View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.


HON. J 0 H









August £4,


The House having under consideration the hill (H. R. 1) to repeal a plrt ot
an act, approved July 14,1890, entitled " A n act directing the purchase of silver
bullion and the issue ot Treasury notes thereon, and for other purposes"—

Mr. PICKLER said:
Mr. SPEAKER: I ask unanimous consent that on the consideration of the bill oil Monday this amendment may he considered.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will send the amendment
Mr. BYNIJM. Mr. Speaker, this time has been set apart for
debate, and I do not think it is proper that any unanimous consent should be asked for at this time.
Mr. WILSON of West Virginia. I object to any change in
the order.
Mr. PICKLER. I would like to have the resolution read.
The SPEAKER. It can be read as a part of the gentleman's
Mr. PICKLER. Who is it objects, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from West Virginia.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amend H. R. 2, being " A bill for the free coinage of silver, and for other
purposes," by inserting after the words "silver bullion," in the second line
of section 1 the following words: " the product of mines of the United States,"
so that said section when amended shall read as follows:
" SECTION 1. Be it enacted, etc., That from and after the passage of this act
all holders of silver bullion, the product of the mines of the United States,
to the amount of $100 or more of standard weight and fineness, shall be entitled to have the same coined at the mint of the United States into silver
dollars of the weight and fineness provided for in the second section of
this act."

Mr. PICKLER. Then, Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask unanimous consent to offer the following on Monday, to which it seems
to me no one can object.
I ask it be read in my time, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. Let it be read as a part of the gentleman's
The Clerk read as follows:
That upon Monday, August 28, if the substitute to H. R. 1 and all amendments shall be voted down in the House, and if H. R. 1, known as the Wilson

bill, shall pass, that immediately thereafter, without debate or Interveningmotions, the House shall vote upon H. R. 2, " A bill for the free coinage of silver, and for other purposes," amended as follows: Inserting after the words
" silver bullion," in the second line of section 1, the following words: " the
product of mines of the United States; " the bill as so amended being for the
coinage of the silver bullion product of the mines of the United States at the
present ratio.
If this bill fail to carry, the bill as so amended shall be voted oh at the ratio
of 18 to 1, and if this fait, it shall then, as so amended, be voted on at the ratio
of 20 to l.

Mr. PICKLER. Mr. Speaker, that simply provides that if
all the substitutes proposed by the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. B L A N D ] fail, and if, after that, the bill for the repeal of the
Sherman act shall pass without amendment, the House shall
then proceed to vote upon the substitute previously rejected, so
amended as to confine it to the coinage of the product of the
American mines, first at the present ratio of 16 to 1; if that fail,
at the ratio of IB to 1, and if that fail, at the ratio of 20 to 1:
each of these propositions to apply only to the product of the
American mines.
. It seems to me, sir, that assuming, as my proposition does,
that the bill for the repeal of the Sherman act will have passed
the House without amendment, there should be no objection
upon the part of any gentleman to vote upon the proposition to
coin the product of the American mines.
Mr. TRACEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has asked unanimous consent for the reception of that proposition; I must^object
to any change being made in the order that has been Agreed
Mr. PICKLER. This makes no change in the order. It simply
proposes that after the gold men shall have carried the measure
which they have advocated on this floor, carried it without amendment, we shall then have a chance to vote upon the question of
coining the product of the American silver mines; that after these
gentlemen shall have conquered the field, after they shall have
got what they want, the repeal of the Sherman act, then we may
have an opportunity to have this proposition voted upon.
Mr. TRACEY. I feel that it is my duty to object to that proposition at this time, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman can bring it
up later if he desires to. I must object to any change in the
The SPEAKER. Objection is made.
Mr. PICKLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for fifteen minutes if I shall so desire.
Mr. TRACEY. If the gentleman will be content with ten
minutes I shall have no objection.
Several MJSMBERS. Let him have fifteen.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from South Dakota asks
unanimous consent to address the House for fifteen minutes. Is
there objection?
There was no objection.
Mr. PICKLER. I think, Mr. Speaker, I am entitled to five
minutes on each of these amendments under the order. Perhaps we may as well have that question settled right here. The
order is that for the last three days of this debate, to-day, tomorrow, and the next day (though the order has been since
changed as to Saturday), the House shall consider the bill and
amendments as in Committee of the Whole under the five-aninute rule. Now, as I understand the rule of the House in Com-

mittee of the Whole, a member is entitled to five minutes on
any amendment.
The SPEAKER. The Chair ^rill look into that question. The
gentleman is entitled to fifteen minutes by unanimous consent.
Mr. PICKLER. I thank the Chair and the House. I must
say, gentlemen, as to the request I have just made, and which
has been objected to by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
T K A C E Y ] , that I am somewhat surprised, and yet I am not surprised.

I expect to vote for some of the ratios proposed by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BLAND], although I should prefer to
vGte for the coinage of the American product, but as that is refused us, the only way to escape monometallism is to vote for the
amendments. My constituents believe in the use of silver as \v§ll
as gold, and after the arguments we have heard here from the
gold men upon this floor, and after the protestations they have
made of their eventual friendship for silver, that after the repeal
of the McKinley act—not that that will never be repealed.
I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is strange that my
proposition should be objected to by the advocates of gold upon
this floor after they repeal the Sherman law. I should think
that after the repeal of the Sherman act they would be swift to
propose an opportunity to vote upon a proposition for the coinage of silver, in order that we might have relief as far as silver
is concerned.
But what is the spectacle presented here this morning? In
the proposition I have submitted it is conceded that the Bland
substitute shall first have been voted down; it is conceded that
we who are bimetallists in the House will have been routed horse,
foot, and dragoon: it is conceded that the President's bill for pure
and simple repeal, as advised by him, will have been adopted;
and yet when we ask that after all that we shall be allowed to
vote upon the proposition to coin the American product of silver, giving the House the choice of ratios, 16 to 1, 18 to l , o r
20 to 1, these gentlemen who profess so much love for silver object, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. T R A C E Y ] , true to
his instincts, comes up and objects to any consideration of the silver question.
It reminds me very much of the time when we stood here in
the Fifty-first Congress, and were trying to get some show for
silver, and when the Sherman act was proposed as a compromise.
And let me Bay right here, parenthetically, that that bill was
thought then to be a good measure, and in fact it has had a beneficent influence, and has added much good money to our circulation. I remember how it was regarded at that time by a good many
gentlemen who have taken part in this debate, and when I contrast their utterances then with their speeches now,' I must say
that their hind-sight is very different from their fore-sight.
There have been great changes, Mr. Speaker, and so far as the
Democratic side of the House is concerned the conversion of the
silver heathen Democracy to orthodox monometallism shows
that President Cleveland outranks any missionary of this century. [Laughter.]
The fact has been stated here by gentlemen on the other side—

and I think with so much force that there must be truth in it—that
the President is supported in his work by the London foreign
missionary society.

I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, that when the proposition
was before the Fifty-first Congress for the passage of the Sherman bill, the friends of silver then proposed to the gold men in
this House as a compromise that we have free coinage of the
American product. The argument of those men was then the
same as their argument is now. They always have the same
argument. When the Bland-Allison act was under consideration the gold men were just as great "calamity howlers" as to
what would befall the Government as they are now.
.As "calamity howlers" they outstrip all other men, whenever
the people want an expansion of the currency. When we had the
Sherman bill under consideration they came forward and in the
same tone as now preached calamity. They said that the nation
would go to destruction if we adopted any of those propositions.
Yet the Bland-Allison act became a law; the Sherman act became a law; and this Government prospered under both those
measures. Yet we still have the same argument presented here

We understood then—we understand now—the contention of
the gold men, that if we have free coinage even of the American
product there will be so much silver in circulation that it will
become the cheaper money and will drive gold out of circulation. It was well known when we had the Sherman act under
consideration that under that act we would just about coin the
American product.
The proposition that we were to have a great oversupply of
silver in the United States fell to the ground, because it was conceded when we were debating the Sherman bill that under it we
would simply coin about the amount of silver that was the product of the mines of the United States, and hence free coinage
of the American product would have put no more in circulation
than the Sherman law. Yet, notwithstanding this proposition
was squarely made, notwithstanding the gold men never sought
to answer it, they steadily refusadto consider the proposition to
coin the American product, yet did agree to the Sherman law that
used an equal amount of silver. And why? There was but one
reason then and there is but one reason now for opposing the
Ths free coinage of the American product would recognize
Silver as a money metal; it would recognize it as one of the coin
metals upon which our paper currency would be based. It would
place silver to that extent alongside of gold as a money metal.
And the gold men of the United States are eternally ag linst the
recognition of silver in any form as a money metal in this country. They want it treated as a commodity, as they have treated
it under the Sherman act. They are determined to keep it in
the position of a commodity to be measured by gold. And that,
in my opinion, is the only reason they objected to the free coinage of the American product, and it is the only reason the gentleman from New York objects to my amendment to that effect

What is to become of the silver now? Have we not an indication this morning of the intention of the majority of the
gold men not to give silver any chance? On what ground could
there be any objection to the proposition I have submitted? The
country is in trouble, and I simply proposed that after the passage of the Wilson bill, providing for the unconditional repeal of
the Sherman act, there should then immediately be taken, without debate, a vote on the amendment which was read. Why
not take a vote on the coinage of the American product at these
different ratios? Are we to be told by the gold men in this
'House that, they will not consent to the coinage of the American product at the ratio of 20 to 1, which is one of the propositions embraced in the amendment?

Where is the love of the gentleman from New York for the
sil vev miners in the West? I want to know if you gentlemen
propose to wipe out all the interests of the silver States, as well
as ruin the agricultural States by lowering further the present
low prices of products? The people in mining States and Territories are in great trouble; and certainly it seems to me there
should be some consideration given to their product. This
House can not too swiftly come to the question of aiding the
Western people and keeping open if possible the American
mines. It is ruin to those States %p oppose it.

As a Western Republican ob«$ring the summons of the President, I came here with no expectation of engaging in any discussion concerning the financial situation.
I had supposed that the gravity of the situation had so impressed the President and his advisers that definite measures
would have been devised and laid before Congress upon its assembling for the relief of the country. Measures, too, which the
party elevating the President to power would accept, seize upon,
and quickly enact into law.
But all these surmises proved incorrect, the sole negative proposition to repeal the Sherman law without any affirmative legislation being the sum total of the President's message.

But even this recommendation is more than his party is able
to agree upon.
And although every member of this House was fully advised
and as ready on the second day of this session to have voted upon
any of the propositions as he will ever be, and although the
country trembles upon the brink of ruin; although fortunes are
being wasted every day, and the cries of unemployed men are
going up all over this broad land, and the voices of all lines of
business are loud in the cry for relief; although the fires of furnaces have ceased to burn; although spindles have ceased to turn;
though looms are still, and the hum of manufacturing machinery
is not heard; although all over this land is heard the lamentations of men and women and children asking employment whereby
they may earn food; although riots and mob violence are endangering life and property in our large cities; although this great
nation, which was prosperous and happy and proud in its greatness at the incoming of the present Administration six months
ago, is now in the throes of a great financial panic, and experi283

encing the greatest overshadowing trouble known to this generation, yet, notwithstanding this condition, the Administration
wing and the anti-Administration wing consume three long weeks
of precious time, each faction seeking to prove that it is standing
on the last Democratic platform and that the other fellows are
off—all this, I repeat, before even a vote pan be had upon any
proposition of relief to the country.
It is about the usual gait at which the Democratic party has
ever traveled when the country was in danger.

And where has the Democratic majority, or in what way has
it carried out the advice of the Democratic press of the land for
this Congress to assemble as brethren, and especially enjoining
Republicans to forget their party and work with the patriot Democrats; what, I inquire, has this majority done to carry out this
One would have thought, Mr. Speaker, from the extreme unction of the advice administered to the Republican members, that
immediately upon the organization of the House the gentleman
irom Illinois, late chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means,
would have moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and that this motion
having unanimously carried, the Speaker would have designated
as chairman of the committee the Hon. T H O M A S B. R E E D , of
Maine, and that the remaining 354 members, after the former
Czar had taken his place, would together repeat, " Behold how
good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in
unity," and that the deliberations of this House would more resemble the action of a Methodist class meeting than those of a
legislative body. And in this frame- of mind to act, and to act
at once and without any desire to arouse partisan spirit, and with
a sincere desire to join the majority in the speedy enactment of
ssuch legislation as might seem best to bring relief to the country, was, I believe, and is the feeling of every Republican upon
this floor.
And such is still our desire. True, our confidence was somewhat shaken in the good faith of the brethren of the majority,
when, under an ironclad rule, without regard for or consultation with the minority, a few propositions were offered upon
which, and upon which alone, under, the rules, the House can
vote. And, while we were encourged, and our hearts were
touched by the urbane and cordial apologies of the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. HARTER] for even mentioning anything that savored of partisanship, our feelings were lacerated when the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. HALL] charged the Republican party
with the heinous offense of permitting the virtue of farmers'
daughters to be commended on the stage, and the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. MOSES] alleged that the Republican party had
stolen everything, from- the Presidency down, it sounded wonderfully like the old slogan, and we realized that we were to be
regarded as patriots for voting, and Republicans for vituperation. And this the example that the majority set for patriotic
action in this hour of the nation's jjeril. I repeat, Mr. Speaker,
three weeks'debate to allow Administrationists and anti-Administrationists to prove that they stand on the Chicago Democratic
So, Mr. Speaker, from the propositions presented by the ma*

jority the Republican members are compelled to choose nolens


My State is chiefly engaged in agriculture, stock-raising, and
mining, agriculture predominating.
My constituents are almost unanimously, without regard to
party, bimetallists; and desiring to represent them, it is my desire to so vote as will best promote the use of both gold ana silver.
My constituents are not, as I believe, wedded to free coinage
of silver as a theory or proposition, except as it shall insure
practical bimetallism—the use of both metals.
I have listened with interest to tnis entire discussion, and I
have been highly pleased to hear well-nigh a unanimous declaration from all parties favoring bimetallism; and I have listened
with unprejudiced interest to the arguments of those upon this
floor who contend with so much' earnestness that bimetallism
will be more certainly attained by the unconditional repeal of
the Sherman law. I should much prefer to provide for silver
in the same bill.

It is beyond my comprehension to understand how you elevate
an object by depressing it. You say silver is now traveling upon
a halting limb, but to enable it to run swiftly you amputate the
leg, and so you vote against coinage at any ratio. You find silver upon the first floor, and in order to get it to the garret you
hurl it into the cellar.
You find the silver craft leaking, damaged, and scarcely able
to keep afloat, and you, in order to convert it into a sea-worthy
vessel, sink it to the bottom.
Pretending to be the friend of silver, you thrust a dagger into
its heart.
You pretend to desire to sustain silver and vote it up, and so
you vote it down.
You find silver in a dying condition and pretend you wish to
restore it and make it strong, and your first act is to bury it.
A convert seeking the way to Heaven, you send him to hades
to start.
You pretend to be the friend to silver, you act like its bitter
Your acts are strongly inconsistent with your words.
Were you an avowed enemy of silver, your hostility could be no
While you sing halleluiahs to it, you also breathe curses.
Your plan to restore silver as a money metal is in direct conflict with the plan and at variance with the opinion of every
recognized leader in the contest for silver in the nation.
You consort with avowed enemies of the white metal, and yet
pretend to be its friend.
This contest is too serious for temporizing.
It means monometallism or bimetallism. The unconditional
repee 1 of the Sherman law means a single gold standard. A vote
against the amendments proposed for the coinage of silver is a
vote for the single standard of gold.
It is a vote for monometallism. How can anjr bimetallist claim he is truly in favor of silver and vote against its coinage as

provided by these amendments? X am opposed to monometallism, and hence shall vote for some of these ratios. As before
stated, my State is largely agricultural, and adapted to stockraising.
In the western portion, known as the Black Hills, we have
rich mines of gold, silver, and tin. My State produced in the
year 1892, as estimated by the Director of the Mint, gold, $3,700,000; silver, $77,576.
Our people believe that to strike down silver and go to the
gold standard must inevitably lower the already ruinous prices
of our wheat, and reduce still lower the already low price we
shall receive for our horses, cattle, and wool.
We find that it is simply history, that as the price of silver
goes up or down so the price of our products rise or fall.
And yet I am asked to vote against these amendments, to vote
down the price of my constituents* wheat, flax, barley, horses,
cattle, and wool, at the dictation of the gold men.

No one as I have yet heard in this debate, and I have attentively listened to the whole of it, has denied that placing this
country upon the single gold standard, which the voting down
of these free-coinage amendments do, will reduce every article
in price that the farmer has to sell, as well as ruin the silvermining States.
It can not be denied; it is the eternal truth.

No gold man can deny, moreover, that it will largely increase
our indebtedness in the West and South.
We are a debtor people; we are improving our lands, building houses and barns, and stocking our farms; building 'towns,
schoolhouses, and churches, and developing new industries; and
we need a great deal of money, and so we are borrowers. Now.
you propose to double, and do double, our indebtedness by refusing longer to recognize silver as a money metal.
More than this, you not only largely increase our indebtedness, but youjalso reduce the value of our land, which is largely
the security for this indebtedness; you impoverish us by increasing the debt, in the lowering the price of products with
which we must pay the debt, and make us doubly poor by decreasing the value of our land, which secures the indebtedness.

The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. MORSE] also asserted
what so many of his followers have reiterated, to wit, that if we
had tree coinage in this country the world would bring to us all
its old junk pots, kettles, and spoons, as well as bullion, making
this country the dumping ground for the silver of the world.
This, I claim, is wholly untenable., It is well known that all
articles manufactured from silver take on so great a value by
reason of the labor value being added to the bullion value that
the owner can not afford, nor does he sell for coinage at bullion
Neither, Mr. Speaker, can I understand how other nations will
pour their bullion in upon us if we adopt free coinage. I believe,
Mr. Speaker, that it is a proposition that can not be disproved,
that if the United States by any legislation whatever can cause

the price of silver bullion to advance in New York, it will the
same day advance in London, Paris, and Berlin.
Silver can not be one price'in New York and another in London. Why should it be?
There can be no difference in the prices of silver bullion, sales
of which can be by wire made in a few minutes, except perhaps
the mere cost of exchange. Then if there could be no appreciable difference in price, certainly foreign bullion would not pour
in upon+is, and foreign silver would not drive our gold out of
circulation; if worth no more here than in Europe it would not
come here. But what nation has the silver to spare?
Where is the silver coming from? I think it is admitted by all
parties to this debate that all the great nations are seeking a
greater volume of money; they can spare nothing to exchange
for our gold. And it being impossible that there be more than
exchangeable difference in the price of silver bullion in the
United States and its price in other countries, we are in no danger of being made a dumping ground for other nations. Neither
could they get our gold unless they offered us something we
wanted more than we wanted*our gold.

Several gentlemen in this debate, as did the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. .COOPER], with much emphasis argue that the Government should furnish them a market for their wheat and cotton if it furnish the silver-miner a market for his silver, and
also indulge in the jocular demand for $1 for 57 cents' worth of
The Government affords no market for silver except as far as
its necessity goes.
The Constitution gives Congress the power " t o coin money,
and regulate the value thereof," and prohibits the States coining
money, or from making anything but gold and silver a legal
tender in payment of debts.
The duty is thus thrust by the Constitution upon the Government to provide a currency. Gold and silver are the money
metals of the Constitution. The Government must supply a currency; it must have a gold and, silver currency; it must therefore necessarily provide a market for silver in order to supply
the people, as required by the Constitution, with money. For
this reason, and this reason alone, the Government may purchase
silver bullion as it does under the Sherman law. If it would
adopt free coinage it would need to purchase none. There is no
reason for the Government buying wheat or cotton; there
constitutional obligation to so do, as there is to supply silver.
Silver purchases are a constitutional necessity in the absence of
free coinage, while there is no authority nor warrant of authority
for purchasing farm or other products.
The Government purchased silver forty years ago; it is no
new thing. Likewise, the frequent assumption that the people
are being defrauded by the purcb ase of silver under the Sherman law is wholly untrue. The Government purchases at the
lowest possible price in gold of the miner and pays in Treasury
notes, and when it coins the silver the people get the benefit of
the difference between the commercial and coinage value, and
not the miners.

I am constrained to vote for some of the ratios or the reSnact283

ment of the Bland-Allison act, because it seems to me to be the
only vote that favors bimetallism which the Republican party
has ever advocated in national and State platforms. The Republican party has ever been in favor of bimetallism and the
full monetization of silver, and it is to-day. I am a Republican,
and believe that to vote for a ratio of coinage or for the BlandAllison act, if ratios fail, are the most consistent Republican
votes, the National Republican platform declaring for silver, and
the Republican party has ever been a bi-metallic party.
I submit the platforms of the National Republican party during
the last three Presidential campaigns:

We have always recommended the best money known to the civilized
world; and we urge that efforts should be made tonnite all commercial
nations in the establishment of an international standard, which shall fix
for all the relative value of gold and silver coinage.
The Republican party is in favor of both sold and silver as money, and
condemns the policy of the Democratic Administration in its efforts to demonetize silver.
The American people, from tradition and interest, favor bimetallism, and
the Republican party demands the use of both gold and silver, as standard
money, with such restrictions and under such provisions to be determine a by
legislation as will secure the maintenance of the parity of values of the two
metals, so that the purchasing and debt-paying power of the dollar, whether
of silver or gold or paper, shall be at all times equal.
The interests of the producers of the'country—its farmers and its workingmen—demand that every dollar, paper or coin, issued by the Government
shall be as good as any other.
We commend the wise and patriotic steps already taken by onr Government to secure an international conference to adopt such measures as will
insure a parity of value between gold and silver for use as money throughout the world.

The Republican party of my State has declared in favor of the
remonetization of silver, as follows:
PLATFORM o r 1890.

We favor such expansion of our currency hs will meet the growing
demand of our increasing population and wants, and offset the contraction
resulting from the withdrawal of national-bank circulation. To this end we
favor such legislation as will utilize the entire product of our silver mines
as money.
1891. We heartily endorse the action of the late Republican Congress in
passing the silver bill, by which $50,000,000 of currency is yearly added to the
amount in circulation, and we favor such further increase in the coinage of
silver as is consistent with a sound, financial policy, and we favor the complete remonetization of silver.
1892. We favor the use of both gold and silver as standard money, under
such legislative regulations as will secure the parity of values of the two
metals, and we commend the steps already taken by our Government to insure this important object by an international monetary conference.

Believing in the platforms of my party, I can not vote for

And how do Republicans, who are in favor of protection of
home industries and the protection of American labor refuse
any protection to the great silver-mining industry in this country and refuse protection to the labor in the mines also? And
not only refuse protection, but actually join in legislation that
ruins the industry?

Gentlemen of both parties seem to think that their platforms
as to bimetallism are fair weather platforms, and not to be carried out in a storm panic; especially is this true of the Demo283

cratie party at this time. They seem to regard the platform as
a dress-parade declaration and not for active service. The people of this country believe in the use of both gold and silver, and
although gentlemen may under the Bhadow of this great panic
for a time obscure their vision, they will very soon emerge into
the broad sunlight of their settled convictions for a permanent
Gentlemen representing the gold side of this question theorize
in regard to what will occur, but the only way to know the result is to test it. i There was not a member, I think, of either
branch of the Fifty-first Congress who did not predict and believe
that the passage of the Sherman law would permanently advance the price of silver bullion. In this all were mistaken.
No finer illustration of the failure of theorists and doctrinaires
in finance can be adduced than the history of the Sherman law.

It has been conclusively, as it seems to me, shown in these debates that the low price of silver bullion which has obtained in
this country has enabled India to compete with us in wheat-raising, and lost to this country a vast amount of money, and has
been a terrible drawback to the wheat-raisers of this country.
"We desire the advance of silver bullion in the markets of the
world, believing it will advance the price of our wheat and all
products we have to sell. Low silver bullion has enabled England to buy Indian wheat low to compete with our wheat producers.

There has been no answer to the argument upon this floor that
France for seventy years maintained the parity of the two metals, and no answer to the conclusion that this nation could not
now do the same.
And if, upon trial, it should prove that the parity could not
be restored, this Congress in its regular December session could
repeal or change the law.
Why should we not give silver the opportunity it ever had in
this country during its whole history /Until the year 1873, during
all of which time it was equal to and much of the time at a premium over gold?

It has seemed to me very unfair in this debate that the monometallists persistently talk of a 57-cent dollar when they know
that the theory of the bimetallist, the theory of the free-coinage
advocate, is that with free coinage, with an equal chance for silver bullion at the mints that gold bullion now has, there will be
no-longer a 57-cent dollar; that the silver bullion in a dollar will
then advance in price and be worth 100 cents, and that the commercial value and coinage value of silver bullion will come together, and that the bullion in a silver dollar will then actually
be worth the bullion in a gold dollar.
This must be or bimetallism or free coinage is a failure. No
one advocates any such measure as is here persistently talked
by gold men, that the nation will continue to issue a dollar of 300
cents legal-tender value and 57 cents commercial value as bullion.
No one favors short or cheap or depreciated dollars, of which
the gold men unfairly and for the purpose of prejudicing the

cause of silver and its use continually talk. Every dollar of
whatever kind must be equal to every other dollar, and their
value must be an interchangeable value.
Our gold friends say we can not have a parity of gold and silver without an international agreement for bimetallism. Gladstone opposes it because, he s lys, the world owes England $10,000,000.000, and they want gold in payment. When will we have
international agreement under these conditions?

Have you gentlemen read the R E C O R D this morning of what
occurred yesterday in the United States Senate? Have you seen
that a Senator of the United States introduced a resolution to ascertain whether the national banks of the cities of New York,
Boston, and Philadelphia were violating the banking laws of the
United States; and have you also seen that the East—the gold
men in the Senate regardless of politics (because I want to say to
you gentlemen of the West and South that when you get east
of the Allegheny Mountains there are no politics so far as the
money question is concerned; there was none yesterday in the
Senate on the measure of which I am now speaking)—have you
seen that on a simple resolution of inquiry addressed to the
Treasurer of the United States, the Senate debated an hour and
a half as to whether that inquiry should be answered or whether
the resolution should be referred to the Finance Committee.1
It was conceded by the senior Senator from Massachusetts, it
was conceded by the senior Senator from Maryland that there
had been violations of the law. It was conceded, as you will see
by reading the debate, that the banks of New York City are charging their depositors as high as 3 per cent for their own money,
and yet the Senate refused a resolution for a report of any violation of law by these banks. And yet these gentlemen from the
East—the gentlemen from New York City—come here and cry
out against the dishonesty of the farmers from the West and
against the bad character of the loans which have been.placed


I want to say to you gentlemen that you never had as good
securities as the landed securities of the West. You have never
lost money by loaning to the West. W e have paid you your interest. And now, simply because we do not want you to make a
dollar worth $1.50—because we want you to accept payment in
the dollar in which your contract was made, to wit, silver equal
to gold and at a ratio of 16 to 1—you talk about dishonesty and
" cheap money " and all that sort of thing. That has been your
cry for a generation. That was the cry <when you brought up
the question of the payment of the bonds, the bonds you purchased at low rates during the war.

Mr. Speaker, I have always been a Republican. After our flag
was triumphant in the late war—after the Union had been saved,
after the nation had had a little breathing spell, after the matters of reconstruction had h-ad some consideration—the Republican party took the position that every promise to pay a dollar,
although that promise h id been depreciated during the terrible
war, should be worth 100 cents on the dollar.
And, Mr. Speaker, we were a patriotic people. W e as Re283

publicans insisted all the time for a system which, would give
not only a proper currency in the land, but put all of the obligations of the Government upon an equality. It was a patriotic
purpose, a purpose which was right and which I indorsed then
and indorse now. Under that law the bondholders got the
money and the bonds were payable in lawful money of the
United States; afterwards they were made payable in coin. I am
not complaining. I repeat, the efforts of the Republican party
to keep these bonds and their payment as a sacred obligation
upon the people was a wise, honest, and honorable policy.
But in 1873 there was by legislative enactment stricken down
one of the coins of the country—silver—and the bonds theretofore payable in coin were made payable in gold. And while it
was right and patriotic, as far as that is concerned, to bring-up
the bonds of the Government and make them all alike payable in
the best money of the Government, and while I do not indorse
the demonetization act of 1873, but condemn it asabsolutely bad,
the action that was taken before for the purpose of bringing the
credit of the United States up to where every dollar was equal
to every other dollar was a right and praiseworthy duty of a
patriotic people. But while we were doing that there was standing alongside of the patriotic mass of the people of the country
the bondholders, crying aloud and sparing not for this legislation.
I repeat, sir, while it was right and patriotic to bring up the
credit of the United States we incidentally voted multiplied millions of dollars into the pockets of the bondholders by increasing
the value of their bonds. And yet, notwithstanding all this, they
are not satisfied. They come here now and resist every intelligent action on the p Art of the Western people. Because'we simply
desire to pay off our mortgages, which they hold, in the money
which was contracted for at the time the obligation was created,
and resist them doubling our debts and reducing the price of
our products one-half by adopting a single gold standard, they cry
out against us and talk about 4'cheap money."

Mr. Speaker, that is the veriest claptrap. There has not been
a man of any standing on this floor or elsewhere who has advo^
cated any kind of dollar which is not equal to every other dollar
issued by the Government.
I am a Republican, and this is a proposition on which the
Republican party has stood firm and unchanged, as immutable
as the eternal rocks, at all times in its history. It has stood always for good and honest money in this country. W e have
pledged ourselves to it in all of our platforms, State and national
(although it seems that some of our friends forget that our platforms have declared for bimetallism), and we are still declaring
for it.
But I desire to read what was said in the debate in the Senate,
no longer ago than yesterday, upon this subject of the action of the
banks of New York, the remarks of the senior Senator from Iowa
IMP. ALLISON], and I commend them to the gentlemen from
New York and West Virginia, who lay all the-trouble now prevailing to the existence of the purchasing clause of the Sherman
laiw. I ask these gentlemen and others to consider this language of Senator ALLISON. He said:
Tiiosn of us who were here some years ago remember very well that the

national banks of tlie city of New York refused to take upon deposit silver
certificates issuedtoythe Government, and in 1882, now eleven years ago, we
were compelled by law to say that no national bank should be a member of
any clearing-house association which did not receive on deposit silver certificates; and it is a matter of fact well known—at least, very well known in
this body and elsewhere—that those national banks from that hour to this
have, wherever they could, discriminated against silver certificates.
They have pushed them out and out into the remote regions of our country
and held, where they could, the greenbacks and the gold certificates.

Mr. Speaker, I call attention of the two gentlemen especially
to this language:
Much of the currency famine that has recently existed in the city of New
York arises from the fact that the banks have not held in their vaults as a
part of their reserve the silver certificates issued under the authority of the
United States, nor have they held there any silver dollars. The silver certificates and silver 'dollars have been pushed out into the remoter regions of

This is what the distinguished Senator from Iowa [Mr. A L L I SON] says in regard to what has\brought on the panic and where
the responsibility rests for our present condition.
More than this, Mr. Speaker, in an article in that great Democratic organ, the New York Sun, of April 29, it is boldly charged
that the New York banks and the Administration were working
together and understandingly to compel an extra session of Congress to repeal the Sherman law, even at the expense of a panic.
An extract is as follows:
The conference yesterday between Secretary Carlisle and a number of the
hankers of this city was of great value in that it resulted in a definite understanding of the financial policy of the Administration, as indicated in
this column last Tuesday. That policy is to interpose no obstacle to the
natural operations and logical results of the Sherman law. In a word, the
Administration proposes to allow tbe people to reap the rewards of their
own folly.
The statement of Mr. Carlisle to the New York bankers makes it clear that,
while Mr. Cleveland works in Congress, the bankers will be expected to work,
not in New York only, but throughout the country, doing their utmost to
pinch business everywhere in the expectation of causing a money crisis that
will affect Congress powerfully from every quarter. ~ There is an explicitness in these declarations and a boldness in making them that would be astounding were not the country too familiar with Mr. Cleveland and his
methods to be astonished by anything from him.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from South Dakota has expired.
Mr. PICKLER. Mr. Speaker, I asked to be recognized on the
next amendment.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the gentleman from
South Dakota that it has looked at the order, and while, perhaps, it is a little ambiguous, still the Chair is inclined to think,
and will put that construction upon it Ainless the House otherwise directs, that it was designed to- limit the members to five
or ten minutes as under the ordinary five-minute rule in the
House, and as to all of the amendments, and not on each amendment.
The Chair believes that the order was so understood by the
House to permit, under the five-minutes' rule, the discussion of
all of the amendments at once, as has been done under the general debate up to this time, and to construe the order otherwise
would, as tbe gentleman himself must see, make the debate today or to-morrow for each member who gets the floor just as long
as it was under the rule for general debate.
Mr. PICKLER. I do not wish to discuss the construction of
the rule with the Chair, and will yield to the decision without

comment, simply asking the privilege of continuing for five minutes longer.
The SPEAKER. If there be no objection, the gentleman from
South Dakota will be recognized for five minutes longer.
There was no objection.
Mr. PICKLER. It is most remarkable that in either branch
of the United States Congress, when a simple proposition of inquiry to one. of the great Departments as to the operations of
our national banks—the agents in one respect of the Government
of the United States—as to whether they are violating the law,
and when it is even conceded on the floor of the Senate that
they have been violating the law, should find opposition and fail
of adoption—I say I do not understand why objection can be made
to the information being laid before Congress. It will not do to
argue that any acts of Government officers or agents shall be
concealed from the people's representatives in Congress.
Mr. Speaker, what must it lead to? If you can cover up the
transactions of the banks by an action of this character, what
may you not be able to cover up? It is a dangerous position,
and will do more to create a fear in the minds of the people
that the money power has undue influence in national legislar
tion and Government than can be readily imagined.

It has been argued here, Mr. Speaker, by the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. H A R T E R ] , justifying the demonetization of silver, that
the narrowing of the volume of currency does not interfere with
business. That is the most dangerous proposition to the people
of the West that has been suggested on this floor. We are a new
country. We have lands that we desire to sell. W e desire new
railroad enterprises. W e desire money to build factories in
cities and towns, and schoolhouses and court-houses, and to develop our new country in a hundred ways.
We have a great need for money, and we know that if money
is scarce, if there is but little money, the East will consume all
of it before we even hear of it in the West. Certainly there
never have been better times in this country than under a large
volume of currency, during the war and immediately following.
It appears to me, gentlemen,(that it is a proposition that can not
be denied, that so long as every dollar is as good as every other
dollar there can not be too much good money in circulation.
Who has ever known a country to have too much good money in
circulation? Who has ever known times to be good when you
have too little money in circulation? I believe the volume of
the money has much to do with the prosperity of 'the country.

Much has been said here about business being done with checks
and drafts. Now, I confess that while I know a large per cent
of business is done on credit with small cash basis, it is my impression that in order to have a check or draft to amount to anything in business a man must have money back of it. The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. C A T C H I N G S ] supposed a case the other
day in thiswise: He said, "Suppose a man brings in a*io 1 of
cotton and sells it for $100, and that the merchant instead of paying
him $100 in cash gives him a check on the bank for $1U0, and
with that check he goes and buys goods of the dry goods merchant,
and the merchant sends it to some other man whom he owes,

and so it goes around;" the gentleman argues, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. H A R T E R ] argues that the use of • the check
does away with the use of or requires less money.
Now, how can it be? The man who gave a check on the bank
had a hundred dollars in that bank, or he could not have drawn
his check. * So all the office that the check performed was that
in place of the man going and getting the money out of the bank
and carrying it to the next man, and he to the next; they simply
passed the check around from one to the other, and it did not
take a dollar less to do business with the check than if the actual
money had been used.
Mr. BY NUM. Will the gentleman permit a question?
Mr. PICKLER. Yes, if my time can be extended. [Laughter.]
Mr. BYNUM. Will you tell me why it is, then, that the deposits in the banks exceed the entire circulation in the country
about three times?
Mr. PICKLER. What has that to do with my proposition?
Mr. BYNUM. It simply has got this to do, that the deposits
are three times as great as the entire circulation, and therefore
the checks represent three times as much money as there is in
Mr. PICKLER. If the gentleman means three one hundred
dollar checks are drawn against the same one hundred dollars,
that is not legitimate banking, and is a dangerous inflation of
credit. It is not that the bank has three times as much cash
deposits as its circulation; it may have three times as much
credits. . This does not interfere with my statement as to checks
and drafts. Can 4a man draw a check unless he has money to
draw against?
' Mr. BYNUM. No, but the money is deposited by different
persons. The deposits are tliree times the amount of circulation.
Mr. DINGLEY. If my friend will pardon me, his check may
be drawn against a credit given him by the bank.
Mr. PICKLER. Yes, but when the check is presented it takes
actual cash to meet it; credit will not. I time extended if I am to be interrupted. The gentleman s.iys that a
man may draw his check against a credit that is given him. If
he draws it against a credit, he had deposited money to obtain
that credit. No bank honors a check unless it is drawn against
cash or a cash credit, and the bank must have the money to pay
the check, so that it is only the representative of money actually existing in the bank. Of course credit, as suggested by the
gentleman from Indiana, may largely exceed the actual cash. A
may deposit $100, against which he may check; the bank may
loan it to B, and he may deposit it in same bank, and he may
check against it, but when either A or B checks the bank must
have the actual cash—somebody's cash to pass over to the holder
of the check: just as to obtain a draft you must have actual cash
to the amount of the draft, so that the use of a check or draft is
only a convenience, and does not lessen the amount of actual
money .required to do the business.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PICKLER. One moment and I will be through.
Mr. P A Y N E . I ask that the gentleman from South Dakota
[Mr. P I C K L E R ] have a minute longer.

one minute more.

Without objection the gentleman will have

Mr. PICKLER. It seems to me that the proposition of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HARTER] that the use of a draft or a
check lessens the necessity of actual money must be based on
about the financial theory of a certain young Israelite of whom
I have heard. An old Israelitish banker of whom I heard a few
days ago had become rich in the business. His nephew Isaac
had been associated with him in the business, and he was desirous to have his wealth go to Isaac at his death; so he brought
Isaac to his bedside, and he said, "The physicians tell me I am
only to live a short time. You have been a good and faithful
friend and relative to me. You have been loyal to my interests
and I desire to turn over to you my entire wealth except $500 in
cash that I began business with. That I wish buried with me.
"Now, I want you to deposit $500 in cash in the coffin with me,
because I want to take it along with me." Isaac, tenderly regrc tting the sad event, said, " All right, I will do so." But the old
Israelite was a little fearful that Isaac might be tempted by the
glittering $500, so he made known to the rabbi what his request
was, and asked the rabbi to see that Isaac carried out this promise. So the venerable Jew in time died and the rabbi went to
the funeral.
[Here the hammer fell].
Mr. PICKLER. Will my colleague yield me a half minute?
Mr. LUCAS. I will.
The SPEAKER. How much time does the gentleman yield
to his colleague?
Mr. LUCAS. Half a minute.
Mr. PICKLER. So the rabbi examined the body and could not
find the money. He called Isaac and said to him, "Did not you
promise to bury with our pld friend the $500, the amount he commenced business with?" Isaac said, "Yes, I did." The rabbi
said, "You did not do it." "Oh, yes [did," saidlsaac, "youwill
find my sheck in his vest pocket." [Laughter.]
I believe there is no danger whatever of silver monometallism. Silver dollars have been at a premium the last few days
in New York City, and the Secretary of the Treasury of the
United States declares that he has not had sufficient silver to
redeem Treasury notes presented. There is not a man in all this
country who does not believe silver a sound currency. The ratio
of 16 to 1 is the money in which our debts have been contracted
and in which it is fair, right, honest, and just to pay them.
Other ratios are compromises. If all the amendments for silver
shall be voted down I shall vote against the repeal of the Sherman law; shall vote

Because it is all that is left in any way favoring silver coinage.
Because its unconditional repeal places this country on a single
gold standard.
Because it now adds to our circulation from three to four
million dollars per month, and if repealed it contracts our currency in that amount, and will compel the sale of Government
bonds to buy gold to take the place of silver, thus imposing a tax
on the people.

Because its repeal absolutely stops the coinage of silver in
this country, and further reduces the price of silver bullion,
and likewise the prices of our products.
Because. I do not believe it responsible for the present panic
to any appreciable extent, but that it has been seized upon by
the present Administration to drive the country to a single gold
standard, at the dictation of the money interests of the countrv.
Because the people of the country want more good money m
circulation, while this repeal lessens it by fifty millions per year.