The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1879-05-13
The Coinage Bill.
DEBATE IN THE HOUSE.
Mr.. Reed Has Something to Say.

| The following report, report from the Con-
gressional Record, of the debate on the coin
age bill, will be of interest to Maine readers:
| COINAGE CERTIFICATES, ETC.
| The Speaker pro tempore. The regular Or
der is the further consideration of the bill
| known as the coinage bill Oh. II. No. 564.) to
amend certain sections of the Revised Statutes
| OF the United States relating to coinage and
coin and bullion certificates, and for other
purposes, reported from the Committee on
Coinage, Weights, and Measures with amend
ments. The gentleman from Pennsylvania
Mr.. Kelley is entitled to the floor for one
hour.
Mr.. Kelley addresses the House He with
holds his remarks for revision.]
Mr.. Bowman obtained the floor and said:
yield thirty minutes to the gentleman from
Maine, lMr. Reed
Mr.. Reed. Mr.. Speaker although am to
follow for a few moments the gentleman from
Pennsylvania Mr.. Kelley propose to reply
to only few portions of his speech and those
merely incidental / rise for the purpose of
making remark or two upon what seems to
be the vital point concerned in the question
before the House; but before doing that / wish
to say word or two which hope may have
the effect to remove in some degree the pref
udice by which this matter has been attempted
to be surrounded. This prejudice relates to
two things. First it is declared that the de-
monetization of the silver dollar was ''fend-
name not given, was guilty. and, secondly, it
is affirmed that the taking away of the legal
tender character OF the trade-dollar "a
trick" disgraceful to all parties concerned
Those two allegations seem to lie upon the
threshold of the discussion of this question as
matters of prejudice.
Mr.. Warner rose.
Mr.. Reed. Now, 1 hope the gentleman
from Ohio MIR. Warner will remain quiet
long enough to allow me to say something L
say to this House that from the year 1865 until
1870 there was discussion going on through
out the world among economists and persons
specially interested i'll the question, whether a
single standard or double standard was the
more desirable for commercial nation as ad-
vanced in character and manufactures as the
United States and Great Britain and various
other nations. About the year 1872 that dis
cusslon eliminated in q general belief on 1.-THE
part OF all persons concerned that single
standard was the best. This belief prevailed
more or less, in all European nations and in all
nations as far advanced in civilization as we
are. And the point upon which that dicus-
sion turned was mainly, if not solely, that of
stability. 1t was and is desirable in all civil
liZed countries that there should be standard
OF value which should be stable, which should
not fuctuate in its character; and in the then
condition OF the world it was deemed proved
by facts and circumstances, and by the general
consent of mankind, that q gold standard was
such standard l believe that there was no
thought in any body's mind of pillage or plum
dering anybody, but simply of establishing a
standard which should be permanent, and pill
lage and plunder nobody. The gentlemen who
are in favor of double STANFORD argue it upon
the ground of the greater stability of the
double standard and upon none other.
Now, my friend from Pennsylvania Mr..
Kelley in my judgment is suffering under
lapse of memory on this subject. He did not
understand when the demonetization took
place, he says. L am bound to believe he
states the matter exactly as he understands it
now. But the truth about it is that this par
ticular act attracted very little attention, al
though the discussion itself undoubtedly at
tracted the attention of gentleman well
acquainted with and so well versed in such
subjects as the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
And to show that the discussion was in his
mind call his attention to a statement which
has already been quoted. 1t is true he was
talking in the preceding sentence about the
subsidiary coinage, but it is equally true that
he had the whole subject in his mind in the
discussion during which this bill was passed.
For he said at that time;
1t is impossible to retain the double standard The
values of gold and silver continually uctuate. You
cannot determine this year what will be the rela-
were 10 to l a short time ago; they are 16 to /
now.
Now, do not find any fault with the gentle
man from Pennsylvania because he has re-
ceived information on these various subjects.
do find little fault, however, that he should
boast of the necessity of having received so
much; that he should have stated to this House
that he had changed his mind upon all eco
nomical and financial subjects and then made
merit of the change. That man should
learn is an advantage not only to him but to
the world at large. But there is one thing that
1 do insist upon, that he shall not in any way
talk about the conduct as .'fendish" of gentle
men who have not been able to get his light.
Why in the world cannot q man get credit for
honesty when he is consistent as well as credit
for honesty when he is inconsistent? In short,
does all human virtue consist in wobbling?
MIR. Kelley. One moment, if you please.
Mr.. Reed. Certainly.
Mr.. Kelley. L do not know that any human
virtue consists in wobbling. was speaking of
Germany, and did not know that any gentle
man ON this floor had legislated for her: or
probably should have been more guarded in my
expression.
Mr.. Reed. The gentleman misunderstands
me. This was debate in Congress on bill in
Congress. The gentleman has already made
his explanation before to-day, and / make my
comments upon it.
Now come to the question of the demoneti-
zation of the trade-dollar or rather to the TAX
ing away from the trade-dollar its legal-tender
power.
Mr.. Kelley. wish to say to the gentleman
from Maine Mr.. Reed that mean no disre-
spect to him by now retiring from the CHAINS
ber. find myself in such condition that I
must seek repose; otherwise l should be very
glad to stay and listen to his argument
Mr.. Reed. When the trade-dollar was first
coined-and this is an undisputed fact-slver
was then in such condition that the amount
of silver put into the trade dollar was worth
one hundred and four cents Consequently
by law which is as immutable as the law of
the attraction of gravitation, it could not crcu-
late in this country and our bullion-holders,
desirous of finding market for their bullion,
asked the United States to put their stamp ON
q certain amount of their silver, and then they
could export it so stamped to China and to the
East generally Accordingly that was done.
But in the law, by some mystery or other
and by mystery" l mean simply that do not
know how; that is all, and that is about the
size of most of the mysteries there are here
it was made legal tender to the extent Of $5;
but it was discovered upon the fall of silver
shortly afterward that these trade-dollars were
coming back. Then, when, the matter was
fresh in everybody's mind, the legal-tender
clause was repealed so as to prevent this silver
which was coined simply for export purposes,
from becoming part of the currency of the
country and driving gold out or perhaps L
should not say driving gold out, for / believe
we had not much then.
Well, now, let me give the particulars Let
us see what were the names of these" "conspira-
tors who perpetrated the trade-dolar "trick."
In the first place, on the Sth day of May, 1876,
Hon. Samuel j. Randall, of Pennsylvania, irs
troduced into the House bill the third section
of which repealed the legal-tender quality of
these coins Well, whatever faults the gentle
man from Pennsylvania may possibly have, no
DOuy ever aCCuSeu MN OF DelIS COnSplratOr.
He is certainly straightforward in all his ac-
tions. He brought the bill into the House,
and it was then reported-by whom? Why,
by my friend from New York, Mr.. Cox!] And
it was passed by this House without a single
dissenting vote, and at time when people un-
derstood just what it meant. Now, it does not
seem to me there is any trick about that.
Well, sir, having cleared the subject as I
hope, in some slight degree, do not desire to
magnify my efforts in that direction, but hav-
ing indicated way in which mems minds may
be cleared to some slight extent from the eff
fects of prejudice, let us see what the question
is for us to-day. People differ on the question
whether it produces a more safe standard TO
have it bimetallic or monometallic. Into that
dispute do not propose to enter In my iudg-
ment the opinion of the world after having
been in favor of monometalism is now swing
ing the other way. Men are changing the:r
opinions upon the subject, as to which is the
best standard, double or a single one.
What have to say desire to say entirely
upon the basis of double standard. 1 want to
eonfine my remarks to that. l want to place
myself at the outset on the basis of double
standard, for the purpose of this argument, re-
serving to myself the right to change my mind
in consequence of any future wisdom l may
acquire, like the gentleman from Pennsyva-
mia, from communion with the saints and