Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1900-02-01
TIE Two CURRENCY BILLS.


New York Evening Post, Dec. ESQ.
Aside from the refunding scheme,
the Senate currency bill. although IN.
ferior to the House bill, would estab.
lish the gold standard SO that 1t could
not be disturbed short of comIlete
change of the legislative and executive
branches OF the government. The
differences between tho two measures
are rather OF ADrm than substance.
Both bills dnclare or rather realiirm,
that the standard unit Of value is the
cold dollar of 25.S grains, nine-te nths
line. The House bill says that all
obligations for the payment Of money
shall be fulfilled in conformity with
that standard. The Senate bill says
that all forms of money issued or
coined by the Upited States shall he
maintained at parity OF value with
that s andard, and that the greenbacks
and Treasury notes Of 1880 shall be re.
deemed in gold coin of that standard.
Both bills provide ample means for
carrying these provisions into effect.
Both of them authorize the Secretary
OF the Treasury to sell bonds to re.
penish his gold reserve when neces.
sary, and both specify that said bonds
shall be payable. principal and interest,
in gold coin, and shall be exempt from
all taxation. So the only difference
between the two measures, aside from
the refunding scheme, is found in the
phraseology relating to the gold
standard, and this is not a difference
in legal intendment, but only in form,
We prefer the form OF the House bill
betause it is more sonorops and will
have better educating influence on
the public mind.
The Republican newspapers are
waking up to the fact that the re.
funding scheme Of the Senate currency
bill is bad measure per SO, and
dangerous in its political effects. The
Tribune had timid article against il
the other day, and the Philadelphia
Press now has bold one. The latter
eAposes the fallacious assumption Of
Senator Aldrich that the proposed new
2 per cent bonds, to run 30 years,
will remain at par in the market, so
that the government can buy them
without loss whenever it has surplus
funds. The Press shows that the exist.
ing bonds, which it is proposed to re.
fund, must fall to par very soon, be.
cause the day Of their maturity is near
at hand. The government will soon
have the right to pay them off. Elk.
perience shows that bonds which are
| in that category fall to par OF near it,
about one year before maturity, be.
cause the holders then put them IN the
market, in order to make new invest.
| ments. But in the case Of bond
| having 80 years to run, especially il
| the government is under the necessity
of buying it, premium is sure to
| arise, even il the rate of interest on it
is only 9 per cent. The Press thinks
| that the price of the 3Q-year per
cents would certainly go to l12, and
might reach l17ll2, under such circum.
stances.
What folly, then, for the government
| to pay bonus of SSS, 500, 173 now, in
order to acquire the privilege of buy.
ing back at premium, a few years
hence, bonds which will be redeemable
at par il allowed to run to maturity.
Such policy the Press calls
"fatuous. y 1t might BIZ SO described
il there were not design underneath
it. which has not yet been avowed.
That design is to keep the national
debt alive in the interest of the
national banks. There is perhaps
another and deeper design OF making
money for somebody by the conversion
| VI Tue ulu bOlub inlu DtW ObbS, lUlt
although the bill itself does not in its
terms allow any commission for The
exchange, it will be easily found by
the experienced men who do the bust.
ness. These men, like Mr.. james
Belden, lido not stir around for
nothing" There is u cash bonus Of
$4,000, 600 to be divided, and the bond
brokers will not fail to get their share.
| Leaving that feature out of view, how
ever, the question which tho case
presents to the public is whether it is
wise to have perpetual public debt in
order to furnish security for bank
notes." We say pei petual debt, ba'
cause at tho end Of the 30 years the
same reasons will exist for new eS-
tension that exist now. Can the Re-
publican rarty fairly meet the charge
that it Is putting a perpetual burden
on the taxpayers in this matter in
order to promote tho interests of the
banks?