Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1896-09-24

that it was a mere revision OF the
mint laws, the only important change
being the creation Of a mint bureau
in the Treasury department.
1T was re.committed January 10,
and again reported with amendments,
February 8, 1S72-this time by the
Hon: Samuel Hooper Of Massachu-
sets. he stated that the bill reduced
the weight Of the silver dollar from
4125 grain to 1884, but he did not state
that it proposed, as it did, to demone-
tie silver by making the silver dollar
legsl.tender only in sums not to ex-
coed IS. Mr.. Clarkson Potter Of New
York, however, debated that provision,
which he objected to.as being ill.tlmed
and he also strongly objected to other
features Of the bill.
Pending debate the house adjourn
ed without action.
"The main object OF the bill, which
Mr.. Hooper had carefully concealed,
having been thus disclosed by Mr..
Potter, the measure was apparently
abandoned; but on May ~, following,
after it had slumbered nearly four
months, Mr.. Hooper, in the absence
of Mr.. Potter; again called it up for
the purpose Of moving a substitute.
This substitute was never read, Mr..
Hooper assuring the house that it had
been submitted to the different gen.
tlemen in the house who had taken
special interest in the bill, and that it
had met with universal appreciation
in the form In which he offered il.
This was equivalent to saying that il
no longer contained the provisions
objected to by Mr.. Potter. Mr..
Hooper answered every question con-
cernlng it, but no question was asked
or statement made as to the silver
dollar or the limitation of it's legal
tender quality to SIS. This statement
can easily be verified by the reference
to the Congressional Globe, part 5,
second session, forty-second congress,
pages 1882 and 1888 ~. -.......
= The bill then passed the house in
the substitute form under q suspen-
sion of the rules.
KELLEY KNEW NOT THE EFFECTS.
"Mr. Kelley Of Pennsylvania, who
introduced the bill, declared on the
floor of the house IN 1878 that, though
he was chairman of the committee on
coinage, he was ignorant Of the fact
that it would demonetize the silver
dollar Congressional Record, Vol,
Z, part 2, page 16O5). Mr.. Blaine, who
was speaker of the house when the
bill passed, declared on the floor of
the senate in 1873 that he did not
know anything that was in the bill at
alI,' and that little was known or
cared on the subject Same, page
1862. General Garfield declared
that he knew nothing about it. Con-
gressional Record, Vol. 7, part /,
page $780, Mr.. Holman of Indiana
declared that the passage OF the bill
through the house was "a colossal
swindle,' and never had the sanction
of the house, Congressional Rec
ord, Vol. A, part 6, appendix 1881.
Mr.. Cannon of Illinois said: Neither
members OF congress nor the people
understood" the scope of the legisla-
tIon.' Same, page 1867.
ut is evident from these declara-
tions that the house was led blind
folded into the passage Of the bill,
not only by the adriot manner in
which all mention of its main purpose
was avoided, but by Mr.. Hooper's
misleading assurance that it had been
90 changed as to meet all objections
that had been made.
I'm the senate the bill was taken up
for consideration on the 18th Of Jan
usry, 1873, and debated and passed
on that day. All the debate that was
ever had upon it in that body took
place on that date
"The bill, as, it passed the senate,
contrsdicts in plain terms some posi-
tive assertions made by Mr.. Sherman
during debate upon it, as TO the pro-
visions. it contained concerning the
standard silver dollar. It demonetiz-
ed silver, which he declared to the
senate-it did not. Mr.. Hooper bad
mlsled the house by omission, evss-
ions and indirections; Mr.. Sherman
deceived the senate by direct mis-
representations. This was the crime