The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1881-04-01
WASHINGTON. March 26. 1881,


The Senate session has been protract-
ed beyond expectation almost the only
legitimate business in that body is con-
firming or rejecting nominations sent
in by the President. The Senate is not
invested with legislative power when
the House is not in regular session.
One of the most perplexing questions
which the President has been called
upon to decide was the calling of an
extra session of Congress, chiefly for
the purpose of enacting a funding bill.
There were strong reasons urged in
favor of an extra session; also cogent
reasons why an extra session should
not be convened. Leading republicans
were divided in opinion. In view of
the nearly balanced state of parties in
Congress, there was no assurance that
such funding bill could be passed as
the administration would deem for the
interest OF the country. The democrats
were reticent in expressing opinions
for or against an extra session; they
were holding back in readiness to de-
nounce an extra session as u piece of
extravaganza and folly, if called; or if
not called, to charge the administra-
ton with neglecting the interests of
the people. President Garfield was
certain to incur an avalanch of censure
which ever way he should decide. Up
to this hour of writing the question of
an extra session has not been deter
mined. or at least no decision an
nouncpd.
WAR ON THE NATIONAL BANKs-wHY
THE FUNDING BILL FAILED.
Our democratic friends indulge in
the boast the veto of the funding bill
by the President will make political
capital for them. How this can be
made to work does not appear to most
minds. The republicans do not hold
themselves responsible for the acts of
the late President; sometimes they
have been in accord with his measures.
at other times not. A majority of the
democratic members of Congress had a
double object in the passage of fund
ing bill. One of their purposes they
did not conceal; they were determined
no funding bill should become a law
which did not cripple, or at least cur
tail the privileges of the national banks.
Hostility to the banks was manifest in
their debates on the funding bill.
There are facts in respect to our ma.
tional banking system which will not
be contradicted; it is the best and SAT-
est which has ever been established in
this country. The system provides for
the security of the bill holders, which
is one of the chief merits of banking
institution. Its superior excellence is.
that no bill holder has evANIost a cent
by the failure of a national bank. Dur
ing the financial embarrassment from
1875 to 1878, which resulted in so MANY
disastrous business failures, every bill
holder felt the utmost security. While
we have such safe system of bank
ing. why should there be persistent eff
forts to disturb it? It is alledged bv
the enemies of the national banks that
by the facilities afforded them they are
getting rich and gaining a controlling
power, endangering the liberties of the
people. In these times of business &C
tivities no doubt banks are making
profits; but there are probably manu-
featuring firms in Wisconsin which are
realizing larger gains on the capital in
vested than the banks.
It is we'll understood that the 5th
section of the funding bih was the
cause of its failure to become law.
BY this section the enemies of the ma
tional banks sought to force upon them
a new class of securities; in other
words, compel The banks TO purchase
the three per cent bonds as a basis for
banking. Had 1t not been for this sim
gular provision in the funding bill, it
would have become law. with little
or no opposition.