The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
SILVER BULLION CERTIFICATES vs. FREE COINAGE.
SPEECH
OP
HON. JOHN T. H E A R D ,
OF MISSOURI,
IN TIIB
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
J U N E 6,
1890.
WASHINGTON.
1390.
Silver-Bullion Certificates TS. Free Coinage.
S P E E C H
OP
HON.
JOHN
T.
HEARD,
Friday, June 6, 1890.
The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. 5391) authorizing the
Usue of Treasury notes on deposits of silver b u l l i o n -
Mr. HEARD said:
Mr. SPEAKER: After listening to the excellent speech of my friend
from Ohio [Mr. WICKHAM], who has just addressed the House in support of the pending bill, I would say that I adopt the whole of his clear
and forcible reasoning in favor of the remonetization of silver; but I
fail to understand how, in view of all the good reasons he has so ably
presented why that desirable end should he accomplished, he can logically give his vote for this measure. I am sure that he, as well as many
others who will vote with him on this question, earnestly and sincerely desire to see silver re-established in its just and proper power
and dignity in the money circulation of our country, and that while
they do not fully approve the bill before us they are reconciled to its
support by the belief that they will thus contribute to the bringing
about of that good end—that they think it is a step in the right direction. I can not hope, Mr. Speaker, to be ablefto present to this body
more cogent reasons than have been oftered by these gentlemen why
silver should be remonetized; but to such as really desire by their action here to contribute to that result I desire to submit some reasons
for my refusal to accept, with their reasoning on the general proposition, their example in this instance as a guide for my vote.
It is to such of the supporters of the bill as I have referred to. and
to those only, that I would address anything in the way of argument
why they should abandon their present position, because I fully realize
that to that other element of its supporters, who approve its provisions
because they do not believe that its passage will improve the condition
of silver as a money metal of the country, nothing need be said in criticism of the measure from my standpoint, since they embrace it for
what I conceive to be its worst vices. I am sure I do not misrepresent the case in this statement. While few, perhaps, of its friends
-would adopt the frank utterances of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. WALKER], who zealously advocates the passage of the bill
while he declares that we do not need any increase in the volume of
our money j that there is plenty of money in the country to do the
4
business thereof; tliat scarcity of money has nothing to do with the depression ofbusiuessor the lowering of prices; and, iiually, that "more
money means more misery," yet, Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that
the bill is supported with equal zeal and enthusiasm by those who understand and admit the need i'or more money and the necessity for the
equality of it according to the standard now fixed in our laws, and by
those who deny both propositions, and who insist that an increase of
lawful silver dollars means a dishonest inflation of our currency.
It has always been contended by our great financiers that an essential
quality of a good system of money is "elasticity," aud it would seem,
Sir. Speaker, that if the mouey to be issued under authority of this
bill, it it becomes a law, should partake in any measure of the character
of the act originating it, it ought at least to possess that virtue; for I
can conceive of nothing more " e l a s t i c " than a bill which at once accommodates itself to the conflicting demands of those who insist upon
free coinage of silver at the present standard of value, and to those
who bitterly oppose it and insist upon a single standard, and that of
gold. While 1 am confident that some of those who will vote for this
bill would not support it did they not hope that its effect would be to
increase the volume of our circulating medium and tend also to bring
silver and gold nearer together in commercial value, and thus, as they
think, help on to the free and unlimited coinage of both, I am also
equally certain that a large proportion if not a majority of its supporters would not give it their approval if they did not entertain a
very ditfereut belief.
Where,then, in this bill lies that peculiar quality which so completely
reconciles it to the diametrically opposite views of its different elements of supporters? I think, Mr. Speaker," that it will be found in
those provisions which invest the Secretary of the Treasury with discretion to do or not to do certain things relating to its execution, the
doing of which will give satisfaction and security to the one element,
while in their not being done exists the only basis of hope to the
other.
Now let us examine the bill and see whether or not I am justified in
opposing its passage upon the ground that the law which we have now
upon our statute-book and which this bill proposes to repeal, if fairly
enforced, is a better and more liberal law than this will be if enacted.
As the law now stands, the Secretary of the Treasury must coin into
standard silver dollars $'2,(J00,000 worth of bullion per month; and he
may coin $4,000,000 worth. Then, sir, if the Secretary of the Treasury {either the present or any future Secretary) is friendly to an increase of the currency of the country such as we desire, why should he
not exercise the discretion which the existing law gives him and increase the volume of our currency, not $4,500,000 per month, but about
five and a quarter million dollars per month, as he can do under the
existing law ? Four million dollars' worth of silver bullion at its present commercial value will, as was stated by my colleague [Mr. BLAND]
this morning, make about five and a quarter millions of the standard
silver dollars.
Under the provisions of this bill, should it become a law, the maximum increase in the volume of circulation which the Secretary of the
Treasury could make by issuing Treasury notes in exchange for bullion would be $4,500,000 per month, or $54,000,000 annually, while under existing law he could, if he would, increase it* to the amount of
$5,200,000 per month, or over $62,000,000 per year. If the Secretary
HEARD
5
of the Treasury had been friendly to the increase of silver money in the
country, would he not have exceeded the minimum limit,of his power
in that direction, even if he did not reach the maximum limit? Is
he more friendly to such increase now than in the past? Judging by
his official expressions and actions we are forced to conclude that he is
not. Fiom the late report of that official X quote the following:
T h e continued coinage of silver dollars at a constantly increasing m o n t h l y
quota is a disturbing element in the otherwise excellent financial condition of
the country, and a positive hinderance to any international agreement looking
to the free coinage of both metals.
It is a peculiarity of view always entertained by the enemies of silver
that we can do nothing to exalt its present condition without an international agreement, which they know we never can get.
For the last year the increase in the amount of silver coinage of the
country is stated by the Treasury officials to have been $35,496,683,
when the law authorized about double that amount, notwithstanding
the fact that by reason of the shrinkage of the total volume of our circulation from various causes the above-named new coinage only increased the total stock of our money $8,000,000. W h y was not the
shrinkage here referred to at least provided for by increased coinage
of silver above the minimum limit of the law, so that the intent of the
law of 1878, which was to add at least $2,000,000 per month to our circulation, would have been carried o u t ?
Now, my friend from Iowa [Mr. CONGEE], chairman of the committee reporting this bill, says that the people of this country do not
take kindly to the silver dollar. On this point I beg to differ from the
gentleman. The fact is that the people of this country are friendly to
the silver dollar, and have always been so, but unfortunately for them
it is the Secretary of the Treasury who is unfriendly to the circulation of the silver dollar, as have been all his predecessors since 1873.
For proof of the correctness of his statement, that the people are not
friendly to silver money, my friend says that there are only 60,000,000
standard silver dollars in circulation, while there are 290,000,000 in
the Treasury. The gentleman admits, however, that for all said latter
sum silver certificates are in circulation to-day. Then, I submit, Mr.
Speaker, that by his own showing the whole amount mentioned is in
circulation. The fact is, sir, that out of a total coinage of over 350,000,000, standard silver dollars, there were in the Treasury on the
1st day of March last less than three and one-half millions for which
certificates were not outstanding. Less than 1 per cent., then, of all
this coinage was idle. Can the gentleman make as good a showing for
gold, when tried by the same test ? How much more friendly do the
iacts prove the people to feel towards gold? In this country, as in
every other, gold is more hoarded than silver, and the conduct of the
fiscal affairs of this nation by Treasury officials, who in every possible
way discriminate against silver, so as to make gold coin the dearer
money, will continue it so.
Mr. CONGER. Will the gentleman permit a question?
Mr. H E A R D . Certainly.
Mr. CONGER. Is it not true that the Treasury Department will
pay the express charges upon the silver dollars to any part of the United
States where they are wanted or demanded ?
Mr. H E A R D . Such I understand to be the case.
Mr. CONGER. -Then, if out of 350,000,000 silver dollars there has
been a demand for only 57,000,000, does that not prove that the people
do not want the silver dollars, but prefer the certificates?
HEABD
6
Mr. HEARD. It does not prove that they do not want silver coined
They want it coined in order that it may furnish a predicate for the
certificates, and in as great a volume as possible. Let me ask my
friend this question: How much of the six hundred-odd millions of
gold coin alleged by the Treasury officials to be in circulation in this
country is in the pockets of the people?
Mr. CONGER. We can not get into the pockets of the people to obtain that information.
Mr. HEARD. How much of it is actually in circulation, making
the money exchanges of the people?
Mr. CONGER. About six hundred and eighteen millions.
Mr. HEARD. Oh, Mr. Speaker
Mr. CONGER. The statements and books of the Treasury Department show it.
Mr. HEARD. Well, Mr. Speaker, those books show, among other
things, that there is in the Treasury about one hundred and thirty-five
millions of gold coin for which certificates are in circulation, and in my
humble opinion that is about all the gold coin in the country that is
of any great value to the people as money.
It is true that said books show that there are two hundred and
forty-six millions in coin tied up there in various redemption funds (besides sixty-seven millions in gold bullion), one hundred millions of
which coin is held for the redemption of greenbacks, when not one dollar of it is needed. Since that fund was established it is stated that only
about fifteen or twenty millions have ever been used for such redemption. while the interest on the bonds sold to raise the fund amounts to
more than $ 10,000,000. The hooks also show that the amount of gold
coin held in the national banks is forty-nine millions; that there are
thirty-one millions held in banks other than national banks reporting,
and three hundred and eighteen millions in banksuot reporting, and
in private bauds.
As for the last item, Mr. Speaker, one has only to examine the data
furnished by the Director of the Mint to see that the amount stated is
only estimated, and that it is but a guess, instead of a computation
from reliable data.
It is thus, Mr. Speaker, that the Treasury officials figure to arrive at
the conclusion that we have $(>18,000,000 of gold coin in "circulation." With the exception of the $130,000,000 for which certificates
have been issued, is it not a perversion of language to say that it is in
"circulation? " Outside of the Treasury officials and the bank clerks
who ever sees a dollar of it? For the uses of the people as money it
might almost as well be in the mines from which it came. Practically,
then, Mr. Speaker, the actual money uses of the people are supplied by
the greenbacks, the national-bank notes, the subsidiary silver coin
(something over seventy-six millions), about sixty-one and a half million standard silver dollars, and that portion of the other silver and gold
coin for which certificates are outstanding and which certificates aggregate Jess than $ 125,000,000. It is needless to explain that the silver
as well as the gold coin is deposited in exchange for certificates, which
circulate instead of the coin itself, because of the greater convenience
in handling. But, Mr. Chairman, with what accuracy or fairness can
it be said that this coin is not in circulation when its representative,
the certificate, is? And since the certificates answer all the uses of coin,
is it not as well for the people that the certificates should be in their
pockets instead of the coin ?
HEARD
7
Mr. CONGER. Is that not what I said in my report and my speech ?
Mr. HEARD. Oh, yes, and that part of your argument is sound: but
I want to show you now why your bill would not accomplish what you
claim for it and what you say you desire, because it is not calculated
to put the certificates in circulation.
Mr. CONGER. You acknowledge the truth of my statement?
Mr. HEARD. Well, wait till I get through with my statement. I
anticipated your appropriation of my language to the support of your
position, but I insist that you cannot make it answer your purpose nor
my objection. I agree with you that the certificates, when in circulation, are just as good as the coin and more convenient, otherwise nobody would exchange coin for them; but I wish now in presenting my
criticisms on this bill to point out to you as my first but not most
Berious objection the fact that under the operation of this bill, should
it become a law, even with a Secretary of the Treasury friendly to silver coinage, that it will not be practicable to issue as great an amount
in certificates as is authoi ized by existing law. By the present law the
Secretary of the Treasury is compelled to buy and coin into standard
silver dollars §'2,000,000 worth of silver bullion monthly, and he is authorized to buy and coin $4,000,000 worth per month. At the present
commercial price of bullion (72 cents on the dollar, gold value) $4,000,000 worth of it will coin over 5,200,000 standard silver dollars, and
therefore if that official were to execute the present law in a spirit of
friendliness to silver coinage there is nothing to prevent his coining, at
the present price of silver bullion, over $5,200,000 per month. Under
this bill he could not issue Treasury notes for over $4,500,u00 monthly.
Therefore, if our aim is to get silver certificates issued, to become permanently a part of our circulating medium on a par with the money
we now have, it will be seen that the present law, if fully executed, is
better for our purposes than the one proposed by about three-quarters
of a million dollars monthly, or nine millions annually.
It may be said that we have no reason to believe that the present
Secretary of the Treasury will execute the existing law in a way different from that which he and his predecessors have executed it in the past,
and I admit it. Unfortunately, at this time there is, I repeat, no hope
that he will do so, unless compelled thereto by a change in the law. But
how easy it would be to amend the law so as to compel the coinage of
the maximum limit instead of the minimum. Again, if the Secretary
will only execute the existing law so as to make only the least possible
addition to tlae volume of our money, why is it reasonable to suppose
that he would execute the proposed law in a spirit of greater liberality
towards silver. Would he not have great latitude for his discretion in
the execution of the proposed law ? Yes; and in my opinion that furnishes the explanation why he and those who like him oppose the use
of silver money desire the substitution of that bill for the existing law,
by the terms of which there is compulsory coinage for half the amount
possible to be coined under the law.
I desire to emphasize the point that under existing law there is a
certainty of our getting about $35,000,000 increase annually; and this
bill proposes to repeal that law, substituting for that compulsory pro*
vision one making it the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to coin
so much only of the bullion as will do what?" Pay for such bullion?
Oh, no, that would make a permanent addition to the volume of silver
money in the country; but to coin so much as may be necessary to redeem such of the Treasury notes as may be presented for redemption
BEABD
8
in coin. Who will evsr present one of those notes for redemption in
Bilver coin when the note is clothed with all the money power of gold
coin? No, Mr. Speaker, none will be presented for redemption, and
therefore, so far as relates to the standard dollar, silver coinage will
cease. Under existing law every dollar in ihe form of silver certificates issued on a deposit of coin makes, in so much, a permanent addition to the volume of circulation in the country; for, once issued, it can
only be redeemed in coin of its class, and such exchange is useless save
in exceptional cases and for small amounts.
Let those who denounce the demonetizing act of 1873'understand
that in voting for this bill they vote to re-establish the condition, as to
the coinage of the legal-tender silver dollar, which that act brought
about, and that he does more, and, in my judgment, infinitely worse,
in this, that he votes to establish, by declaration of law, the destruction of the coinage value of silver, making it a commodity only.
The act of 1873 did not go that far, and until now all efforts of the
enemies of silver have been powerless to give silver that fatal blow.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, there will be little or no appreciable increase in the volume of our circulating medium under this bill on account of Treasury notes to be issued in payment for silver bullion, for
the reason that the Secretary of the Treasury will, by the proviso to the
second section of the bill, be authorized " a t his discretion " and under
such "regulations as he may prescribe " to exchange for such notes silver bullion; and it will not be too much to predict that the bankers
and money holders generally, being interested in keeping the supply ol
money in the country as small as possible, will, in great measure at least,
control the output of the notes by selling the bullion to the Secretary,
and perhaps in the same month that they are issued present them for
redemption in bullion, thus completely nullifying the spirit of the act,
if its design be to relieve the people by iurnishing more money lor circulation.
If the Secretary of the Treasury be so inclined, what is to hinder the
four and a half millions of bullion bought and note3 issued therefor
during the first month from changing places every month, and by such
round of manipulation prevent any increase in the volume of circulation beyond the amount involved in that one transaction? The friends
of the bill of course argue that no Secretary of the Treasury will dare
do that, even if h6 desire to; but the result of my observations of the
acts of the officials who have filled that place since 1S73—and the present Secretary is no exception to the rule—inclines me to guard against
the necessity for permitting the exercise on the part of anybody who
may get into that place of a discretion which {certain to be more or
less influenced by the conviction which seems always to be present with
them, that any increase of money among the people is an unmixed evil),
to do or not to do such things as the law could just as well, and in my
judgment should, either explicitly direct or prohibit.
Suppose, for purpose ot illustration, the Bland act of 1878 had in
express term^ commanded the coinage of $4,000,000 worth of bullion
into standard silver dollars monthly instead of leaving half that amount
to be coined or not coined at the discretion of the Secretary of the
Treasury, we would to-day have the full benefit of that act instead
of only half of it. Would that increase in the volume of money in the
country have been an injury? Or would it have been a benefit? Ii
we think it would have been an injury then we should now repeal,
Absolutely, the Bland law; and if a benefi) we should not repeat the
lie A so
9
folly of first deciding what should he done by Congress in the interests
of the people and then giving to an executive officer ot" the Government,
whom we know to be opposed to our view* discretion to do or not to
do it.
Mr. Speaker, no one who has examined the recent official utterances
of President Harrison on this subject will attribute to him any great
partiality for silver money; but in the same message in which he,
speaking of the free coinage of silver, says, " We should not tread the
dangerous edge of such a peril," is compelled by the facts to say with
reference to the effect of the coinage of standard silver dollars that—
T h e evil anticipations which have accompanied the coinage and the use of
the silver dollar have not been realized. A s a coin it liaa not had general use,
afid the public Treasury has been compelled to store it. But this is manifestly
o w i n g to the fact that its paper representative is more convenient. T h e general acceptance and use of the silver certificate shows that silver has not otherwise been discredited.
No, Mr. Speaker, silver has not been discredited; and the only discredit which the result of this increased silver coinage has cast on anything, or anybody, has fallen on those prophets of evil to whom the
President alludes as having indulged gloomy anticipations of the wreck
and ruin that were to come upon the country as a result of the operations of the Bland act. But however much discredited as prophets,
the individuals of that class still continue to prophesy falsely. Let me
ask, Mr. Speaker, whence comes the demand for a bill like that before
us ? The people have not asked it, nor do they want it. They have
asked for a bill authorizing free coinage; and in response to that petition you propose to give them one repealing the act which alone gives
them any silver coinage. What influence demands the passage of a
law striking down silver as a money metal? Certainly not the masses
of the people, who demand more money for circulation and the preservation of the present legal ratio between the gold and silver money
of the country. Where and when have the people demanded that bullion should be bought by the Government for the purpose of putting
into circulation Treasury notes, and yet providing that at the discretion of an official who does not claim friendship for such proposition,
such notes may be redeemed or received in exchange for this same bullion? Who is it that demands that our Federal Treasury shall be converted into a~pawnbroker's shop, or made the basis of gigantic jobbery in buying and selling the Dullion of the country ?
Will any intelligent man contend that this bill does not furnish opportunities for speculation should the Secretary be dishonest enough to
avail himself of it ? Hear what the present Secretary himself says
about the character of this feature of the bill. In a letter, the authenticity of which is not denied, and in an authorized interview sent
through the Associated Press, referring to the pro\ision in the Senate
bill which compels the purchase of so much silver monthly,"etc., he
says:
T h i s compulsory purchase of so great an a m o u n t will m a k e the Treasury
the largest operator in the most gigantic corner e v e r organized.
And further, comparing the Senate bill, which he was criticising,
with his own bill (substantially the one before us), he says:
Is it not enough that we take one half of the w o r l d ' s silver product and lock
it up in order to increase the value of the other h a l f ; that we join the silver producers in the most gigantic silver corner ever organized ?
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would answer, quite enough. But in my ham"lie opinion that is just what is proposed. And yet we are told by some
HEARD
10
of those who favor the bill, that those who want free coinage are working under the influence of the "silver l o b b y . " The chairman of the
committee reporting this b y i said in his speech to-day:
All winter long, Mr. Speaker, a powerful silver lobby has been operating
about this city; a lobby paid for and supported by tho bonanza mine and bullion owners.
They have been faithful to their trust. They have been persistent in season
and out of .season; they have plied their vocation at Capitol, hotel, and private
residence.
This may be true. Mr. Speaker, and I can only say that while I will
not question the correctness of a statement which seems to have been
made with all the positiveness that comes from personal knowledge,
I would say that, judging from the character of this bill, which is generally supposed to have emanated from the Secretary of the Treasury,
said lobby, in addition to the other places which the gentleman says it
infested, has not wholly slighted the Treasury Department; at least,
Mr. Speaker, and I say it without design to reflect on anybody, that
official is generally credited with being the progenitor of a bill which,
according to his own statement, proposes " t h a t we join the silver producers in the most gigantic corner ever organized." For myself, Mr.
Speaker, I do not propose to join in this " c o r n e r . " The silver lobby
has had no efTect on me. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, my constituents have
no silver mines or bullion, and their Representative is uninfluenced
by the lobby, either the " s i l v e r l o b b y " or the " g o l d l o b b y ; " and if
there be such lobbies here I shall try to be certain that their influence
is not reflected in my vote.
Mr. Speaker, why pass a bill obnoxious to such serious criticisms as
have been quoted from the Secretary of the Treasury even if it had no
other faults? Why pass a bill so complicated iu form and of so uncertain operative results that it claims alike the support of those who
desire and those who oppose the rehabilitation of silver money ? W h y
not give the people what they ask for, and that is the removal of the
unjust restrictions placed on the coinage of silver by the act of 1873,
which act no one now has the hardihood to defend? In fact no one
has ever defended it, but every one connected with that legislation is
to-day on the defensive before the bar of public opinion. The act of
demonetization was never asked for nor desired by auy one save those
who engineered that colossal scheme of legislative robbtty which has
been fitly named by Senator INGALLS " the great economic crime of
the a g e . " That act, of which the great body of the people knew nothing until too late, was passed so stealthily that Senators and Representatives voted for the bill without knowledge of its nature, and it wa^
signed by the President, ns he afterwards declared, without the slightest intimation or suspicion of its rtal purpose. Since this has recently
been denied by a prominent Senator, conspicuous now as he has always been in Ins opposition to the correction of the great wrong <»<me
by the act of 1873, I ([note the statements of some of the leading Senators and Representatives who were in Congress at the date of the passage of the act, and were therefore in a position to know the facts in
the case.
Mr. IIor.>rA>\ in a speech delivered in the House of Representatives
July 13, 1*70, said:
0 f have before tne the record of the proceedings of this House on the passage
of that measure, a record which no man can read without beingeonvinced that
the measure and the method of it*? passage through this House was a "colossal
swindle/' I assert that the measure never had the saaetion of this House, and
HEARD
11
it does not possess the moral force of law.—Congressional Record, volume 4, pail
6, Forty-fourth Congress, first session, appendix, page 193.
Again on August 5, 1876, he said:
The original bill was simply a bill to organize a bureau of mints and coinage.
The bill which finally passed the House and which ultimately became a law was
Certainly not read in this House. * * *
It was never considered before the House as it was passed. Up to the time
the bill came before this House for final passage the measure had simply been
one to establish a bureau of mines; I believe 1 use the term correctty now. It
came from the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures. The substitute
which finally became a law was never read, and is subject to the charge made
against it by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BLAND] that it was passed by
the House without a knowledge of its provisions, especially upon that of coinage.
I myself asked the question of Mr. Hooper, who stood near where I am now
standing, whether it changer! the law in regard to coinage. And the answer of
Mr. Hooper certainly left the impression upon the whole House that the subject of the coinage was not atlected by that bill.—Congressional Record, volume
4, part 6, Forty-fourth Congress, first session, page 5237.
Mr. CANNON", of Illinois, in a speech made in the House on July 13,
1876, said:
This legislation was had in the Forty-second Congress, February 12, 1873, by a
bill to regulate the mints of the United States, and practically abolished silver as
money by failing to provide for the coinage of the silver dollar. It was not discussed, as shown by the RECORD, and neither members of Cougress nor the people understood the scope of the legislation—Congressional Record, volume 4,
part 6, Forty-fourth Congress, first session, appendix, page 197.
Mr. Burchard, of Illinois, in a speech made in the House of Representatives on July 13, 1876, said:
The coinage act of 1873, unaccompanied by any written report upon the subject
from any committee, and unknown to the members of Congress, who without
opposition allowed it to pass under the belief, if not assurance, that it made no
alteration in the value of the current coins, changed the unitof value from silver
to gold.—Congressional Becordt volume 4, part 6, Forty-forth Congress, first
session, page 4560.
Senator Conkling, in the Senate on March 30, 1876, daring the remarks of Senator Bogy on the bill (S. 263) to amend the laws relating to legal tender of silver coin, in surprise, inquired:
Will the Senator allow me to ask him or some other Senator a question? Is
it true that there is now by law no American dollar; and if so, is it true that the
effect of this bill is to be to make half-dollars and quarter-dollars the only silver
coin which can be used as a legal tender ?—Congressional Record, volume 4,
part 3, Forty-fourth Congress, first session, page 2062.
General Garfield, in a speech made at Springfield, Ohio, during tho
fall of 1877, said:
'Perhaps I ought to be ashamed to say so, but it is the truth to say that, at
that time being chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and having my
hands overfull during all that time with work, I never read the bill. I took it
upon the faith of a prominent Democrat and a prominent Republican, and I do
not know that I voted at all. There was no call of the yeas and nays, and nobody
opposed that bill that I know of. It was put.through as dozens of bills are, as my
friend and I know, in Congress, on the faith of the report of the chairman of the
committee; therefore I tell you, because it is the truth, that I have no knowledge about it.—Congressional llecord, volume 7, part 1, Forty-fifth Congress, second session, page 9S9.
Senator ALLISON, on February 15, 1878, when the bill (H. R. 1093)
to authorize the free coinage of the standard silver dollar and to restore
its legal-tender character was under consideration, observed:
But when the secret history of this bill of 1S73 comes to be told, it will disclose
the fact that i he House of Representatives intended to coin Loth gold and silver;
and intended to placc both metals upon the French relation instead of on our
HEARD
12
own, which was the true scientific position -with reference to this subject in 1873,
but that ihe bill afterward was doctored, if 1 may use that term, and I use it in
no offensive sense of course
Mr. Sargent interrupted him, an3 asked him what he meant by the
word " d o c t o r e d . "
Mr. ALLISON said:
I said I used the word in no offensive sense. It was changed after discussion,
and the dollar of J2') grains was substituted for it.—Congressional Record, volume 7, part 2, Forty-filth Congress, second session, page 1058.
On February 15, 1878, during the consideration of the bill above referred to, the following colloquy between Senator Blaine and Senator
VooRHEES took place;
Mr. VOOKIIKES. I want to ask my friend from Maine, whom I am glad to designate in that way, whether 1 may call him as one more witness to the lact that it
was not generally known whether silver was demonetized? Did he know, as
Speaker of the House, presiding at that time, that the silver dollar was demonetized in the bill to which he alludes?
Mr. BLAINE. 1 did not know anything that was in the bill at all. As I have
before said, little was known or cared on the subject. [Laughter.] And now I
should like to exchange questions with the Senator from Indiana, who was then
on the floor and whose business it was, far more than mine, to know, because by
the designation of the House I was to put questions; the Senator from Indiana,
then on the floor of the House, with his power as a debater, was to unfold them
to the House. Did he know?
MR. VOQRUEES. I very frankly say that I did not.
CIbid., page 1063.)
Senator Beck, in a speech made in the Senate January 10, 1878,
said:
It [the bill demonetizing silver] never was understood by either House of Congress, I say that with full knowledge of the facts. No newspaper reporter—and
they are the most vigilant men lever saw in obtaining information—discovered
that it had been done.—Congressional Recordt volume 7, part 1, Forty-fifth Congress, second session, page 260.
Senator Hereford, in the Senate, on February 13, 1878, in discussing
the demonetization of silver, said:
So that I say that beyond the possibility of a doubt (and there is no disputing
It) that bill which demonetized silver, as it passed, never was read, never was
discussed, and that the chairman of the committee who reported it, who offerred the substitute, said to Mr. HOLM AN, when inquired of, that it did not affect the coinage in any way whatever.—Congressional Record, volumfe 7, part 1,
Forty-lifth Congress, second session, page 989. •
Mr. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, who was chairman of the committee
having charge of the bill, in a speech made in the House of Representatives on March 9, 1878, said:
In connection with the charge that I advocated the bill which demonetized
the standard silver dollar, I say that, though the chairman of the Committee on
Coinage, I was as ignorant of the fact that it would demonetize the silver dollar
or of its dropping the silver dollar from our system of coins as were those distinguished Senators Messrs. Blaine and VOORHEES, who were then members of the
House, and each of whom a few days since interrogated the other: *' Did you
know it was dropped when the bill passed? " " N o , " said Mr. Blaine ; " d i d
you? " " N o , " said Mr. VOORHEES. I do not think that there were three members in the House that knew it I doubt whether Mr. Hooper, who, in my absence from the Committee on Coinage and attendance on the Committee of
W a y s and Means, managed the bill, knew It. I say this in justice to him.—
Congressional Record, volume 7, part 2, Forty-fifth Congress, second session, page
1005.
Again on May 10, 1879, Mr. Kelley said:
All I can say is that the Committee on Coinage, AVelghts, and Measures, who
reported the original bill, were faithful and able, and scanned its provisions
closely; that as their organ I reported it; that it contained provision for both
the standard silver dollar and the trade-dollar. Never having heard until a long
time after its enactment into law of the substitution in the Senate of the section
which dropped the standard dollar, I profess to know nothing of its history;
HEAKD
13
but I am prepared to say that In all the legislation of this country there is no
mystery equal to the demonetization of the standard silver dollar of the United
States. 1 have never found a man who could tell just how it came about, or
whv.—Congressional Record, volume 9, parti, Forty-sixth Congress, first session,
page 1231.
It will be observed, Mr. Speaker, that Judge Kelley, in referring to
the want of knowledge on the part of his committee as to the demonetizing feature being in the bill which they reported, stated that he did
not believe that there were three members of the House who knew it,
and further, that he doubted if Mr. Hooper, who reported the bill, knew
it. I think, Mr. Speaker, that in the latter opinion Mr. Kelley was
probably mistaken, and that Mr. Hooper did know it; and in support
of my view I quote an extract from the speech of the Hon. JOHN W.
DANIEL, delivered, May 22, 1890, on the silver-coinage bill now pending in the Senate.
Mr. DANIEL says:
I take from the Bankers' Magazine of August, 1873, a little extract. It says:
" I n 1873 silver being demonetized in Germany, England, and Holland, a capital of £100,000 ($500,000) was raised, and Ernest Seyd, of London, was sent to
this country with this fund as the agent of foreign bondholders to effect the
same object."
"This is from one of the most respectable organs of the money interest of the
United States, and it announces the fact that England and Holland furnished
a fund of half a million dollars and sent an emissary over to America to procure
a result which was effected in the manner stated.
Mr. SHEEMAN. What date does he fix ?
Mr. DANIEL. It is the Bankers' Magazine of August, 1873,
Mr. SHERMAN. But what was the date fixed when Seyd was sent here ? When
was Seyd sent here, according to that statement?
Mr. DANIEL. There is no statement of that. I have only the paragraph bofore me.
The CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of April 9, 1872, contains the report of a bill presented to the House by Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts, the chairman of the Committee on Coinage, in which the following language occurs as coming from Mr.
Hooper's own lips, and refers to the act which was passed dropping the silver
dollar from our coinage laws, where it had been recognized as the unit of value
since 1789:
" The bill was prepared two years ago and has been submitted to careful and
deliberate examination. It has the approval of nearly all the mint experts of
the country and the sanction of the Secretary of the Treasury. Ernest Seyd, of
London, a distinguished writer and bullionist, is now here and has given great
attention to the subject of mints and coinage, after examining the first draughts
of this bill made various sensible suggestions which the committee accepted
and embodied in the bill. While the committee take no credit to themselves
for the original preparation of this bill, they have given it the most careful consideration and have no hesitation in unanimously recommending its passage as
necessary and expedient."
It is perhaps fortunate that Mr. Hooper disclaimed the paternity of
the bill, since a few months since, at a convention of national bankers
held in Kansas City, Mo., Hon. John J. K n o x claimed the authorship of
it.
I refer to this, Mr. Speaker, not to reflect in any manner upon the
conductof Mr. Hooper, any further than to connect him with the knowledge of the purpose of hi3 work. He may have been ignorant of the
motives of Mr. Seyd and of the half-million dollar syndicate of the
English and Holland bankers who sent him here; but he acknowledges
in his report to the House his indebtedness to Mr. Seyd for his u various
sensible suggestions," etc. Then it is not fair to Mr. Hooper's intelligence to suppose that he was so far imposed upon that he did not understand the nature of the work being done by him. It is but justice to
him, however, to state that it has been openly charged b y Senator
ALLISON and others that the bill was changed so as to drop out the
silver dollar after it left the Senate. While I am not aware that SenHEAED
14
ator S H E R M A N , who, on January 17, 1873, asked lor the consideration
of the House bill in the Senate, has ever stated that he was unaware
of its full purpose, I think the following extract, which I quote from
the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of that date, fails to show that his statement of the nature of the bill upon presenting it was such as would
advise the Senate that such measure contemplated the demonetization
of silver, or related to anything other than the regulation of the mints,
assay offices, and coinage* of the United States, and during whatever of
debate ensued on the bill, or amendments discussed, not one word was
said which disclosed a purpose to prohibit the coinage of a legal-tender
silver dollar. The extract referred to reads as follows:
MINT LAWS.
T h e PRESIDING OFFICER. T h e Calendar under the A n t h o n y rule Is n o w in
order.
M r . SHERMAN. I rise for the purpose of m o v i n g that the Senate proceed t o
the consideration of the Mint lull. I will state that this bill will not probably
consume a n y m o r e time than the t i m e consumed in reading it. It passed t h e
Senate t w o years a g o after full debate. It was taken up again in the House during the present Congress, and passed there. It is a matter of vital interest to
the Government, and I a m informed by otliccrs of the G o v e r n m e n t it is important it should pass promptly. T h e a m e n d m e n t s reported by the C o m m i t t e e o n
Finance present tho points of difference between the t w o Houses, and they can
g o t o a committee of confcrencc without having a controversy here in the Senate about them.
•
M r . ANTHONY. I hope the Calendar will be laid aside informally, not postponed.
M r . SHERMAN. Let it be passed over informally until w e finish the reading of
the Mint bill and dispose o f it. T h e reading is about half through, I am informed
b y the Secretary.
M r . CuAGIN. I shall not oppose this motion, but I wish to give noticc that as
soon as the Mint bill is disposed of that I shall m o v e to call up the bill <H. It.
N o . 3010) for the construction of six steam v c w ^ l s of war, and for other purposes,
which was reported from th^ Committee on Naval A Hairs. I hope that bill will
be left as the unfinished business this evening.
T h e PRESIDING OFFICER. T h e Chair is informed that it Is proposed that tho
Calendar be informally passed over.
M r . SHERMAN. I a m perfectly willing that that should b e done.
T h e PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be regarded as the sense of the Senate IF
there is no objection, and the bill referred to b y the Senator from Ohio is n o w
before the Senate.
T h e Seuate, as iu Committee of the W h o l e , resumed the consideration of the
bill ( H . R . No. 2U34) revising and a m e n d i n g the l a w s relative to the mints, assay
offices, a n d coinage of the United States.
T h e Chief Clerk resumed and concluded the reading of the bill.
T h e PRESIDING OFFICER. T h e Committee on F i n a n c e report the bill, w i t h
a m e n d m e n t s , which will n o w be read.
M r . SiiHUMAN. 1 send to the clerk s o m e a m e n d m e n t s of a formal character
from the Committee on Finance, adopted since the a m e n d m e n t s first reported
w e r e printed. I will a s k that they be acted upon with the others in their order.
Whatever knowledge of the scheme may have been possessed by those
engineering it, Mr. Speaker, it can not be claimed that the masses of
oor people had any notice of the true intention of the bill, or that the
coinage of the legal-tender dollar was to be interfered with at all. No
man connected with that work has ever attempted to give a reason for
it. Baring the present Congress we have witnessed the labored efforts
of a distinguished Senator to show that the act was not passed wholly
without notice to the Senate: bat it yet remains for him, or any of his
associates in the work, to assign a reason justifying the act. For any
one not boand to apologize for the origin of the law it is easy to discover the motive. It was the desire and purpose to destroy one of the
money metals in order to increase the value of the other. A brief reference to history discloses the fact that the device was not a new or untried one, for it had been frequently resorted to by those who' owned
HEARD
15
the money and held the credits of the world in other countries. Noi
has the metal demonetized always been silver. Sometimes it has been
gold; but always that metal which by its greater abundance, present
or prospective, most threatened to resist the oppressive power of the
money-owner as against the poor and the indebted.
Up to the year 1819 every civilized nation used both gold and silver
equally as money.
At that date England, having become a creditor
nation, demonetized silver by declaring that all contracts for the payment of money should be discharged in gold only. We will take occasion hereafter to note the effects of that act upon the people of that
country. Alter the discovery of the gold mines of California and Australia the European countries which still retained the use of both
metals, becoming alarmed at the sudden increase in gold money, set
about the demonetization of that metal. In 1850 Belgium made silvei
her single standard, and in 1857 her example was followed by the German States and Austria; and to the opposition of France alone was
due the fact that the demonetization of gold did notobtain throughout
the whole of Europe. But less than twenty years thereafter the great
increase in the product of silver comjtletely changed the status of the two
metals; and the change which began with the formation of the " L a t i n
U n i o n , " in which Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland joined in 1865, was
followed in 1873 by Germany and the United States, and later by the
Scandinavian States, France, Holland, and Spain, and the mints of all
these countries were closed against silver. The result lias been fitly
described by Hon. ROGER Q. MILLS, when he declared that thus—
The labor of the world was paralyzed in. order to raise the price of gold to the
small but powerful class who live on incomcs.
Thus it will be observed, Mr. Speaker, that it is always the metal
that is or promises to become the most useful to the people for money
purposes that is singled out by the law-making power as the victim for
the time being of demonetization. The effect of such legislation being
much the same in all countries, it may not be surprising to us in the
light of our own experience, yet interesting to note the result of the
original demonetization of silver in England in 1819. The historian
of that day informs us that " by reason of the contraction of the currency prices rapidly fell, cotton sinking in three months to half its
former value;" that in six months all prices had fallen half, and u showed
no signs of improvement for the next three years.*'* By reason of the
contraction of the currency the industry of the nation was paralyzed,
etc.:
Alarm became universal, confidence and activity ceased, bankruptcy increased
in 1819 more than 50 per cent, of the number of the previous year/ Meetings
were held throughout England in which the people called on the Government to devise some means of redressing the situation. So universal was the
distress that the owners of land in England, who in 1819numbered 160,000, were
in seven years, by forced sales and the foreclosures of mortgages on the smaller
farms, reduced to 30,000, and one in every seven of the population lived on organized charity.
Mr. Speaker, this ia indeed a dark picture o f distress, but one which
millions of our people will recognize as having been presented to their
gaze by the act of 1S73. Let us see what was the effect of the same
policy applied to Germany. In 1873 that nation joined in the war
against silver money, and the effects of such action was immediately
reflected in the distress of her people, which is aptly described by Mr.
Lavaleye, who seven years later wrote as follows:
At the sitting of the Reichstag, of the 18th June, 1879, the governor of the Imperial Bank. Herr Von Decherd, declared, in reply to a question by ex-Minister
HEARD
16
Delbruck, that the sale of demonetized sliver had already Involved a lots of
96,500,000 murks («23,100,000), and that for the sale of the remaining 500,(WO,000 of
m a r k s <$120,000,000) a rather higher loss must be calculated upon. (A. m a r k is
worth 24 cents.) It was then that Prince Bismarck interposed and declared that
h e would no longer bear the responsibility of such a n operation. G e r m a n y is
a considerable producer of silver, and her present production is worth less by
£5,000,000 per a n n u m from the depreciation of silver. G e r m a n y o w n s at least
$400,000,000 of investments, whose interest, payable in silver, n o w yields $2,500000 a y e a r less than if that metal was at par.
THE EFFECT UTOV THE GEKMA2C FARMERS.
He thus describes the effect upon the German farmers:
" T h i s direct loss, important as it is, is nothing, h o w e v e r , " s a y s H e r r V o n
B a r , " compared with the indirect loss resulting from the fall of prices." Him*
self a large land-owner, he first speaks of agriculture: " It is cruelly suffering
from the reduced value of all produce. T h e farmers are paying their rents
irregularly, or not at a l l ; therr stock in trade has often to be distrained t o recover arrears of rent.
T h e land-owners are o v e r w h e l m e d with mortgages.
W h e n at last, in order to extricate themselves, they try to sell their estates, t h e y
find no purchaser*, or have to be satisfied with a price one-third below former
estimates. T h e discouragement is universal. N o m o r e agricultural i m p r o v e m e n t s are being effected; e m p l o y m e n t te, consequently, lacking, and there Is
great indigence. H e n c e that increasing emigration, for which special trains
and steamers have to be arranged. It js a veritable exodus. W h a t r e m e d y for
s o m u c h suffering? T h e agriculturists, perceiving at length the real cause o f
the evil, d e m a n d the abandonment of the g o l d standard.
The extraordinary emigration from Germany referred to by this distinguished authority, aggregated in the sixteen years, from 1873 to
1889, 1,546.000 persons nearly 100,000 per annum. People do not
emigrate when they are prosperous; and this 14 liegira " of Germans, as
it lias been termed, declared the condition of that country.
But, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for our country, we are not compelled to go abroad for illustrations of the evil effect of this character
of legislation. It will not be denied that the demonetization of silver
in 1873 has depreciated all values in this country about one-third.
The magnitude of that destruction of values can scarcely be conceived,
much less accurately stated; but it may not be unprofitable to refer in
this connection to the opinions of well informed statesmen and financiers of this, as well as of other countries, on the subject. Senator
T E L L E R says it added more than a thousand millions to the public
debt of this country alone, and great as that sum appears, it is but a
trifle when compared to the increase of burden added to the private
and other debts of the people.,^, While no man can even approximately
state the weight of that burden, every debtor and laboring man in
this country from 1873 to this.dhy Has felt its oppressive effects.
In a recent speech delivered in' the United States Senate by Hon.
J O H N P. J O N E S he presents irrefragable proofs that the depreciation of
silver caused by its demonetization has been shared by every other species of property except gold alone; or, in other words, that silver baa
held its ratio of value as compared with every thing except gold and
therefore the correct way to state the change of relative values of silver
and gold is, not that silver has declined, but that gold has been advanced in value. The effect upon the people of this rise in gold can
not perhaps be more forcibly presented than in the illustrations used
by Senator JONES, as follows:
If a cotton planter in 1873 o w e d $10,000 h e coutd then h a v e paid it w i t h 60,975
pounds of cotton. T o - d a y , b y reason of the increased c o m m a n d which gold has
o v e r commodities, it w o u l d take 101,010 pounds of cotton to p a y that $10,000;
notwithstanding that the m o n e y in which the debtor has paid the interest has
each y e a r become m o r e valuable than it was at the time h e contracted t o p a y it.
T h e cotton manufacturer of the East w h o in 1873 o w e d 510,000 could then h a v e
paid it with 70,422 yards of uncolored cotton c l o t h , to-day o w i n g to the rise in
JggAttp
17
the value of gold it would require 147,059 yards to pay that debt, without taking
into account the amount lost by the debtor in t he greater sacrifice he had year by
year to make to pay the interest.
The farmer of the North and West who in 1873 owed $10,000 could then have
paid it with 8,733 bushels of wheat; to-day it would require 11,446 bushels of
wheat to liquidate that debt, though he, too, has year by year been " cinched "
through the progressive increase in the value of the money in which the interest has been paid. Or he could, in 1873, have paid his debt with 1,514 barrels
of flour; to-day it would take 2,126 barrels of flour to pay the same debt.
Showing the continual decline in prices, and the consequent increasing distress of our agriculturists, I quote the following from one of the
leading agricultural journals of the country. Referring to the official
crop report this writer says:
By taking the corn crop for 1888 we find by this report that there were raised
in the United States 1.987,790,000 bushels of corn, valued at $677,561,580, and by
the report of 1889 we find there was raised the enormous crop of 2,112,81)2,000
bushels, valued at Vrnly 8597,918,820. In fact, the corn crop of 1889 exceeded that
of 1888 by 125.192,000 bushels, and is valued at less money by §79,542,760.
The wheat crop of 1888 was 415,805,000 bushels, valued at $385,248,030, while
the wheat crop of 1889 was 490,560,000 bushels, valued at only $349.491,707. It
will be seen that the wheat crop of 1889 was greater than tluv of 188$ by 74,693,000
bushels and sold for less money by $42,756,223.
The oat crop of 1888 was701,735,0n0 bushels, valued at $195,424,240, and the oat
crop for 1889 was 751,575,000 bushels, valued at $171,7*1,008, or the oat crop was
greater iu 1889 than in 18S8 by 49,780,000 bushels, and is valued for less by
$23,643,232.
In other words, the farmers have raised of these cereals 249,664.000 bushels
more in 18S9 than in 1888, and the entire crop has sold for §145,942,215 less money
than last year.
, As evidence that this condition is recognized and appreciated hy
financiers and economic writers of accepted ability and character in
Europe as well as in this country, I quote from Mr. Frewen, of London,
in his late work entitled The Economic Crisis, which relates, not
peculiarly, tofinancialcauses and effects in the United States, but in
the whole civilized world. His incidental allusion, however, to a
state of facts which we all know exists in this country, makes his illustration appropriate to this discussion, while his acknowledged ability
and fairness as an author on financial and economic subjects gives
great weight to his observations. Mr. Frewen says:
It may; indeed, be affirmed, without fear of contradiction, that legislation arranged in the interest of a certain class, first by Lord Liverpool in this country,
and again by Sir Robert Peel at the instigation of Mr. Jones Loyd and other
wealthy bankers, which was supplemented recently by simultaneous anti-silver
legislation in Berlin and Washington at the instance of the great financial
houses—this legislation has about doubled the burden of all national debts by
an artificial enhancement of the value of money.
The fall of all priccs induced by this cause has been on such a scale that while
In twenty years the national debt of the United States quoted in dollars has been
reduced by nearly two-thirds, yet the value of the remaining one-third, measured in wheat, in bar iron, or bates of cotton, is considerably greater—is a greater
demand draft on the labor and industry of the nation than was the whole debt
at the time it was contracted. The aggravation of the burdens of taxation induced by this so-called ''appreciation of gold," rfhich is no natural appreciation, but has been brought about by class legislation to increase the value of the
old which is in a few hands, requires but to be explained to an enfranchised
Semocracy, which will know how to protect itself against further attempts to
contract the currency and to force down prices to the confusion of every existing contract.
Senator JONES, of Nevada, presents some facts and figures to prove
what the losses have been, by reason of this shrinkage in value of some
of the staple crops of the country. On the cotton crops alone, in those
seventeen years, he states upon a computation based on the reports of
the Bureau of Statistics in the Treasury and Agricultural Departments,
that the loss has been $1,411,000,000. On the wheat crop, by data
HEARD—2
18
derived fiora the same sources, he estimates the loss to have been
$1,700,000,000; or an aggregate on those two crops alone of over $:},000,000,000. When we"apply the same percentage of shrinkage to the
other cr »ps and property of the country which have been produced and
handled at constantly declining prices during this long and hideous
night of financial horror, we can get an approximate realization of the
losses sustained by the decline in price of property; but in order to
more fully appreciate the greivotis burden which that act placed upon
the masses we most note its effect ou the laborers whom it deprived
of work—over two millions in number—who had neither crops to sell
nor money with which to buy except as they earned it by daily toil.
Quoting further from the distinguished Senator, I present his estimate
of the almost immeasurable loss indicted upon the laboring elementof
our people. lie says :
T h e census report of 18S0 states the n u m b e r of persons e m p l o y e d in all occupations as 17,3i»2.0JH»t o :t of a population of 30,153,7*3, or a percentage of 31.68
of the entire population. Our prevent population being not less than
000,000,
if w e assume, as w e are warranted in doing, that a like proportion of the population is engaged in OBCU pat ions of all sorts, it is clear that w e have to-day a
w o r k i n g population of 22,251,000 persons.
Accepting as correct the careful deductions from the reports of the Massachusetts bureau of labor that a n u m b e r equivalent t o 10 per cent, of the people are a l w a y s out of e m p l o y m e n t , w e find that at the present time there are
2 , ^ 1 , 0 0 persons involuntarily idle in this country. H o w faintly docs the term
the a r m y of the u n e m p l o y e d " describe this vast number of eager and willing men seeking in vain the opportunity to earn a livelihood for themselves
ar.d families.
W e r e the business of the country in the active condition in which it could not
avoid being if our m o n e y system were perfectly adjusted to industry, and if e m lovers were competing for laborers with the s a m e degree of eagerness that laorers are competing for e m p l o y m e n t , the average w a g e of a day for a w o r k i n g m a n would not bu less than £2. T h i s would m a k e but the moderate s u m of $30
a m o n t h for each w o r k m a n , which, under the most thrifty system of household
e c o n o m y , can not be considered more than enough for the support of a n A m e r ican family.
THE WAGE LOSS FROSI 15i VOLUNTARY IDLENESS.
B y multiplying the number of persons thus s h o w n to b e idle b y this moderate
average w a g e w e arrive at the a m o u n t of $4,500,000 as the daily s u m which is
lost to th*? wage-earners of the United States b y the n o n - e m p l o y m e n t of labor.
T h i s is a m o n e y loss of §27,000,000 a w e e k , $117,<00,000 a m o n t h , or the a m a z i n g
s u m of St, 401,000,000 a year. A saving of this s u m for a year and three m o n t h s
w o u l d p a y our entire national debt. T h i s being the loss in a single year, w e
can imagine ( m a k i n g due allowance for difference in the numbers of the population) h o w stupendous has been the loss to the nation during the past seventeen years, a loss exceeding incomparably all other losses whatsoever.
If a crop of wheat be lost, it is appropriately noted as a public misfortune; if
a city be burned d o w n , o r swept a w a y b y flbod, it is properly regarded as a great
national calamity, and the sympathies of all the peopte g o out in unstinted
measure to the sufferers. But here is a loss as real and as deplorable as a n y
ever caused by flood or fire—a loss w h o s e consequences, while not so apparent,
are as destructive to national prosperity as the burning o f t e n cities, or the occurrence of one hundred and forty J o h n s t o w n disasters every year, and a l w a y s
t o the people w h o can least afford it. Y e t it passes almost w h o l l y uuheeded e x cept b y the sufferers.
A war that would take a million of m e n from industry and deprive the country of the production which would result from their labors would be regarded
as a calamity of unsurpassable magnitude, yet a shrinkage in the v o l u m e of
m o n e y relatively to population withdraws much m o r e than that n u m b e r f r o m
productive pursuits,and without the salutary discipline and restraints of military life, subjects t h e m to conditions of which the unavoidable results are p o v erty and crime.
I m a g i n e , Mr. President, the unhappiness, discontent, and even despair i m p l i e d
fn the m e r e statement that t w o million m e n are constantly o a t of e m p l o y m e n t
(or, w h a t amounts t o t h e s a m e thing, that three times that n u m b e r are idle f o r
four months in the year). Imagine what it means to the working-people of this
country to be deprived of the enormous s u m of §1,400,000,000 a year.
In contemplation of the loss and suffering wrought by the act of 1873,
II HARD
19
well may the eloquent Senator from Kansas [Mr. INGALLS] denounce
it as " t h e great economic crime of tlie age," and its paternity and office are properly described by the honored Senator from Nevada [Mr.
JONES] when he declares that—
It Wits the child of ignorance and avarice, and is already the prolific parent of
enforced idleness, poverty, and misery.
Snch has been the effect, Mr. Speaker, of this legislation of 1873, and
why shall we not now correct the great evil by removing the cause that
produced it? This we can speedily and effectually do by restorin^to
silver the rights it had from the foundation of our Government down
to 1873.
For four thousand years gold and silver have served side by side, and
with equal efficiency, as the money metals of all civilized peoples, save
and except when the greed-and avarice of those who controlled the making of laws have arbitrarily interfered with that natural arrangement. In
the Bible it is written that nearly four thousand years ago Abraham
weighed to Ephron the Hittite 400 shekels of silver, " current money
with the merchant," and through all the intervening a^es from that
time down that metal was in use as money and good enough for such
purposes till, in 1819, England seemed to have discovered that through
all "time the whole world had been mistaken, and by law declared that
gold should be the only basis for money contracts in that country.
There has never been an hour in the life of this Government when
the people did not regard silver as highly as gold, if both were uninterfered with by our own laws, and never until 1873 did the lawmakers dare try to discriminate against it. Once having robbed silver
of part of its privileges and value, its enemies, in order to continue its
legal degradation, said all manner of false things against its good character. When the people discovered that they had been robbed by Congress, and began clamoring for the restitution of their property and the
restoration of their money rights, the class at whose prompting the
wrong had been done became fruitful in reasons why it should not be
undone. Many of the reasons then given have since been exploded by
the results of our experience, but some that are still relied on I will
briefly consider.
When the act of 1878 for the remonetization of silver was being
discussed in the Seuate, Senator Wadleigh, of New Hampshire, in
opposing it, gave expression to the views of the monometallists in relation to the danger of silver driving out the gold money of the country
in the following language:
The passage of this measure will result in drivingall thegold from this country and giving us the single standard of silver.
The cheaper metal will drive away the dearer.
Two hundred millions of gold now in the country would, without this pernicious agitation, ere now have crossed the frail barrier of H per cent, which separated it from paper currently, and gone into oin; circulation to restore hope and
confidence, and give strength and vigor to all business operations.
The success of this measure will drive it to other enlightened and commercial
nations, and leave to us the debased and bulky money which nearly every progressive nation in Europe hus ceased to coin, and which supplies the few and
degraded wants of the poor and ignorant millions of Russia, China, India, and
Mexico.
Even now there come from all parts of the country complaints of ihe burdensome accumulations of subsidiary silver coin, which refuses to circulate*
At that time this apprehension had some lodgment in the minds of
our people, and the argument was not without force. But, Mr.
Speaker, the experience test has completely discredited it. At that
time we had about $65,000,000 of silver coin of all kinds. Now we
TTFIARD
20
have 5120,000,000. The subsidiary silver coin about the " burdensome accumulation " of which the people were then said to be " complaining, " and which would not circulate, has been augmented in
volume until it exceeds $76,000,000, and no complaints are now heard
about its not circulating, notwithstanding there are also in circulation
with it over 350,000,000 of legal-tender dollars in coin or certificates
all of which is just as good as gold. In the mean time what has happened to our gold coin that was to be driven out of the country ? At
the (Jute of that prophecy of evil we had gold coin $107,000,000, and
now the Treasury officials state that we have $039,000,000, or more
than four times as much. The $-00,000,000 which was spoken of 41 has
crossed the frail barrier of
per cent." which separated it from paper
money, and has gone into circulation, as far as that metal will circulate under the present management of our fiscal affairs, which tends
to the locking of it up.
Another war cry of the monometallists in their crusade against silver
money is that the standard silver dollar is a 11 dishonest dollar;" notwithstanding that itcontainsall the silver, of the requisite fineness, ever
required by the law, and that, as compared with the silver coin ot other
countries, it is 3 per cent, above par. In order to discredit it and exclude it from use it is falsely called a "dishonest dollar," although at
the time it was demonetized it was worth a premium of 3 per cent,
above gold, and is yet just as good.
Mr. Speaker, it will be remembered tint the Bland bill of 1878, as
it left the House, provided for the full restoration of silver to all its
rights and privileges in the mints of the country, and to its full parity
with gold in every respect; but the Senate mutilated it by striking out
the provision for free coinage, and substituted the principle that silver
could only be coined when owned by the Government, and then in the
amount limited therein. When the bill, thus shorn of its greatest
strength and virtue, butstill relieving to some extent against the absolute
inhibition then existing against silver coinage, went to President Hayes
for his signature, that official vetoed it, and in the closing of his veto
message used the following language:
It is m y firm conviction that if the country is to be benefited by a silver coinage, it can be done o n l y b y the issue of silver dollars of full value, w h i c h will
defraud no man. A currency worth less than it purports to be worth will in the
e n d defraud not o n l y creditors, but all w h o are engaged in legitimate business,
and none more surely than those who are dependent on their daily labor for
their daily bread.
This was the first official declaration that the lawful silver dollar
was a "dishonest" one, and as usual with that class of silver-haters
who are so solicitous about the honesty of our money, he based this expression of his solicitude upon his great concern for the business interests of the people, and especially "those who are dependent on their
daily labor for their daily bread." We have already had occasion to
examine how these classes and interests were affected by the destruction of silver money, and I will only say in this connection that this
conduct on the part of that Executive was fitly supplemented at a later
day by his veto, at the dictation of the national banks, of the Carlisle
refunding bill, which Executive act roll bed our people of millions of
dollars. I feel that, taken in connection with the reference already
made to what has been our experience with this "dishonest dollar" (?),
over 350,000,000 of which are to-day in circulation on a parity with gold,
I can not better emphasize the emptiness if not absolute dishonesty of
FFABD
21
eaid declaration, than by again quoting the last Executive communication on the effect of silver coinage under the Bland law, in which
President Harrison says:
T h e evil anticipations which have accompanied the coinage and the use of
the silver dollar have not been realized. A s a coin it has not had general use,
and the public Treasury has been compelled to store it. But this is manifestly
o w i n g to the fact that its paper representative is more convenient. T h e general
acceptance and use of the silver certificate s h o w that silver has not been otherwise discredited.
No, Mr. Speaker, it has not been, and will jever be discredited by
the people. That is only done by the financial prophets, who, were
the old Jewish laws in force in this country, would have long since
been 4t stoned to death" as the penalty for their false prophecies. Notwithstanding the admitted fact that experience has shown that silver
has not been depreciated by the increased coinage thereof, the present
Executive, after officially announcing that fact, permits himself to become a financial Jeremiah also, and in sad prophetic strain to bewail
our prospective condition in case we give further contradiction to what
he calls the " e v i l anticipations which have accompanied the coinage
and use of silver," by removing the existing legal discrimination
against it, and giving it better opportunity for maintaining an existence which its enemies have been unable to destroy. The President
further says:
I think it is clear that if we should m a k e the coinage of silver at the present
ratio free, w e must expect that the difference in the bullion values of the gold
and silver dollars will be taken account of in commercial transactions, and I
fear the same result would follow any considerable increase of the present rate
of coinage. Such a result would be discreditable to our financial management
and disastrous to all business interests. W e should not tread the dangerous
« d g e of such a peril. A n d , indeed, nothing more harmful could happen to the
silver interests. A n y safe legislation upon this subject must secure the equality of the two coins in their commercial uses.
Thus we have the President declaring the necessity for the establishment of commercial equality of the two kinds of coin, when he has
just stated that such equality exists, and yet the bill recommended for
our adoption by his Secretary of the Treasury, and to which the President says he has " o n l y been able to give hasty examination," but
to which he gives his assent, is designed to prevent the commercial
equality of the two metals before the law, by making the one a commodity and the other a money for measuring its value. The President
further says:
I have always been an advocate of the use of silver in our currency.
large producers of that metal and should not discredit it.
W e are
Turning from this declaration of his favor of silver for use as money
to his commendation of the plan of his Secretary of the Treasury, which
is now before us, I think the people who are now clamoring for free
coinage of silver will conclude that the latter will be received as the
stronger evidence of what he desires, and that his real position on the
question is much the same as that of the individual who, on the subject of prohibition declared he was u i n favor of the law, but against
its enforcement."
F*ad we not already been assured by the President that silver money
had " n o t been discredited," and that its equality with gold coin was
thoroughly established, it might not be amiss to refer to the fact that
•in spite of the Treasury Department and all the financial influence of
the Government silver has obtained and still preserves its perfect interHEA.RU
22
changeability with gold in t\)is country, and even in the Treasury Department its'df. The fact is that since the silver dollar is just as good
as the gold one nobody ever wants to exchange it for gold tou^e in this
country. Tne record sol the Treasury Department show, however, that
millions of dollars in gold have gone into the Treasury Department in
exchange for .silver at par.
In l*-i0, Mr. Sherman, as Secretary of the Treasury, made an order
allowing silver and silver certificates in the Treasury Department to
be exchanged ior gold, and over
000,OOOof gold went into the Treasury in such exchanges within a single year, when lor some reason the
orcler was suspended. Why was it suspended ? Why not let the people have the money, which was jnst as good and more convenient for
their use, in exchange for their gold ? But at present, under a rule of
the Department, the Treasury exchanges silver and silver certificates
for any other kind of money, and as is shown by the books of the Department exchanges of that kind aggregating more than $52,000,000
were made in the three years of 1887, ld38, and 188J). Of the money
thus exchanged for silwr and silver certificates, about $22,000,000 was
of gold coin and gold certiUrates. And yet we are told that this
silver dollar, for which all these millions of gold is being voluntarily
exchanged, is a "dishonest dollar," aud that its use imperils the business intere>ts of the country.
It may not be inappropriate to ask in this connection, since the successive administrations trom Hayes to Harrison, have been so much afraid
that this "dishonest" money would, in the language of President
Hayes, 41 defraud all business men, aud none more surely than those
who are dependent ou their daily labor for their daily bread," why it
is that it has been continually paid out by the Government to these
classes of the people, while the bondholder was paid in gold? A little
more solicitude of that character manifested in action, and less ot it in
cheap professions, would entitle it to more respect from the public.
Since our experience under the operation of the act of 1878, providing
for increased coinage, and our actual possession of over §420,000,000 of
silver money, and at the same time quadrupling our stock of gold,
has destroyed the two arguments that silver would not circulate, and
that if it did, it wotild drive out gold; the "scare-crow " of a changed
" balance of trade " is made to do duty in their stead. The opponents
of tree coinage say that" It is the credit of the Government that floats
the silver dollar, as it does the greenback," and that this keeps it at
par in this country; but say they, "Should the balance of trade turn
against us, our gold will leave us and silver alone will remain," etc.
Mr. Speaker, nobody of intelligence contends that with the balance
of trade against us we would not have to ship money of some kind, and
the kind would depend on what country the balance was in favor of.
If it were a country where silver was the preferred money then it would
naturally be silver that would go out, while it would be gold if going
to a couutry having the gold standard. But, Mr. Speaker, suppose that
it would in every case be gold, would it not have to go until the .balance was settled regardless of whether or not we had silver? If we
have in such contingency to ship any considerable proportion of gold
it would be all the more necessary that we should have silver to make
the money exchanges of the country. But, Mr. Speaker, regardless of
the suggestion of the unfortunate contingency by the Secretary of the
Treasury, as a reason»why oar silver coinig* should not be increased,
I do not think that any serious alarm will be felt on this account by
HEARD
23
any one who will take the trouble to examine the statistics relating to
our trade balances in the past.
It is true that on account of the injurious effect of our high tariff,
in provoking retaliatory laws against the free exchange of our products, added to the advantage which England derives irom the cheapness of our silver bullion, which she buys and sends to India in exchange for wheat that we formerly supplied, our exports of cereals has
fallen off immensely; yet the fact still obtains that with the exception
of two years out of the last sixteen, the balance has always been in
our iavor. The aggregate of balances iu our favor from 187(5 to 1833
Amounted to more than §1,000,000,000, while the only two years in
which it was against us were 1838, to the amount of $£8,000,000, and
1839 for $2,000,000, or a general balance in our favor on the thirteen
years, of $970,000,000. While there was a balance of $2,000,000 against
us last year, our largely increased exports of grain during the present
year, renders it certain that the balance will again be in our favor at
its close.
In connection with this point, Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct attention to the fact that while in 1880 we exported 190,000,000 bushels of
wheat, iu 1889 we only exported 41,000,000 bushels. In 18S0 we exported 53,000, 000 bushels of corn, and in 1839 ouly 32,000,000 bushels.
On account of the high tariff imposed by our Government on the products of other nations, which exchanged with us for our grain, meat,
cotton, and other products—mostly agricultural—those nations have
retaliated, and in some cases most severely, on our products, and in
the most of the ports on the continent of Europe we are to-day paying
import duties on our products (which is the same in effect as an export
tax here) in amount which would be quite sufficient to pay to our producres a fair profit, if they .ould save it, on products which are in
many cases selling at a loss.
Again, referring to the serious disadvantage at which the demonetization of silver and the consequent cheapening of its value as bullion
has placed our agriculturists, I would call attention to the fact stated
by economists and denied by no one, that England gets that part of
her wheat which comes from India at 30 per cent, less than she could
get it before silver was demonetized, because she buys silver bullion in
this country at 30 per cent, discount for gold and ships it to India,where
it is coined iuto rupees, which have the same purchasing power that
they possessed before silver was outlawed in Europe or America. It is
this terrible competition with India, produced by the conditions described, that has prostrated the wheat-growers of this country. Thus
it will be seen that the injurious effect of the high tariff, which has
materially limited the foreign demand for our grain by cutting off
profitable exchange with the countries which formerly furnished us
with markets, has been greatly aggravated by the cheapening to our
principal customer the product of our mines, so that she uses it in India
for the destruction of our greatest agricultural industry.
Passing-from the question of trade balances, which need not alarm
us, with the remark that however much they may change agaiust us,
the possession of silver can not impair our ability to pay our debts, I
wish now to notice the old objection to increased coinage, that "silver
will flrive out gold," and that " i f we open our mints to free coinage
we will be flooded with the silver of other countries, and all our gold
will leave us." There is no amount of argument that a Wiseman will
accept in contradiction of a well established experience.
HEARD
24
When the objection now being considered was first n.ade, in 1878,
as an argument against the passage of the Bland law, it had more effect
upon our people than it IMJW has, because since that time the experience
ot this country with the two metals as money has completely discredited its truth. It may be well, however, to present some facta which
tend to show that our favorable experience in establishing the equality
of silver and gold in our circulation, and holding and continually increasing both, is not in any sense accidental, but that it results from
the operation of certain fixed and well-known laws, which under like
conditions must always give like results. If we are to be flooded with
silver, where is the flood to come from? All the coined silver in the
world is estimated at $3,337,000,000, and with the exception of $98,000,000 which is held by Japan and Mexico, not one dollar of it could come
here without an absolute loss to the sender, of 3 per cent. I can not
in any other way so succinctly or forcibly present the facts to support
this statement as by quoting irom the article of Hon. ROGER Q. MILLS,
published in the North American Review for May, 1890, which upon
this point states:
The coined silver of the world, outside the United States, is of the value in
our monev of §2,337,000,000, of which amount Mexico has 818,000.000; Japan,
$49,000,000; Belgium, $-18,000,000; Italy. $20,000,000; Switzerland, $14,000,000; Austria-Hungary, 575,000,000; Spain, $^3,000,000; France, $646,000,000, and India,
$1,352,000,000. This is the supply with whi*eh we are threatened if we open our
mints to unlimited coinage. This large stock of silver, when it passes the
boundary of its own country, ceases to be money and becomes a commodity.
It ceases to carry with it the value given to it by law, and only retains the value
given to it by commerce. It is worth to-day 72 cents in the dollar in the open
markets of the world, while it is worth at home more than 100 cents to the dollar. The 371J grains of fine silver which are required to coin our standard dollar, and into which the imported silver would be coined, are worth here 23.22
grains of tine gold, which is our gold dollar. That is equal to 15.98 grains of
silver to I grain of gold.
Now, France has 3,250,000,000 francs in silver, which is worth within her jurisdiction $G4f>,61*5,000 in gold, at her ratio of 15k50 to 1. If that were sent here and
coined at our mints at our ratio of 15.98 to I it would be worth $627,250,000,
which would be at a loss to her of more than 619,000,000. And if our Government should buy it at the market price for silver, 72 cents in the dollar, France
would realize $478,820,000 for her stock worth at home $<>16,695,000! She would
lose.by " f l o o d i n g " us with her " c h e a p " silver, $167,000,000. Belgium, Italy,
Switzerland, and Spain, which coin at the same ratio, would sustain a corresponding loss on their silver. India, which coins at 15 to t, has a stock of silver worth at home $1,352,000,000. and worth at our ratio $1,269,000,000. If she
should attempt to flood us with her silver it would be at a loss to her of $83,000,000. If we should buy her silver at the market price in gold to-day it would be
at a loss to her of $350,000,000. It is evident from.this plain statement that no
country whose silver is coined at a ratio higher than 15.98 can export it to us.
Japan coins at 16.18 and Mexico at 16.50. They have together a stock of silver
amounting to $.)8,000.000, which would be worth in our coin $100,000,000. It is
possible that they would get that amount of our gold for their silver. But it is
beyond the region of possibility that the coined silver of other countries would
come to the United States.
By the above statement it will be seen that the silver of Mexico and
Japan is the only stock which could cjmetothis country without loss,
and neither of those countries can spare any of their supply, every dollar being needed by them respectively for the business exchanges of
their people. But suppose it should all come here to be exchanged for
gold, what would be the result ? Simply that there would be $98,000,000 more of silver in the country and that much less of gold, and so
far from its affecting injuriously our business or prosperity, nobody but
the statistician would ever know of the change. If, then, no country
having silver coin can afford to send any of it here, the flood so much
talked of must come from the mines.
BEARD
25
Let us see what we may expect from that source. The annual yield
•of silver during the lastfifteenyears has been about $100,000,000, but
for the last year it reached $142,000,000. While we have no reason
to assume that the annual product in the future will attain the lastnamed amount, still suppose it does, how will it probably affect this
country? India claims annually for her uses $45,000,000, and never
exports a dollar. She is properly called " the silver sink of the world."
It matters not how much she gets from other countries it is absorbed
by her people, and she gives none back to the world. Add to this
$45,000,000 the $46,000,000 which is the estimated amount consumed
in the arts and manufactures, and there would be left about $50,000,000 for coinage purposes of the whole world. Should that amount be
distributed to all the different countries according to their increasing
necessities by reason of the natural increase of population and business, the proportion falling to the United States would be quite trifling
and far from being a cause for alarm.
It is admitted on all sides that in order to prevent undue contraction of the currency of any country the increase in the volume of money
should keep pace with the increase of population. The soundness of
that rule admits of no question and its application is universal. Then,
in this country, according to the estimate of competent financiers
based upon our statistics, about $40,000,000 annual increase in the
volume of our currency will be required to keep pace with the growth
of our population, which is estimated at 3 per cent, annually. In
India, where half the entire silver coinage of the world is found, the
ratio between silver and gold is 15 to 1, and in all other countries outside of the United States (excepting only Japan and Mexico) the ratio is
15J to 1. In this country it is 16 to 1. Hence it will be observed
that since all of said countries pay more for their silver than it is worth
here it is only fair to assume that they will continue to get their fair
proportion of the products of the mines and that we will not get it all.
But admitting for the sake of argument that we would get the entire
surplus of $50,000,000, it would add to our money circulation only 80
cents per capita annually, or less than 7 cents each per month. We
are now coining $28,000,000, and the increase of $22,000,000 annually,
if continued indefinitely, would not more than fairly provide for the
increased demand by reason of the growth in our population and business.
Mr. Speaker, if we compare our country with France as to the per
capita supply of money in circulation among the people we willfindthat
France has $57.56 to our $22.36. With one-fifteenth more paper money
per capita and over five times as much of gold as we she has ten times as
much silver. That country is admitted to be the most prosperous of
all great commercial nations, and it is because she has more than double
as much mofaey pei capita for her people than any of her rivals. This
country produces about $59,000,000 of silver annually, about $8,000,000
of which is needed for the arts and manufactures, leaving about $51,000,000 for coinage or export. That is about the entire surplus of silver in the whole world, and if we were to coin every dollar of it it would
require many years for us to get a per capita circulation equal to that
of France. Yet France has no silver to spare. The fact is stated by
Mr. St. John, upon what he claims is reliable authority, that in December or January last France refused an offer of gold at par for about
$59,000,000 of her silver coin. As before stated, that coin is intrinsically worth 3 per cent, less than ours, as is all the European silver coin,
2G
and therefore I think we ma; safely conclude that what France would
not sell at home for par she would not transport to this country at her
own expense and sell at 3 per cent less.
If any further assurance is needed that our country is not to be
flooded with silver to any damaging extent, I now quote from the present Secretary of the Treasury in a recent communication on this subject. lie says:
T h e r e is, in fact, no k n o w n accumulation of silver bullion a n y w h e r e in tlio
world. G e r m a n y loii£ since disposed of her stock of melted silver coins, partly
by sale, partly by recoiuag^ into har o w n n e w subsidiary c o i n s , a n d partly by
use in coining for B ^ v p t . OnJy recently it became nece.s-ary to purchase silver
for the Egyptian coinage executed at the mint at Berlin.
The Secretary continues in his report:
Ttis plain, then, that there is no d . i n j c r that the silver product of past years
will be poured into our mints, unless n e w steps bo taken for demonetization,
and for this improbable contingency ample safeguards can be provided.
Nor ne«*d there be a n y serious apprehension that a n y considerable part of th©
stock of silver coin of Kuropo would be shipped to the United States for deposit
for Treasury notes.
There H much less reason for shipping coin t o this country than bullion, for
while the leading nations of Europe have discontinued the coinage of full legaltender silver pieces, t i n y have provided by law for maintaining their existing
stock of silver coins at par.
In England, Portugal, aud the states of the Scandinavian Union there is n o
stock of silver coin except subsidiary coins, required for change purposes, the
nominal value of which is far in excess of the bullion value. G e r m a n y has in
circulation about $100,0;)0,000 in old silver thatcrs, but ten years h a v e passed
since the sales of bullion arising under the anti-silver legislation of 1873 w e r e
di continued. It is safe to say there is no stock of silver coin in E u r o p e w h i c h
is not needed for business purposes.
T h e states of the Latin Union and Spain, which has a similar m o n e t a r y system. are the o n l y countries in Europe which have any large stock of silver coins,
a n d the commercial necessities of these countries are such that t h e y could n o t
afford, without serious financial distress, t o w i t h d r a w from circulation silver
coins which are at par with their g o l d coins, t o deposit t h e m at our mints f o r
p a y m e n t of the bullion value in notes.
In this statement the Secretary has argued the whole case, and few,
I think, will dissent from his conclusion that there being no stock of
accumulated bullion in the world, and the silver now being used as
money by the various natious being worth more to them to keep than
to sell, we need not fear any inundation of money of that class. In
the light of past history, of present known facts, and of our own recent
experience with silver coinage, I can not see how it can longer be contended that any danger to our interests lurks in the proposition to restore silver to an equality with gold in our mints. The product of that
coinage will be in the future, as it wa^ prior to 1873, perfectly safe aud
convenient. Having the double standard of values, we would be
guarded against sudden revulsions in business caused by the withdrawal of one or the other from use. Instead of the possession of both
kinds of money reversing the established laws of finance as applied to
this country, and accomplishing the driving out of one kind by the use
of the other, our experience since 1873 demonstrates that they willmutually attract each other and serve harmoniously side by side in the
circulation of the country! We will thus utilize the products of our
mines not exclusively in the interest of the miner, but to the benefit
and use of every industry and of every citizen of the Republic.
By increasing the supply of money for the commerce of the people,
we will infuse new life into all kinds of business, and while the rich
would prosper by the general improvement of trade, the life of the
poor man would be lightened with the ray of hope, and the debtor
would see the possibility of escape from bondage under the improved
BEARD
27
Bystem, wliicli will check falling prices, give increased demand, with
improved prices, for the product of his labor, and render it possible
for him to meet the obligations which for years have enslaved him.
Should not the results I have anticipated be secured, if possible, for
a people that for seventeen years have felt tlieir burdensgrowing lie;/-it r
until now their hearts are well-nigh filled with despair? Yes, ..n-y
need this relief, and in language too plain to admit of misconstruction
they have appealed to their representatives to give it. For what have
they asked? Xot that yon give them some strange and experimental
legislation, some untried expedient of so-called financiers, which they
have not considered and do not understand ? No ! They simply ask
to be restored to the standing which the fathers of the Republic gave
them, and which they enjoyed in security, prosperity, and contentment
until the greed of the money-lenders overcame the patriotism of the
people's representatives.
Why does Congress hesitate in making that restitution to the people?
Let the party in power here, and which is doubly charged with this
duty, make answer. I say that the Republican party is doubly charged
with this duty, because that party enacted the law which took from
the people that for the restoration of which they now appeal. This
should not now be a political question, for it equally affects people oir
all political parties; but that it is being made such increases the responsibility of that party which above all others is now charged with
the duty of undoing the wrong for which it, and it alone, is responsible. Unfortunately for the country the question has been given a
political character here in order not to enable the party in control to
more easily and more fully do what the people demand; but, on the
contrary, the caucus has been used and the party lash applied to prevent those members of that organization who know and desire to do
what their constituents want and what the country needs from cooperating with a large majority of the Democrats on this floor in the
correcting of the flagrant wrong of 1873.
Mr. Speaker, while the Republican party contains many members,
and some Representatives here, who want silver restored to its old
place and usefulness as money, unfortunately the majority of those who
control itsactiou now, as always in the past.has sympathized with those
who had the mouey; and applying in their practices in legislation, in a
perverted way, that text of Scripture which declares that " to him that
hath shall it be given," they have neglected the interests of those whose
more helpless condition called for the greater protection and steadily,
pursued that course in legislating which has resulted in making the
rich richer, and the poor poorer.
The demonetizing act of 1873 was not the initial step in such lawmaking, for in 18U9 this party, by means of the act improperly entitled " A n act to strengthen the public credit," converted the debt o*f
the country, then payable in lawlul money, into a debt payable—principal and interest—in gold, thus without a shadow of justification,
and solely and exclusively tor the benefit of the bondholders, putting
a burden on the people of nearly $500,000,000. As all the world knows,
that act was accomplished by a fraudulent pretense, that of strengthening a " p d b l i c c r e d i t " which was daily and hourly improving, and
when such an improvement had already been brought"about by natural
causes, that bonds of the Government had risen over 50 per cent, above
the prices originally paid for them in greenbacks.
As to this and the subsequent acts of July 14,1870, fixing the weight
HEARD
87
andfinenessof the coin required to pay off this debt, contracted to be
paid in any lawful money, as well as of the final act of this legislative
crusade against the people—the act of 1873—I will quote from high
Republican authority, Hon. J O H N P. JONES, of Nevada. In a speech
delivered upon the silver question in the Senate on May 13, last, he
uses the following pertinent language descriptive of that series of acts
which had its completion in the act of 1873. He says:
At the time silver was demonetized it might well have been supposed thnt a
sufficiently large unearned increment had already been realized by the foreign
and domestic holders of the United States bonds. T h e greater portion of the
debt of the G o v e r n m e n t was, when incurred, m a d e payable simply in ' ' l a w f u l
m o n e y " — t h e interest alone being payable In coin. Y e t in March, 1869, the bondholders secured the passage of an act of Congress, entitled " A n act to strengthen
the public c r e d i t / ' containing a pledge to pay in coin or its equivalent, not
merely the interest, but the principal of all national obligations not specially
provided to be paid otherwise.
THE COURSE OP THE CREDITORS.
A n d again, w h e n in 1870 Congress was about to provide fer a refunding of the
public debt, these clamorous creditors, not satisfied with having got the bonds
at rates m u c h b e l o w their face value, and not satisfied with the pledge to p a y
in coin—a pledge m a d e long after the contract was m a d e and the d e b t incurred—insisted that not only should the n e w bonds be payable in coin, but in
order to guard against a n y possible interpretation which m i g h t w o r k to their
detriment, they did what has rarely been done in the history of monetary legislation, insisted tli tt even the very standard of that coin should be fixed a n d
nominated in the bond. T h e y were willing to take no chances. T h e y were nov
w i l l i n g to place confidence in the sense of equity and fair dealing of the people
o f the Uniied States. T h e y held before Congress the covert threat that if the
n e w issue of bonds did not provide for p a y m e n t in *' coin " instead of " lawful
m o n e y , " and did not prescribe the precise standard of coin in which they were
to be payable, it w o u l d be difficult, if not impossible, to place the bonds o n the
market.
So, by the refunding act of J u l y 14,1870, Congress provided for the p a y m e n t
in " c o i n of the present standard v a l u e t " that is to say, in either gold dollars of
25.8 grains of gold, nine-tenths fine, or in silver dollars of 412>£ grains of silver,
nine-tenths fine, at the option of the United States. But even this extreme advantage to the creditors over p a y m e n t in lawful m o n e y " of the United States,
i n which the bonds were bought, and in which they were l e g a l l y payable, was
insufficient. All but the most ingenious would imagine that having thus provided for p a y m e n t in coin then bearing a considerable premium over the current m o n e y of the Republic, and having the v e r y standard of that coin fixed in
the act, the highest point of vantage had been reached. One device, h o w e v e r ,
and o n l y one, remained by which the m o n e y of the p a y m e n t could be still
further increased in value, and this device did not escape the watchful e y e or
cunning hand of the public creditors.
T h e y clearly saw that if by legislative enactment t h e y could secure the rejection of one of the money-metals they would succeed in enormously increasing
the value of the metal retained. This they accomplished b y the demonetization
of silver, and thus by striking d o w n one-half the automatic m o n e y of the world
and devolving the m o n e y function exclusively on the other half, added thousands of millions of dollars to the burilen of the debt. T h e title of the act
should have read, " A n act to strengthen the b a n k account and credit of t h e
holders of United States b o n d s . "
A n d , again, in 1873, w h e n all the bonds provided for b y the refunding act of
1870 had been sold and had passed out of the hands of the G o v e r n m e n t , another
act was passed, intended by the money-lenders again to strengthen the public
credit, and again to the disadvantage of the people and to the exclusive a n d
e n o r m o u s advantage of the bondholders. It bore the innocent title of " A n act
revising and a m e n d i n g the laws relative to the mints, assay offices, and coinage
. of the United States." This act, bearing on its face no suggestion of a n y c h a n g o
m o r e serious than that of regulating the petty details of mint m a n a g e m e n t ,
has proved to be an act of m o m e n t o u s consequence to the people of this c o u n try. T h i s is the act that demonetized the silver dollar, w h i c h it did b y m e r e l y
omitting that coin f r o m the enumeration of the coins of the United States.
The author of this criticism is himself a Republican in unquestioned
standing in his party, hence he can not be suspected of bias against
that political organization. Driven 1 y the increasing clamor of a peoHSATD
29
pie who, having discovered the nature and extent of their wrongs, demand in no uncertain terms the restoration of their rights, the Republican party has publicly professed an intention of being just to th»
people on this subject, and in their party platform at Chicago in 1888
the following plank was inserted:
"We, the Republican party, believe in the use of gold and silver as money;
and we denounce the present Democratic Administration for its hostility to
silver, etc.
Was this another false pretense ? Let their conduct here now answer
the question. This declaration,if intended to mean anything, meant that
that party favored the use of silver and gold equally—else what was
it that they condemned in the action of the Democratic party ? That
party was then using both metals as money, and in exactly the same
way that Republicans had used it before, and as they are using it now.
But while the Democratic Secretary of the Treasury recommended, unwisely, that the coinage of the standard silver dollar should cease, an
overwhelming majority of his party, and of their Representatives on
this floor, refused to consent to it; and the latter voted for a bill providing for free coinage during that administration, which was defeated
mainly by Republican votes, the affirmative vote being 96 Democrats
to 30 Republicans.
But, Mr. Speaker, that Democratic administration, whose want of
friendship to silver "as money7' called for the denunciation of the
Republican convention, never proposed to store away silver bullion in
the Treasury as pig-lead in a warehouse, and thus make the Treasury
a pawnshop, where tickets, in the form of Treasury notes, would be
issued, which in due season might be taken up by the return of the
article deposited; nor did it propose by statute law to declare the line
of difference between the coinage and bullion of this metal, which, under a correct interpretation of the Federal Constitution and the fair
administration of just laws, should hold its money quality and value
equally with gold.
It is for a bill that will give us free coinage that we desire to vote today, and we will not under any condition vote for this one which proposes to repeal the only law which authorizes coinage at all. 1 introduced one of the many bills for free coinage which have been sent
during the present session of Congress to the committee reporting this
bill; but going away from what the people were thus asking for, thecommittee bring here what they have not asked for and do not desire,
and I hope that it may be defeated, and thus meet the fate which I
think it richly deserves at the hands of true representatives of the people.
HEABD
O
@FedFRASER