Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1877-11-29

only in cash and eighty eight per cent.
OF that vast amount, representing
every grade of the business of the
banks of our country, was done In
cherks, drafts, and commercial bills.
Dies country that does its business in
that way need as much currency afloat
among the people as a country like
France. without banks, without saw
ines institutions, and whose people
keep their money in boards?
What vas the example of France in
1870? The end Of that year, before the
war began, France had $251 900, 900
of paper circulation of the Bank of
{ France, aud S229, ,OO0, 600 of coin from
; the same bank. When the war broke
Out they were compelled Immediately
to issue more paper, end make II q
iegal-tender. They took pattern by
US from their necessities, and issued
paper until in November 10, 1873, or
four years ago rext Monday, they had
s6O2, ,OOO, 600 of paper issued by the
Bank Of France, and $l45, ,00O, 900 of
coin. But when their great war was
over they did what commend to the
gentleman from Penns, lvania (Mr.
Kelley. They commenced to reduce
their paper circulation, and in one year
reduced it almost 500, ,0O0, 900, and in-
creased the coin circulation $120, 600
600. In the year 1876 they had pushed
into circulation S2OO.OOO 900 of coin,
and retired small notes to that amount.
They sre to-day within flfty days of
resumption of specie payments. Under
the law, fifty days from to day, France
passes again into the illustrious line of
nations who believe in sound curren-
cy and / commend to the eloquent
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Kelley the example of France.
RESUMPTION IN ENGLAND IN 1922.
The overwhelming and fixed opinion
Of England is that the cash resump-
tiOn act of 1919 was blessing and not
a curse, and that the evils which Eng
land suffered at that time, did not arise
from the:resumption of cash payments,
but from causes entirely distinct from
that. l appeal to every great writer
of acknowledged character in England
for the truth of this proposition. But
l will not leave it simply as u matter
Of opinion. will give two or three
reasons why l think this.
In the first place, l appeal to the
opinion of Parliament itself, the
House of Commons, which is as SEN
sitive an indication Of public opinion
as England knows. When they were
within about eighteen months of re-
sumption of specie payments, motion
was made Qike the motion of my friend
from Ohio-Mr. Ewing) that the Re-
sumption Act Bill be modified because
it was producing distress; and a. num-
ber cf gentlemen on the floor of the
House OF Commons made speeches of
the exact spirit of those which we
have heard here ON this floor within
the past week. The distress among
the people, the crippling of business,
the alarm of the mercantile clauses, all
were,paraded:in the House of Commons
and were answered by those knights
of finance whose names have been
illustriOus in English history; and at
the end of q long debate on that pro-
position ON the llth of April, 1922,
vote was taken, and the proposition
was utterly rejected hy a vote of 141 to
n. In other words, by vote Of 14l to
u the House of Coui -nons resolved
that their act for the resumption of
specie payments was not causing dis
tress and ought not to be repealed, and
ought: not to be modified, exc pt to make
it mere effective. But that was not
enough. After cash payments were
resumed, q motion was made Ey Mr..
Weston in the House of Commons i'm
1922, declaring that the Resumption
Act absolutely produced: distress. That
WAS challenge to the public mind of
England given in the House of Com
mons. 1t WAS elaborately debated, as
the other was debated, and at the end
of that long debate the proposition was
not only voted down, but this was re-
solved in its place: "ResOtved, That
this Parliament of Great Britain will
not change the standard of value, nor
do the business interests of the country
require it," and that resolution passed
by 1872 yeas to 30 nays. The House of
Commons ought, at least, to know
something about the condition of Eng
land. a afslHs
Gentleman tell us that the great
distress in England was caused by the
Resumption Act in spite OF all English
Thought. | commend these gentle.
man to such great writers as TOOke,
who, in his history of prices in Eng
land, has gone over this ground most
thoroughly and fully. He said it was
the Corn Law which produced the
great evils from which England suffer-
ed in those days. A law had been
passed providing that corn, that Is
wheat, should never be allowed to 60
below 80 shillings per quarter, and If it
got below that figure, all impOrtatiOns
from abroad should be stopped until
the price got back again. In other
words England proposed to build q
Chinese wall around the island and to
make wheat one of the most profitable
crops inIthe wolrd to raise. Under the
protection of that Corn Law the agri-
culturists of England ran into the busi-
ness of raising wheat everywhere. The
most enormous Outlays in the raising
of wheat sprang into existence, on the
passage of that law; and when they
had got very large crop stated they
found that for three special years, 1920,
1891, and 1922, the largest crops Europe
ever knew were reaped, and In spite of
the law wheat went down to Ats. 9lc.
per quarter in face of their ,expecta-
tions, and it ruined all the agricultural
people of England with distress 80
sharp; 80 terrible as almost to destroy
the business of the island.
Now, before quitting that subject, I
beg leave at once to put myself in
the category to which the gentleman
from Pennsylvania assigned the late
Secretary of the Treasury, Hugh Nc
Culloch. He read three lines from a
paper of McCulloch in the North Anaeri-
oan RsviesS, and said that it was an ex-
ample of astonishing ignorance, or as
touishing mendscity. What was the
statement that was so ignorant or so
inendacious? 1t was that every great
crisis in this contry has been preceded
by an enormous enlargement Of paper
circulation, affirm that to be true,
and challenge controversy
by any man. It was true
in England always. 1t has been true