The New York herald., 1868-03-16

Mr.. Randal's Bill Substituting Legal Ten-
ders for National Bank Circulation.
The important bill which Mr.. Randall intro
duced some time ago in the House Of Repre-
sentatives for substituting legal tenders for the
national bank circulation hangs still in the
Committee on Banking and Currency. We
now and then hear of it, however, as being
under consideration, and the last notice we had
of it was few days ago from our Washington
correspondent, when it was said that the mat
ter was again postponed to allow certain par
ties to be heard against the bill. OF course
we understand these certain parties to be men
representing the national bank interests. They
much money not to oppose with all their might
and means Mr.. Randall's bill.
Now. while we admit it would be better as a
general thing not to interfere with the currency
and finances till after our political troubles
are adjusted-till after impeachment and the
Presidential election be settled and the South
ern States be restored-there is no reason why
this question should not be decided. It is
very simple one and need not be involved
with those other questions of forcing specie
payments and Of paying the debt hereafter in
greenbacks. The legal tenders are at least as
good and safe as the national bank notes, and
we think both better and safer. The simple
proposition, then, is to give us these in place of
the national bank circulation. Not, as we
understand to increase the volume of currency
afoat, but simply to substitute one kind for
another-a better currency for one not as good
This would give us uniform currency, too, and
there are few, we believe, who will not admit
that this would be better than the present mixed
currency. As to the effect of the proposed
change on reaching or deferring specie pay
ments, it seems to us that we should arrive at
specie payments quite as soon or sooner with
q uniform legal tender currency. 1t will be
very difficult to bring the national banks to
specie payments while the government, having
absolute control over its own circulation, can
more easily bring about that object.
But the great objection to the national bank
currency is that it takes away about twenty
FIVE millions year from the people and the
Treasury which rightly belongs to them. The
privileges and profits of national currency be-
long to the nation and not to individuals or
corporations. Even the Bank of England, with
all its usefulness to the government in managing
as q sort Of treasury department the finances
of the nation for small remuneration, and
with all its past services and power-even that
pays large portion of the profits Of its circula-
ton based on national securities to the govern
ment 1t Is not allowed TO take double profit,
first in interest on the securities held basis Of
circulation, and, second, on the circulation ITSELF
If our national banks paid only in the same
proportion-that Is, two-thirds the profits Of
circulation based on interest bearing bonds
the amount would be near sixteen millions q
year In currency. And why should the gov
ernment and the people lose this? What claim
have these private corporations for this enor-
nous gratuity? What claim, indeed, have
they for any of the profits on national cur
rency? They render no service to the govern
ment and in no event could they render
any. On the contrary, they are mon
strous and dangerous monopoly, feec-
ing the government at the same time
they are absorbing all the profits Of the indus
try of the people. No; every dollar Of the
profit on the three hundred millions of their
circulation, which, in currency, would amount
to twenty-five millions year, should be saved
to the Treasury and the people. Congress
seems intent on reducing taxation and the In
come of the government to the point Of bank
ruptng the Treasury and bringing on re
pudiation surely, then, II should do something
to save these twenty five millions year.
The issue of three hundred millions Of lega
tenders would buy up three hundred million