The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-04-01

disgrace. 1t excites disgust. And
many besides tie government officers
who are handicapped by IL, and those
who suffer from it think that
tt is about time for Congress to
begin acting in a manner in keeping
with the dignity of great nation.
The bill or the House
BANKING AND CURRENCY
committee providing for the issue OF
fractional currency in denominations of
fifteen, twenty-five and fifty cents On
the basis that silver certificates are now
issued, has passed the House by vote
of IT'S to 81, despite the opposition OF
Mr.. Randall. Mr.. Cox and other leaa
ing members. Their opposition 10 the
bill was based chiefly on the grounds
that there was no demand for the pur-
posed new issue; that it would tend to
drive out silver, and that il would re
mutilated currency very bit to carry the
germ of contagious diseases about wit.
it. Those who voted for the bill
did so because they held that
there was q very great demand
for it, because it would provide
very convenient form of money for
those who received or sent small sums
by mail. In fact, they claimed that the
fractional currency was necessity On
general principles. The vote by which
the bill passed would indicate that
good deal of what it's adberents
claimed for it was true. Whether it
will pass the Senate or not is question
the answer to which there is nothing
tangible to base a prediction upon, as
the Senate finance committee has not
yet given the subject the slightest
consideration. The general impress
sion is that it may be amended,
but that it will get through
both houses much i'll the shape that 1t
was passed by the House of Represent
atives. The HERALD correspondent
called yesterday
AT THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT
and got some facts which show that
while new issue of fractional currency
would doubtless be convenience to the
publlc,lt would also prove a loss t. those
who handled and corresponding gain
to the government which issued it.
Experience with the old fractional
currency shows this. Its issue was
stopped February 18th, 1876, and more
OF 1t mas been issued since. All of it
that has come in any way into tue
hands Of the Treasury or its branches
has been redeemed and destroyed and
yet S15, SO, 902 of it is now outstanding.
1t Is certainly not in circulation. for
specimens of it command a premium
among i collectors. Heretofore the
Treasury has estimated that of the
original issue about $8,375 1884 was either
lot or destroyed; but Treasurer HYATT
thinks now that the amount SO lost
Or destroyed is much larger than that
figure. He thinks 1t is pretty near
Sl5 ,O00,OOO, basing his opinion upon
THE YEARLY DECREASE IN THE AMOUNT
of it which is presented for redemption.
That amount has rapidly dropped
since the issue was stopped-from over
$14.OO0,QOO to but little more
will make is much
between the amount issued and the
amount presented for redemption. And
as so good an authority as
the Treasurer of The United
States thinks that the diff rance
mentiODed will be ABOUT $4,000, 600, it is
easy to see what q good thing the gov
eminent has of it when it issues frac-
tional currency. OF course, the care
Iessness Of people in handling small
sums of money is the reason why the
government cen profit so largely by its
issue.
THE BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY,
despite the recent decision of the Su-
preme Court in its favor, is not yet out
Of legal tolls. 1t has been generally
supposed, inasmuch as the decision de-
ivered by Justice Blstchford. dismissed |
he claim of so many litigants who held |
that the speaking telephone was theirs |
Oy priority OF invention and not Bells
that the go eminent would diseon- |
sinue its suits against the company |
which now has a monopoly of the tel.
3phone bust, esq. Such is not the case
however. Solicitor General jerks has
had charge of the governments side in
the telephone litigation ever since the
United States went into it. He was
asked by THE HERALD correspondent if |
It was true that he would now abandon
The suit. He replied that it was not.
The case, he said, would be pushed to a |
inal decision before the Supreme
Court on its merits. He further said
hat the impression that
THE RECENT DECISION
If the Supreme Court covered the
1oints involved IN the governments
'ase Vas entirely erroneous. The
court, he said, decided only the partic-
liar cases of certain claimants against
he Bell Company in favor of that
The case of the United
states is entirely different from that of
ither OF the litigants who have been
inally disposed Of. 1t is not special
ase at all. 1t has nothing to
10 with the claim Of any
,erson or company, but is general in its
haracter. 1t was instituted to test
Thether the Bell Telephone Company
vas entitled under the law to its patents
n general principles, not that any
PARTICULAR person is entitled to such a
atent. The principle Of
THE GOVERNMENTS CASE
J not, therefore, involved in the
uprene Courts decision, and there
orn II will he nrOsecuted without anv