Birmingham state herald. (Birmingham, Ala.) 1895-1897, 1896-04-08
So, He HAS BEEN READING
The Governor Pores Over the
Federal Statutes
Thai RELATE TO COINAGE
Wherein the State Herald Was Right and
Wherein He Says 1t Was Wrong-ln-
teresting Communication.
Thai RELATE TO COINAGE

Montgomery, April 7.--(Special) -Gov-
ernor Oates hands the following interest
ing communication to the correspondent
of the State Herald:
To the State Herald:
In the issue of your paper of the 18th
ultimo you very kindly published letter
which l had written to the Mobile Reg
lister, with as favorable comments there
on as l could possibly have expected I'M
der the circumstances, and for which
am very grateful. But in your issue of
the 18th ultimo, two days later, you pub
lished an editorial under the caption, "A
Manifest Error" in which you quoted
from my letter the declaration that
law for the free and unlimited coinage
of silver at the ratio of 16 to 1 would be
new and untried experiment in this
country. We have never had law all-
thorizng the free and unlimited coinage
of silver" You stated that lit is always
well enough to be accurate in these little
matters, and we feel that we have done
our honored governor a service in calling
his attention to a discrepancy between
his statement and the United States
statutes" | do thank you for calling
my attention thereto, for it has caused
me to examine the statutes much more
closely than l had previously done, and
now, while much time has elapsed in con-
sequence of constant official duties |
will ask a brief space in your columns
to set the matter right; for while you are
partly right, you are also partly wrong,
which is likewise true in regard to my
statement We are seeking the truth of
history. You quoted correctly from the
first statute upon the subject (of 1899
that persons might take gold and silver
bullion to the mint and have 1t coined
free of expense; but you did not quote
from the proviso of said statute, which
declared that the bullion might be ex-
changed for coins of the same value, with
deduction of " percentum from the
weight of the pure gold or pure silver
contained in said bullion as an indemni-
fication to the mint for the time that
would necessarily be required for coming
the said bullion, and for the alloy and
the toughening which shall have been
done in moulding the coins. And in an
other section of said act making appro-
priations for operating the minis the
language is used: and carrying the bus
mess thereof over and above the sum
which may be received by reason of the
rate percentum for coinage, hereinafter
mentioned, shall be betrayed from the
treasury of the United States" etc.
The practice of the mints under this
act, which was acceptable to the depos-
itors rather than to wait an indefinite
time for the coinage of their bullion, was
to make exchange, with the deduction of
" per cent, which constituted the fund
used In defraying expenses above re-
ferred to. Knowing that this was the
practice under that act, never had made
a close examination of the letter of the
statute, but supposed that the N per
cent" was regular charge. l concede
you are right about that, according to
the letter of the law. The statute did not
require 1t, but 1t was paid with sufficient
uniformity as to constitute a fund In aid
of the appropriation, and could therefore
scarcely be called free coinage.
1tt i0fn no a n
1873 that 1.-The gold and silver bullion
brought to the mint for coinage shall be
received and coined for the benefit of the
depositor," and that "the only subjects
of charge by the mints to the depositor
shall be the following" and then specify
for refining, toughening and for copper
used in the alloy and separating the sill
yer and gold when mixed together, for
which the charges should be made by the
director of the mint with the concurrence
of the secretary Of the treasury, to cover
the expenses of the mint, ETC. This state
ment which you made shows upon the
face of it that the depostor was required
to pay practically all the expense of
coming his bullion, Notwithstanding 1t
was called free.
You then continue in your article to
say: This was the law in substance
the same as the act of 1892 until 1T was
repealed by the act of February IL, 1873"
Now, this is "a manifest error" on your
look at the act of congress of February
o. 1853 section of which provides:
There shall be a charge to the depostor,
in addition to the charge now made for
refining and parting the metals, of one
half of / percentum." So you see the
coinage of the metals did not remain
free until the act of 1873, as you stated.
Then you stated in your article that UNI
der this law there was coined free of ex-
pense to the depositor of silver bullion
8,031, 1888 standard silver dollars and over
$100,000,0 900 of subsidiary silver coins
which were full legal tender and full
weight until debased and demonetized
by the act of February IL, 1873"
So you see from your manifest error"
shown above you ran into another one,
for while you correctly stated the num-
Der (S,O31 ,238) of standard silver
dollars coined during the exist
ence of the government-up to
1873-for period of twenty
years, part of them were coined after
the act of 1858 and paid mintage there
for. Your statement of the number of
is correct, but your further statement
that over $100, 600, 900 of subsidiary silver
coins were full legal tender and of full
weight until debased and demonetized
by the act of 1878" is untrue. Many years
before that act was passed, to-wit Feb
ruary q, 1853, the amount of silver in
our subsidiary coins, to-wit halves,
quarters and dimes, was reduced to a
ratio slightly below 10 to /, so as to pre-
vent their expectation in any event and
to keep them in this country That made
a difference in their weight and their le-
gal tender quality was then limited to