The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-05-27

the preservation Of our government. To
provide national currency is no greater
exercise OF paternalism than IL is to exc
cute any of the powers which / have
enumerated. l would maintain all the
rights of the states, the rights which are
guaranteed to them by the constitution,
aud which they reserved to themselves
when the constitution was established,
but deny the right 10 furnish the people
Of another state with circulating me
dium, or TO issue notes Of any kind
intended TO circulate as money in any
part of the country"
Mr.. Grow, rep, of Pennsylvania, was
also against any state bank system. II
we should 20 back to the old system, he
said, the best of us who handle money
could not tell a good bank note from
counterfeit. One state bank could not be
compelled to take the notes Of another
state bank. The first crisis that came in
the state bank system would Overwhelm
its profits Why go backl Why attempt
the old systeml
LAWSON SPEAKS FOR REPEAL.
Mr.. Lawson, dem, of Georgia, spoke in
favor of unconditional repeal. Coin. he
contended was the only solid banking
system on which the issue OF notes could
be founded, and he held that such power
as that of the national banks was too
great ana too vast 10 be allowed for the
power that controlled money also con
trolled trade and commerce. The state
banking system would provide a national
currency possessing the confidence of the
people OF the entire union. 1t had
been found most useful in the past
Daniel Webster had approved H.,
and the speaker would set his
name against that Of the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr.. Springer. Any business
connection between banks and the gov
ernment was always detrimental 10 the
latter. II was in the power of the ma
tonal banks to destroy the stability Of
the treasury, for the treasury was no
more than banking institution He
could see but one way out of the difficulty
let the government cut loose from the
banks and issue notes on the basis of coin
only. Why should not the people have
the benefit of their money? Why
should they submit to the insolent
and intoerant dictatorship of organ
lied captal2 OF course, It should
be done without bloodshed but
it should be done. The government
should cut loosef from the banke. Let ii
coin gold and silver-that was its duty
to the people. Mr.. Lawson said that
private banking corporations were
sounder to-day than national banks.
state banks were democratic and useful,
and this was shown by the declaration of
the Democratic party in its national plat
form. How could a loyal democrat
escape voting for the mensure2 He be-
lieved in local self-government and for
that reason he preferred state banks.
Discussing the constitutional features of
the question, Mr.. Lawson maintained
that the tax was a clear violation of the
constitution and should be annulled. He
also held that all the con
gested capital should be brought
out--that it was the purpose Of
the legislation before the House to let
loose all this vast amount for the benefit
Of the people. He averred that the
national banks were an offshoot of pro
lection. They were protected on the
plea that they secured the depositors
from loss just as manufacturers were
protected on the plea Of helping the coun-
try's prosperity. They were of the same
class; they belonged to the same brood.
The demand for national money In home
and foreign commerce would prevent its
extinction, while the state banks would
assist in its diffusion.
At the conclusion OF Mr.. Lawson's
speech the committee rose, and the House
adjourned until Monday.