New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-12-11
Mr.. uORRJLTS REPORT.

Secretary MOTllIs report mas Deth supJecItu
TO much criticism from Journals opposed TO
him politically, or III respect to the policy OF
resumntion, or in respect to the payment OF
debt in silver which it is not worth While 10
notice. Men who believe that a Republican
cannot deal wisely with public finances, men
who believe that resumption ut any time or at
the time fixed by law is undesirable, men who
believe in preferring silver to gold as our
chief measure of values, must be expected TO
criticisc the report of Mr.. Morrill, as sharply
as they can 4; but their criticisms, happily, DO
not need reply. But other criticisms, notably
by The Bulletin, though only in part well
founded deserve attention.
1t is certainly an egregiOus blunder to assume
that the Secretary abandons the position of
his predecessors with respect to the Sinking
Fund. In reply to those who have claimed
that the Government had not performed Its
obligations in this respect, Mr.. Morrill, shows
that the actual reduction of debt has exceeded
the reduction required by the Sinking Fund
act by 1928, 144,011 o. But he does not
propose to abate further reductions Oh this
account on the. contrary, he insists III MS
estimates and recommendations that at least as
large a sum as that required by the act shall
each year be applied to reduction OF the debt
Whether this policy be wise or unwise, it can
not be said that Mr.. Morrill, has afforded
good reason for relaxing the oppreaSiyeheSs
"of taxation" He shows, on the contrary,
that there may be small deficit this year and
the next, if revenues do not improve, Ill view
of the necessity of applying certain sum TO
debt payment.
One other criticism of The Bulletin, however,
seems in part well founded. The Secretary
had urged that the Resumption act de-
cleared. in effect, monetary system combined
e." of coin and national bank notes Tedeemablc
" in coin," and in other language apparently
contemplates the complete extinguishment OF
the circulation of United States notes. The
Bulletin is quite right in saying that the act
itself does not warrant any such statement OF
its intent. 1t cOntcmpates the payment and
withdrawal, after Jan. /, 1879, Oi as large
part of the legal-tender circulation as VIII not
float at par with coin, but only OF that part.
We speak of the act as it is, not OF the act as
it ought to lie in the opinion OF any OF those
who discuss it. There Is no requirement That
other legal tenders than those which may be pre-
scented for payment shall paid, and it Is certain
that if the Treasury should redeem II con-
siderable part of them, another considerable
mart would remain in circulation at par III
coin Nor does the law provide, as we believe
il should, that the legal-tender quality OF
United States notes shall cease at a fixed date.
Unless the act of January, 1875, be regarded
as merely step toward q policy not therein
fully discosed-an assumption which no one
has the right to make--we must conclude that
it contemplates a currency composed OF three
elements instead of two, namely, bank notes
redeemable on demand in legal tenders, such
legal tenders as may remain i'll circulation
though redeemable in coin, and coin ITSELF
Respecting the merits or dement's of such
system, as q permanent one, it Is not now
necessary to argue; the immediate point is
that the law does not, rs the Secretary's Ian
guage seems to imply, provide for complete
retirement of legal tenders.
On the other hand, The Bulletin seems to us
clearly in error in saying that "when the act
"restricts the retiring of legal tenders to the
(" limit of $500, 100000, it evidently cOntem-
plates that not less than that amount should
"be retained in permanent use" glance mt
the law will show that the passage restricting
the retirement applies only to the operations
preceding resumption, and under the free bank
ing provision. New bank notes may be issued
without limit, but as long as the legal-tender
circulation exceeds $300,O0O,000 there shall
be retired of legal tenders each month an
amount equal to so per cent of the new bank
circulation. Palpably, this in no way implies
that after resumption the volume of legal
tenders shall not be reduced by redemption
below $300,000,000. Moreover, there is
financial absurdity in The BuiietiH's conception,
namely, that the Government must continue
indefinitely to reissue legal tenders to the
amount of $3Oo,000.0o0, thus constantly de-
preciating them, even while ii is redeeming
them at par in coin. The act clearly contem-