Knoxville Whig and chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1875-1882, 1875-09-01

] National Bank 4" ...,..... lIl,OOO OOO
Fractional Currency...... 25,00j 000
Total Curreucy......... S62S,692 600
On the 1st day of August, 1873, our
currency in volume and kind was rs
| follows:
Legal Tender Notes ...........S874, S24, $50
National Bank Notes,............ 34S, g37, 939
Fractional ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. H,l45,39
Total Currency. ............S764,9OS,2l7
Thus it will be seen that our
remarkable statement is verified,
and the volume of currency is greater
now than it was in 1865 by $136,216,-
217. We have not deducted the
"reserve" for either year, for it is
part Of the volume of currency.
Our contemporary quotes from a
speech of Democratic Congressman
to disprove official records. That is
poor argument. Mr.. Bright, the
Congressman referred to, makes up
his estimate of S2,192, 1895, 627, which
he calls 1.-THE paper used as currency
in 1865, by counting $S30,00O,OOO of
seven-thirty bonds and many other
kinds of paper" rs currency that
never were in fact recognized or con-
sidered as currency. Who of our
readers ever saw a Seren.thity bond
circulating for currency in 1865 or
any other year? We have now
several hundred millions. Of
bonds, which are just as useful for
currency as they were in 1868, and
we might count them rs currency
now, as well as in 1868.
The idea Of an intelligent editor
claiming that we had over t,co hou-
sand million dollors Of currency in
1865 is preposterous. That is more
currency than we could possibly use,
and it never was used in this country.
But this s,-called contraction-the
withdrawal IF seven-thirty bonds,
etc, occurred in 1868. If that
caused the financial panic and present
hard times, why were we seven and
eight years in discovering it? Every
body recognizes 1870, 1871, 1872 and
1878, up to September, as unusually
" flush years, when business was
good. Yet we had no more currency
then than now-in fact not so much,
as we will presently show.
Now, if our contemporaries theory
of hard times is correct, why did
they not overWhelm us in 1867 and
1868, when the most of this so-called
contraction took place?
We stated that there had been no
contraction Of the currency under the
Republican Administration of the
Government, and that therefore the
Democratic charge that contraction
was the cause Of all our troubles, is
false. On the contrary. we charge
thai the only contraction really
effected was under the Act of April
18th, 1866, which authorized Secreta.
Mccullough TO contract the currency,
and he did it, to the extent Of S44..
100000, when he was stopped by a
Republican Congress. To this the
Press and Heraid says, Congress was
Republican, and responsible for the
contraction. Mr.. Mccullough, an old
Democrat, and Andrew Johnson's
Secretary Of the Treasury, makes no
such lame attempt at defense. lie
knows very well that Congress
did not require him TO do
it, but simply authorized
him to do it. Under this authority
he did contract, and he now claims it
as evidence Of the highest financial
skill. lie continued his contraction
until Congress took away his author
ity, and then it ceased.
Now, to confirm our statement that
"there has been no contraction of the
currency under Republican admins
tration,' let us quote such good Dem
ocratic authority as Secretary Nc
Cullough, Andrew Johnson's finance
minister. In a letter to the New
York Tribune, dated London, August
I'd, 1875, he says:
"And now while it seems to Inc as clear