Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1870-02-01
TIE CURRENCY.


States, on Thursday last, in Committee of
the Whole, on the bill to provide nation
al currency and cqualize its distribution,
the amendment offered by Mr.. Sumner
pending, Senator Morrill, of this State vim
Dictated New England from the charge of
unfairness in the distribution of the bank
ing capital, and gave history of the mat
ter which presents its fairly. As this is
subject of interest to our readers we quote
from Mr.. Morrill's remarks as we find
them in the Globe, emitting interruptions
by members and copying only what is
most important.
This national currency has history. 1t
originated in 1868 What was the condition
OF the country then? There are advocates of
the South who say that the South has been
deprived of her fair and just proportion of the
currency. Why? If anybody will tell me why
that will answer why it is that there is an I'M
equal distribution Of the currency. Everybody
knows that the South at the time this system
was naugurated was not in condition to share
in the distribution Of the national currency,
an | that answers that point l think, satisfac-
torily.
In 1863 Congress undertook to institute what
was called banking system, which was to
establish in this country a national uniform
currency throu ,hout the nation. But II was
true, as | have said. that the condition of the
country did not admit Of that completely; it
did not admit of an equal distribution of the
national currency. Everybody knows, first,
that the condition of the country did not adj
nit of it. second. that its business affairs did
not admit of it. While the South was in no
condition to share in it at all, the West from
its financial condition was in no condition to
share in it to the extent that the North and
East were These two general facts in our
history account, say, satisfactorily, for the
unequal distribution OF the currency, without
finding it necessary to say that anybody was
corrupt or anybody was particularly at fault
either at the other end of the avenue or in
New England. These general facts in our
history explain the whole thing of the une-
quail distribution of the national currency
which we are now undertaking to state
Now. let US look at the operation of the law
during the first year. My friend from New
York Aas stated what the law was. 1t was
predicated in this way; first, one half was to
be distributed upon population ; the other
upon banking capital, resources, and business.
Everybody could see that that would not be
but this whole debate has proceeded upon the
idea that New England has been grasping, or
by some legerdemain or other New England
has got a vast disproporton predcated upon
population. That is not the law. The law
was population and something else /; and
everybody knows that when you come TO the
something else, New England, with her two
hundred years of accumulation and industries,
has got more of that something else than these
other communities which are complaining of
New England. SO that what | mean to say
is that it is not fair to represent this upon the
ground ofpopulation alone. New England is
held up here as having one third of the circu-
latlon when she has but one tenth of the pop
ulaton, or less. But there is another ele-
ment to be considered | do not mean to say
that it does away with the inequality, but
say it does away with the emphasis with which
this characterization has been made.
Now, sir, what was the operation of the law
for the first year: There were one hundred
and thirty-four banks organized in 1868, New
England taking fourteen. That was not her
WAS it? Why did not New Eng
land rush with avidity into this system: Why,
sir. she had system with which she was
she had local system Of her own
which met all her demands, which was the
precise thing she wanted, which had proved
0r several generations success, and
,he did not want TO give it up. That is the
ruth about it. She wanted TO adhere to it,
rhe nation was anxious that size should give
t up New England did not propose this
national system. Everybody who knows the
history knows that New England did not do
his. New England did not start to get an
advantage any way. She was content with
what she had, and during the first year she
,nlv organized fourteen national banks, while
he middle States organized thirty-seven, the
Vest seventy nine, and the South four
Well, sir, what is the next step? In 1864
ny honorable friend from Ohio, then as now
f the Finance Committee, saw tit to change
hat law. He saw that in order to carry out
his system it WAS necessary to make further
lducements, and the law was completely
hanged 80 that it was left entirely to the dis
retion of the Comptroller to distribute this
arrcncv Just as he pleased And yet, sir,
GU will find that New England did not rush
,r this currency particularly then. Or
he four, hundred and seventy-eight banks
hciYi s~ere organized in 1864 New England
ad only one hundred and twenty-six; so that
own to the close of 1864 New England really
ad but one hundred and fortytwo national
anks.
In the next year the act which has been
eferred to in this debate the act of March
, 1865. was passed, and it is said that the act
f 1863 was therein re-enacted. That is true,
but that is not the whole truth
,r on the self same day there was an internal
evenue act approved in which there was
revision that all existing State banks should
ave the right to become national banks and
hould have the preference IN obtaining cur
cncy over new organizations up to the LIST day
g InIv ,sG5 Tn 10 this time the New Eng
nd banks had stood back and had refused to
ONE into this national system. 1t had be-
omc the desire and the necessity OF the Ten
raj Government to induce them to come into
I. The Government could not afford to have