The Philipsburg mail. [volume] (Philipsburg, Mont.) 1887-current, 1893-10-19
URGING 4 DECISION
Senator Morgan, of Alabama
Determined Upon 1t.
THE SILVER BRICK CASE IN COURT
The senator Is confident OF Il De-
cislon in Favor Of the White
Metai-Hf SO the Law Of 1897
WIN Then BE Practically .
Restored with Prosperity.

1t appears that Senator Morgan Of
Alabama is determined to have decision
upon the point raised by him some days
ago. 1t will be remembered that he made
the bold statement that the monometal
lists are afraid of decision by the Su-
preme court in the case of Marritt ct al.vs
Foster, involving the question of the right
of holders of silver bullion to deposit the
same for coinage under the old law of
1887. Since Morgan mentioned the matter
in his speech last week several of the
gold-standard Senators have sneered at
the proposition, and we are also informed
that the case is not in a position to be
brought on for hearing. Nevertheless, as
we say, Senator Morgan seems to be anx1-
GUS to force the subject upon the atten-
ton of the Senate, and if we may judge
by his brief remarks the other day he is
not afraid Of the result. On Wednesday
he offered a resolution instructing the
Judiciary Committee to report what pro-
Visions if any, of the coinage act of 1897
are now in force.
Oddly enough this is not the first time
that the Identical question has come up
in the senate. And those who are curl
GUS may be interested in the fact that as
early as 1873 the senate by decisive
vote refused to declare that the free coin
age provisions of the act of 1887 have
been repealed.
In the month of January, 1878, Senator
Stanley Mathews of Ohio offered a pre-
amble and resolution declaring IN effect
that whereas at the time of the issue of
the then outstanding bonds of the Unit
ed States, such bonds were by law made
payable at the option of the Government
in either gold Or silver coin, that the res
toration of the silver dollar of 4l215
grains as legal tender for all such bonds,
principal and interest, was not a viola
tion of public faith nor in derogation of
the rights of public creditors.
This resolution was debated for sever
al days and was bitterly opposed by the
gold-standard senators, but was finally
passed by a vote Of ~ ayes to 20 noes.
During the consideration Of this resolu-
tion Senator Edmunds, who was oppos-
ing 1t, Offered an amendment to the pre-
amble in the following words:
And whereas, by the provisions of the
coinage act of 1887, passed on the 18th
of February of that year, and of the Re-
vlsed Statutes, which took effect on the
LIST day of December of that year, all
provis'o Of the law authorizing the
coinage of such silver dollars were re-
pea]ed.
This amendment was offered just be-
fore Matthews preamble and resolution
we're finally acted upon and Matthews
was disposed to accept the amendment,
saying that it did not affect his PROPOSE
tion. But Senator Thurman of Ohio OBJ
jected. 81 am not prepared now,' SAID he,
''to vote that the coinage act Of 1878 and
the Revised Statutes, either singly or to-
gether, did repeal every act which pro-
vlded for the coinage Of the silver dollar"
Edmundsinsisted, and argued upon the
effect Of the repeating clause of this Re-
vised Statutes. but Thurman was obsti-
nato and the question came to vote,
Edlnunds declaratory amendment was
thereupon defeated by a vote Of 3S noes
to . ayes, eighteen senators not voting.
Il will thus be seen that Senator Nor.
gan has the authority Of the senate for
asserting that there is at least serious
question as to whether the free coinage
act OF 1887 has in fact been repealed.