The record-union., 1895-12-28
Marsh Rep.) of Illinois asked Dingley


treasury, owing to a deficiency of rev
enues. They will be used to take up and
pay off the interest bearing indebted
ness of the Government
Marsh-What is there IN this bill that
forbids the Treasury Department from
using them just as they have used them
for the last two and a half years?
Dingley-If the second section of the
bill becomes a law. the treasury can use
| only the proceeds of the certificates of
Indebtedness TO meet deficiencies in rev.
enue. OF course. it is the intention and
expectation that there shall be no de-
ficiency, that is not temporary in its
nature.
Speaking of the necessity or desira-
bility of the certificates of Indebtedness,
Dingley said there was no Government
on the face of the earth except that of
the United States which did not have on
its statute books a provision for the is
sue of exchequer bills which these
really were, TO meet accidental or tenn
porary deficiencies in it's revenues. No
more fatal policy, he said. could have
been devised than that which had been
followed since 1898, of allowing the gold
reserve to fall below the minimum of
one hundred millions.
Quigg (Rep) of New York asked
Dingley if he thought the passage of
the bill would result in maintaining the
gold reserve at any particular point.
Dingley replied that the effect would
be that when there was a run on the
| treasury the same policy that was pur-
sued up to 1890 would be pursued. The
greenbacks would be withheld tenn
porarily in the treasury, and in the
meantime such a condition of the mar
kets could be cultivated as to make the
greenbacks more desirable than gold
and the flow of the latter into the treas
ury be stimulated by the desire to Sc
cure the more convenient greenback in
| exchange.
In response to a further question from
Marsh regarding the comparative value
of long and short bonds, Dingley eX-
pressed the opinion that a 3 per cent
| bond would be taken by the people OF
this country with great avidity. In con-
clusion, he said the bill had nothing to
! do with the silver question. 1t pre-
| sented simply the proposition that IT
was better and wiser to issue ) per cent.
bonds than those of a higher rate of in
! tereSt and it contemplated return to
the conditions obtaining from 1879 to
| 1893, during which period the country
| enjoyed a high degree of prosperity
| Dingley was followed by Turner
| Dem) of Georgia in opposition to the
bill Turner challenged the statement
/! that the bill would require the treasury
department to open two accounts of
the proceeds of the sales of the obliga-
tions provided for. Nothing of the
kind was suggested, he said, and it con-
tanned nothing to prevent the Treas
urer using the proceeds of these sales
for any lawful purpose to which he
could devote them. The unfortunate
division in both parties respecting the
| financial system of the country. Turner
said, had done much to postpone and
prevent a settlement of the qestion on
sound basis. The benefits of such a
settlement he declared, would not be
confined to this country, but would eX-
tend to all the world. But it could be
settled, in his opinion, by the declara-
tion of a sound money doctrine as the
policy of the United States.
! The discussion was continued by GroS-
venor (Rep.) of Ohio, who said that his
support of the bill was influenced by
| the conditions that had preceded it's in
PRODUCTION. He said the action of Dem
ocratic officials had brought about the
necessity for its passage. He would
support the bill, even if its effect was to
rescue a Democratic administration
from shame and disgrace, for under
meath it lies my country the country
which the Republican party has saved
in war and in peace"
dem \ VIRGINIA fer
entering his protest against the meth
DDS of the majority in the considera
tion of the pending bill, said he calcu-
lated upon the basis of Secretary Car
isles figures, that there would be
| $160, 100000 of surplus in the treasury
three years hence, and that the pro-
| ceeds of sales of bonds under the bill
would be so much of an addition there
to. He opposed any such proposition,
and also any proposition to retire the
greenbacks, either directly or indi-
rectly.
Lacey Rep.) of Iowa said the bill
should be passed to obviate the possi
bility of another bond sale like that
which scandalized the country year
ago. The necessity for relieving the
treasury lay in the fact, Lacey urged,
that when it was i'll the whole body po-
little suffers. There had been sugges-
tions made, Lacey continued, that the
country wanted a rest. That, however,
was not the fact. What the people
needed was not rest but work, of which
they had been deprived since the Dem
ocratic administration came into
power.
Johnson (Rep.) of California created
! the sensation of the afternoon in his
speech, in which he said he would give
the reason why, as Republican, he
could not vote for this most iniquitous
measure"
This bill, in my judgment" he said,
stamps the seal of approval by the Re-
publican party upon the act of these
officers, and upon the issuance of these
bonds, in the manner | have stated. 1t
continues in force the laws which now
authorize the selling of bonds at per
cent. and > per cent, and in addition
gives authority to the treasury to issue
the bonds at 3 per cent. L am opposed
to this bill, because it contradicts all
the Republican platforms and all the
Republican Conventions and all the Re
publican speeches that 1 ever heard or
made or wrote upon the question Of
| finance.
Yesterday, against my will, against
my protest, l voted for a bill, which, in
my judgment, was unnecessary, which,
in my judgment, was not a Republican
measure, which, in my judgment, did
not meet the case, was not what We
were sent here to do, because I believe
that the verdict of the Nation in 1894
was that we should have a protective
tariff, not a tariff for revenue only;
hot Lno.n nlo of lSil1 ct q tlnn-