Page images

only silver coin which can be used as legal tender?'-Congressional Record, vol. 4, part 3, Fourty-fourth Congress, first session, page 2062.

What Senator Allison Said. Senator Allison, on February 15, 1878, when the bill (H. R. 1093) to auth. orize the free coinage of the standard silver dollar and to restore its legaltender character was under consideration, observed:

"But when the secret history of this bill of 1873 comes to be told, it will disclose the fact that the House of Representatives intended to coin both gold and silver, and intended to place both metals upon the French relation instead of on our own, which was the true scientific position with reference to this subject in 1873, but that the bill afterward was doctored, if I may use that term, and I use it in no offensive sense, of course "

Mr. Sargent interrupted him and asked him what he meant by the word "doctored.” Mr. Allison said:

I said I used the word in no offensive sense. It was changed after dis. cussion, and the dollar of 420 grains was substituted for it.”—Congressional Record, vol. 7, part 2, Forty-fifth 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 Voorheees took place:

"Mr. Voorhees-I want to ask my friend from Maine, whom I am glad to designate in that way, whether I may call him as one more witness to the fact 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 -I did not know anything that was in the bill at all. As I have said hefore, 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. Voorhees--I frankly say that I did not.”—Ibid., 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 I ever saw in obtaining information-discovered that it had been done.”-Congressional Record. vol. 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 offered the substitute, said to Mr. Holman, when inquired of, that it did not affect the coinage in any way whatever."-Ibid., page 989.

Senator Howe, in a speech delivered in the Senate on February 1, 1878, said:

"Mr. President, I do not regard the demonetization of silver as an attempt to wrench from the people more than they agree to pay. That is not the crime of which I accuse the act of 1873. I charge it with guilt compared with which the robbery of two hundred millions is venial.”—Congressional Record, vol. 7, part 1, Forty-fifth Congress, second session, page 764.

Gen. Garfield's Utterance.

Gen. Garfield, in a speech made at Springfield, Ohio, during the fall of 1877, said:

"Perhaps I ought to be ashamed to say so, but it is the truth to say that, I 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 Repub. lican, 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 througn 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 Record, vol. 7, part 1, Forty-fifth Congress, second session, page 989. Mr. Bright, of Tennessee, said of the law:

"It passed by fraud in the House, never having been printed in advance, being a substitute for the printed bill; never having been read at the clerk's desk, the reading having been dispensed with by an impression that the bill made no material alteration in the coinage laws, it was passed without discussion, debate being cut off by operation of the previous question. It was passed to my certain information, under such circumstances that the fraud escaped the attention of some of the most watchful as well as the ablest statesmen in Congress at that time. * * * Aye, sir, it was a fraud that smells to heaven; it was a fraud that will stink in the nose of posterity, and for which some persons must give an account in the day of retribution.”Congressional Record, vol. 7, part 1, second session, Forty-fifth Congress, page 584.

Mr. Holman, in a speech delivered in the House of Representatives July 13. 1876, said:

“I have before me the record of the proceedings of this House on the pas. sage of that measure, a record which no man can read without being convinced that the measure and the method of its passage through this House was a 'collossal swindle.' I assert that the measure never had the sanction of this House, and it does not possess the moral force of law."-Congress

ional Record, vol. 4, part 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 mines and coin. age. The bill which finally passed the House and which ultimately became a law was certainly not read in the 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 I use the term correctly 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 changed 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 affected by that bill."-Congressional Record, vol. 4, part 6, Forty-fourth Congress, first session, page 5227.

Mr, ('annon on Record. 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 Congress nor the people understood the scope of the legislation.”-Ibid., Appendix, page 197.

Mr. Burchard, of Illinois, in a speech made in the House of Represežtatives 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 unit of value from silver to gold.”-Ibid., page 4560.

Mr. Kelley, of Pensylvania, who had 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 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 inter: rogated the other: 'Did you know it was dropped when the bill passed ?' 'No.' said Mr. Blaine. 'Did you?' 'No,' 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 on Ways and Means, managed the bill, knew it. I say this in justice to him."--Congressional Record, vol. 7, part 2, Forty-fiftb Congress, second session, page 1605.

Again, on May 10, 1879, Mr. Kelley said:

"All I can say is that the Committee on Coinage, Weights, 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 proiess to know nothing of its history, 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. I have never found a man who could tell just how it came about or why.">Congressional Record, vol. 9, part 1, Forty-sixth Congress, first session, page 1231.

Defies the Ohio Senator. My term in the Senate expired on the 4th of March, 1875, and up to that time there never was a word spoken in debate with reference to the demon. etization of silver. You cannot point to a single line, syllable, or word pointing in that direction. Still, you accuse me of having advocated the demonetization of silver. If this were your first offense I might pass it by in silence, but on the 30th of August, 1893, you used extracts from my speeches in favor of specie payment where I had inadvertently used the word "gold" for "coin," and contended that I was guilty of demonetizing silver. I attempted to interrupt you at the time to make the correction, but you exercised your Senatorial privilege and declined to be interrupted. When you had concluded your remarks I rose in my place in the Senate and in your presence gave notice that I would reply to your speech. My notice will be found on page 1062 of the Congressional Record, vol. 23, part 1. Fifty-third Congress, first session, and is as follows:

"Mr. Stewart-If the Senator from Colorado will give way for a moment, I should like to give notice that on Tuesday next I shall take occasion to give the history of the demonetization of silver. I shall give the true history from the records.”

On the 5th of September, 1893, the day appointed, I delivered an address which refuted the false charge you had made against me, but this was an in. cidental and unimportant part of the address. You absented yourself from the Senate during all the time the speech was made. Neither you nor any one else has replied to that speech. The facts it contains, in my, judgment and in the judgment of others, convict you of having imposed upon the Sen. ate in securing the demonetization of silver. You knew what you were doing at the time. No other Senator has confessed that he did.

[ocr errors]

In proof of the fact that you knew what you were doing I will call your attention to some of the matters contained in my speech, which is entitled "The True History of the Demonetization of Silver."

In the spring of 1867 you went to London. You afterward visited Paris and wrote a letter to Samuel B. Ruggles, the American Commissioner to the monetary conference then in session at Paris, advocating the single gold standard. Your letter, which you will find on page 407 of your autobiography. and extracts from the reports of Mr. Ruggles to the State Department, show how valuable your services were in connection with the English delegation in securing the adoption by the Paris conference of a resolution recommending the gold standard. The following winter, in 1868, you introduced a bill in the Senate entitlted "An act in relation to the coinage of gold and silver," the third section of which reads as follows:

“Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the gold coins to be issued under this act shall be a legal tender in all payments to any amount; and the silver coin shall be a legal tender to an amount not exceeding $10 in any one payment.

You made a favorable report on this bill, in which you said, among other things, that “ the single standard of gold is an American idea, yielded reluctantly by France and other countries, where silver is the chief standard of value." Senator E. D. Morgan, of New York, filed a minority report which exposed your scheme and caused you to abandon the bill. You never called it up for action or proceeded further to secure the demonetization of silver while Mr. Morgan was in the Senate, but in your autobiography, page 410, you cast a slur upon Senator Morgan's able report. You say:

"There was no dissent from the plan except that Senator Morgan, of New York, thought it would interfere with the profit of New York brokers in changing dollars into pounds."

Any person who will read Senator Morgan's report will appreciate your unfair criticism of that Senator. They will see that his report was compre. hensive and demonstrated the injustice and ruin of the policy you proposed.

Codifying the Mint Law. After Mr. Morgan left the Senate a committee was formed in the Treasury Department, with John Jay Knox at the head, which framed a bill of seventy sections codifying the mint laws. You managed to secure the passage of this codification bill through the Senate without attracting the attention of the Senate to the fact that it omitted the silver dollar from the list of coins. My speech of September 5, 1893, shows how skillfully you manipulated that legislation. Your charge against me and others that we ought to bare known what was in that codification bill is answered by the fact that legislative bodies do not ordinarily examine as accurately as they should, perhaps, bills which emapate from the Departments and purport to be codifications; particularly when they have confidence in their committees. It is the duty of committees to examine such bills and inform the Senate of any important changes in the laws. You knew that the demonetization of silver

« PreviousContinue »