The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1894-02-02
THAT BOND ISSUE.
The Secretary OF the Treasury Before the
House Judiciary COmmittee-He Gives
HIS Reasons for Issuing Bonds.


House Judiciary Committee-He Gives
HIS Reasons for Issuing Bonds.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 26.-For the first
time in this congress every member of
the Judiciary committee of the house
attended its meeting yesterday, the
magnet being Secretary Carlisles state
ment of his position on the bond issue.
The resolution of Representative Bal
ley, of Texas, declaring it to be the
sense of the house that the secretary
has no authority to apply the proceeds
of the bonds to any purpose but re-
sumption, was before the committee.
Mr.. Carlisle spoke in an informal
manner for an hour and half, and
was questioned by several members of
the committee. 1t was held by the
secretary that the law conferred upon
him the authority to issue bonds, al
though he stated frankly that until re-
Gently he had not entertained that
opinion of the question. Great pres
sure has been brought to bear upon
him, he said, for the bond issue,
and. although he regretted the me-
cessity for it, as the step did
not seem to meet the unanimous
approval of the party, yet it was plain
to him the necessity was imperative at
this time. A deficit of s4S, 900, 900 would
exist at the end of the fiscal year, he
estimated, under existing conditions,
or as result of proposed tariff legisla-
ton, unless congress gave relief to the
treasury, which he hoped it would do.
Representative Bailey asked Mr..
Carlisle whether he thought that I'M
der the law on which he based the
right to issue bonds he was empowered
to devote the proceeds to the expenses
of the government or to redeem notes
issued under the Sherman act. Mr..
Bailey explained he did not question
the right to sell bonds for resumption,
but did deny the proceeds could be ap-
piled to other ends.
The answer of Mr.. Carlisle was COM
prehensive and in the affirmative. He
explained that most of the appropria-
tions made by congress stipulated that
any money in the treasury mot other
wise appropriated" should be used for
carrying out the purpose of the act.
Under this the secretary said he could
expend for current expenses all the
money in the treasury whether or not
it was the proceeds of bonds. provided
only that it was not otherwise appro-
priated He had the power also, he
thought, to sell more bonds as he saw
the necessity, governed by his own dis
erection so long as the state of the treas
do, f<N
The leading question from the repub-
lican side was put by Mr.. Ray, of New
York, who asked: ''Mr. Secretary, /
desire to put this question, which you
can answer or not, as you think best
The resolution declares that the pro-
ceeds of the bonds proposed to be sold
can only be used by the secretary of
the treasury for the purposes declared
in the act of 1879, to-wit: Redemption
of United States notes. The question
is this: Suppose this committee thinks
that to be the law. do you think it wise,
advisable or expedient for the house of
representatives to so formally vote or
declare? Whether or not such declara-
ton would embarrass the treasury de-
partment and intensity the financial
strain now on the country?"
The reply was: 81 do not want to
tell this committee what to do. but l
can say it would embarrass the treas
ury department, although l hope it
will not become necessary to use any
OF the proceeds of the bonds sold for
the payment of the current expenses of
the government"
Mr.. Ray was the author of the mi
nority report signed by all the repub-
lican mem bers of the committee in the
Fifty-second congress, which sustained
the right of the secretary to issue bonds.
the democrats being at that time
opposed. Mr.. Ray holds to his former
position, but denies the proceeds of a
bond sale can be used for current ex-
penses. The other republicans of the
committee are thought to be with him.