in fair dealing towards the people whom we represent, that the time has come to reach a conclusion of this matter. The people are impatient, and have a right to be impatient.
The people want a settlement; they want to know their fate,
and they have a right to know it.
The unconditional repeal of the Sherman law will never pass
this Senate with my sanction or my support; but a settlement of
this issue should come, and it should come now. I appeal to the
sense of fairness, to the patriotism, to the sense of dignity that
characterizes the body of which we are members, and ask Senators, without distinction of party, and without regard to political affiliations, to rise to the dignity of this great issue and make
a settlement which shall be just and fair.
I have no quarrel with anyone because of a difference of conclusion upon this measure. It is not possible for men to be wider
apart in their judgment than I am from the conclusions that
this Administration has reached upon this question. I can not
support the recommendations that the President has sent to
Congress. In order to do it I must revoke the work of a lifetime; I must retract every utterance; I must surrender and I
must abandon every conviction I ever held or cherished upon
this subject. That I can not do. But because I disagree with
the Administration upon this one issue, it does not tend either
to destroy or weaken or impair my faith in the integrity of the
President, in his ability, in his honesty of purpose, or his love
of country.
p
I not only appeal to the Senate as a body—but we might as
well be candid with each other—I appeal to Senators who sit
upon this side of the Chamber, and I beg them to remember
that this Administration, with which some of us can not agree,
is none the less my Administration and their Administration.
My party put it into power; and in proportion to my ability I
contributed as much as another to the accomplishment of that
result. I will not quarrel with my Administration because I do
not concur in its judgment upon a single issue. I beg the Democratic side of this Chamber to remember that the responsibility
of government rests with us. You gentlemen on the other side
of the Chamber owe an obligation to your constituents and to
your country; we owe that same obligation; and then we owe an
additional one, which is the resultant of the responsibility which
rests upon the party that is in power.
It has been charged by pur Republican opponents that Democracy is unfit and incapable to rule this country. Are we willing
to furnish proof in support of that false accusation? Not I. Beyond the rocks and reefs, over which we are now tossing, a calm,
unruffled sea spreads out, and not a cloud as large as a man's
hand is to be discovered in the political horizon, to which my
partv, in the discharge of its responsibility, is drifting.
Let us be candid and tell the truth. Each day as it goes by
impairs still more the faith of the American people in our capa540
so
city for government. They know that the Senate, when full, is
composed of 88 men, chosen from 44 States, representing •wellnigh70,000,000 of free people. They have a right to believe, and
they do believe, that the day has not yet come-they do not believe that the day will ever come-when this great august Chamber will prove itself unable or unwilling to transact the legitimate commercial legislative business of the country.
There is no need to talk of cloture or previous questions here.
The Senate never was humiliated to the point where it needed
their application. It does not need it now. The safest tribunal
to which an appeal can be addressed is the sense of dignity, the
sense of fairness, the conservatism, the manhood that constitutes this body. I appeal to those who sit around me, who have
been trusted to guard the fortunes and to guide the destinies o£
the party to which we belong, lead us, I pray you, to a fair, a
righteous, a speedy settlement of this vexed issue. [Applause
in the galleries.]
540
@FedFRASER