The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-05-01
rhnt .crime- OF 1879.


three years. and was given very careful
consideration"
The reply OF the Constitution TO its
correspondent is hardly Of a kind 10 sat
isfy an earnest seeker for the truth. II
doesn't say whether the act was before
congress for three years or not, or
whether il was very carefully considered
II says the best reply 10 the inquiry is
10 give a few OF the documents in the
case" And what are the documents IL
gives? Why. the speeches OF a lot Of
silverites who. for some reason or other.
discovered. years after the act Of 1873
wss passed.. that they had assisted in
doing something that. in all probability.
was displeasing to some Of their constit-
uents. Extracts are given from a speech
Of Judge Kelley of Pennsylvania delivered
ia 1879. OF Judge Holman of Indiana. de-
livered in 1876. Of Mr.. Bright Of Tennes-
sec. the date OF whose speech is not
given. Of Senator Allison. in 1878, Of
Senator Beck in 1878, of Mr.
Thurman. and an alleged letter of Pres
ident Grant, who signed the act Of 1873.
The Constitution says there is plenty
more EVIDENCE Of the same sort OF
course there is. But what is it worth?
The thought that suggests itself is
this: why didn't the Constitution go for
its authority to the record of congress
sionai proceedings of the years that the
act of 1873 was before congress? Is not
that record the best evidence Is il not
the only evidence that would be received
i'm a court? The Interpretation that men
may place upon congressional proceed
ings is not the best evidence Of the nature
Of those proceedings. particularly if the
interpreters are not in sympathy with
the outcome of them.
And what does the congressional record
show respecting the act of 1873? Does 1t
show there was any fraud or mystery
connected with II? 1t certainly does not.
Would it not be exceedingly strange
If an act of such importance. after
having been before congress for three
years, could be passed without the sena-
tors and representatives knowing the
purpOrt of it?
Here are the facts as collected from
the record by the Louisville Courier
Journal:
The bill was entitled an Act revising
and amending the laws relative 10 the
minis, ASSAY offices and coinage Of the
United States" The title shows that IL
was intended to make alterations In the
amending" The original bill was prepar-
ed under the supervision of John Jay
Knox, controller of the currency, ana
sent to John Sherman, chairman OF the
committee of finance of the Senate, on
April IS 1870, referred to the finance COM
mittee and 500 additional copies ordered
printed. The report of Mr.. Knox calls
special attention to the discontlnuance
Of the silver dollar. not in the text Of the
report, but in a sub-head printed IN large
type.
that a substitute for the printed bill was
adopted. 1t Is true, as the bill was be-
fore congress nearly three years, various
changes were made in II from time 10
time. But the essential fact is that az no
time did the bill contain any provision
for coming a dollar of il2le grains, nor
"A silver dollar that should be full legal
tender. At no time during the three years
was II ever proposed by anybody in con-
gress to make the silver dollar legal
tender for more than 81. The bill
when first introduced dropped the sill
yer dollar entirely. In that shape II
passed the Senate Jan. 3 1871 Mr.. stew
slope voting for il, and Messrs. Sherman
and Morrill, voting against 1t, because
it provided for the free coinage of gold.
In this shape II went to the House ana
was printed on motion of Mr.. Kelley,
who, on Feb. %, 1871, reported 1t with
amendments in the nature OF substi-
tute, when it was again printed and re-
committed. On March of the same year
a new congress having come in, Mr.. KEEL
ley again introduced the bill, and it was
again printed and referred.
on Jan 8, 1872 Mr.. Kelley reported
the bill with a recommendation that il
pass. He was chairman of the commit
tee on coinage. Though he afterward
claimed that the silver dollar was drop
ped without his knowledge on this occa-
sion he said that the committee had gone
over the bill not only section by section
it twice, dropped the silver dollar entire
ly. On Jan. 10 the bill was recommt-
this time by Mr.. Samuel Hooper Of the
coinage committee, and was printed and
recommtted. On Feb. 10 it was
reported back and again printed. One of
these amendments provided for coming
a dollar of 1884 grains equal in weight to
two half dollars, and making ii a legal
tender to the amount Of five dollars
When the bill came up for discussion
April 2. 1872 Mr.. Hooper explained it in
ten-column speech, in which he said
they had reduced the silver dollar to 3S4
grains, thus making 1t "a subsidiary coin
in harmony with the silver coins of less
denomination" AS a reason for this he
said the silver dollar of ll21a grains would
not circulate, but was melted by man
ufacturers of silverware. Mr.. Kelley
made a speech in which he declared that
il was impossible to maintain the double
standard. He also said:
IAN experience has shown that you
must have one standard coin which shall
be legal tender for all others, and then
you may promote your domestic conven-
fence by having a subsidiary coinage of
silver which shall circulate in all parts
of your country as legal tender for
limited amount and be redeemable at its
face value by your government. But sir,
! again call the attention of the House
to the fact that the gentlemen who OPP
pose this bill insist upon maintaining a
silver dollar worth 31e cents more than
the gold dollar and worth cents more
than two half dollars. and that so long
as these provisions remain you cannot
keep silver coin in the country
And yet Mr.. Kelley was one of the wit
nesses to prove that the silver dollar was
surreptifiously dropped from the coinage
On May q, 1872 the bill was called up
by Mr.. Hooper, who offered a substitute
which was agreed TO, and the bill as
amended passed on that day by yeas 1lO
nays 13. Mr.. Hoopers substitute made no
change in the sections relating to the sill
yer dollar.
on May %. 1872, the bill was presented
in the Senate and referred to the finance
COMMITTEES, II was reported back Deem
her l6 1872. with amendments. debated
and ordered printed in full with amend
ments. On January Z 1872, 1t was again
reported with amendments. and again
printed. The debate on it occupied nine
teen columns of the Congressional Globe
on January H. it passed the Senate II
was sent back to the House and again
printed with amendments One of the
Senate amendments substituted the trade
dollar of 400 grains for the Stbsidio -