Union County courier. [volume] (Elk Point, Union County, D.T. [S.D.]) 187?-1913, 1895-08-01

10 AIOt p1A0t1u4s 0AAu UOAAAT VI Oo4
grains was provided for and put in the
list Of the Subsidiary coins, legal
tender Is only g. Afterward that
dollar was dropped entirely and the
trade dollar with more silver in It was
substituted. There was never any
secrecy about It"
In reply Harvey said: "When he
says In that letter that the trade dol
lar was substituted for the dollar that
omitted he is contradicted by the
record Of that day, from which / am
now reading and which Is on this
table before Mr.. Horr. There was no
substituting Of the trade dollar for
the dollar tor which I am contending.
] want you to show me where in any
recorded proceeding Of the debate in
the senate or house that dollOr was
struck out, and II you will show it
here this debate will STOP"
Referring to the record Harvey fol-
lowed the action Of the senate to prove
this, closing as follows: I'm other
words, by the record in the presiding
officers words, there was no amend
ment to section (16) Is, the silver dol
lar section to be considered, and it was
passed as itcame from the house sim
ply by being marked agreed to-"
Harvey then insisted that he was right
neutrality-suspicious. in conference COM
mittees, and that such committees
could not change anything agreed on
by both houses. He charged that
either mon ON the conference commit
tee OF some fraudulent clerk" had
stricken out the silver dollar. He
asked "the voters Of the republic to
read the congressional record Of Jan.
II, 1879, and see for themselves that It
Ia there expressed that the silver dol
lar was in the bill before It wa emas-
culated by the conference committee,
the silver dollar that was with the
trade dollar to have free access to the
mints. Thus the conspiracy succeeded
either BY . corrupt clerk or the two
men who made the report Of both"
Horr offered to give Mr.. Harvey his
time Il he would allow that the dis
puted dollar was given free coinage by
the bill rs It came from the house, and
Harvey said he had already shown it.
Horr replied: This new dollar that
as provided for in the bill in the
house as it went to the senate was Just
twice the size Of the half dollar. Now
the provision existed that the silver
for making such half dollars should be
bought by the government and that
the seigniorage arising from coming
such money, which was worth less
than 1t was worth on it's face, should
60 into the government treasury. Do
you believe they provided for q coin
containing double the amount Of
silver in the half dollar and agreed to
take all the silver that should come to
the mint and coin it into such dollars,
IL II wa coined into half dollars the
government should get it fthe seignor-
agel? Men wouldn't 60 and sell their
silver for the market price when the
very bill would permit them to have it
coined and give them q larger price for
It."
Horr then, after q review Of the
points upon which he and Harvey
agreed and differed, proposed to 60
into the question-the law being on
the statute books-Should it be re-
pesledf But Harvey said he wasn't
through with the decentralization act.
He quoted the Chicago Tribune Of Jan.
10, 1879, which only briefly mentioned
in its tele9raphic report the passage
Of the bill, Notwithstanding one Of the
money metals had been s4struCk down.
BY that bill. The reporters at Wash
ington did not know It. Horr denied
that the passage Of the law resulted
In curtailing the silver money in cir
culation in this country. He proposed
then to 60 into the question at ratio,
but Harvey said he had still some
thing more to say about the demoniti-
zation act.
Harvey quoted Thurman, Feb. Is,
1876, declaring he did not know the
bill demonetized the silver dollar;
COnkling admitted his ignorance of
the fact Mar. 80, 1876; and Allison de-
claring Feb. Is, 1873, that the bill had
been "doctored" and that it did not as
passed represent the intention of the
house.
Holman WAS quoted, July ID, 1876,
declaring that the matter OF tie bills
passage was "a collOsal swindler and
as it passed was certainly not read to
the house. Said Holman: II myself
asked the question Of Mi. Hooper, who
stood near where / am now standing,
whether it changed the law in regard
to coinage, and the answer Of Mr..
Hooper certainly left the impression
upon the whole house that the SUBJ
ject Of the coinage was not affected by
the bill"
Horr said: II desire to say to the
gentleman that just what one congress-
man Of another may have said about
this bill / neither know nor care. /
know this, that the men composing
the congress OF 1888 personally and
individually have every one Of them
denied the statement Of corruption
that you charge in the passage Of this
bill. / know that they have nothing
but inuendoes to base the charge
upon. / know that they cannot make
. case unless they first prove that no
decency a left in the American CON-
gress in 1873"
Horn then took up the question Of
rates, saying that Harvey might con-
tinue banging at that old hole" II he
SO desired. He referred to Del Mar,
of London, to show the variation Of
the ratio between silver and from the
beginning, showing that in the Archaic
epoch, the earliest record, the ratio
was / to l. In the Vedic period it was
! to4. Inthe Buddoic epoch it was /
to gu and SO on down to 1863 when it
had changed IA to !. He wanted Har-
vey to explain this, and why it q the