"Sec. 18. _And be it further enacted_, That no coins, either gold,
silver, or minor coinage, shall hereafter be issued from the mint
other than those of the denominations, standards, and weights herein
set forth."
Special attention was called to the dropping out of the silver
dollar, both by Secretary Boutwell and Mr. Knox, and the opinion
of experts was invited and given on this special matter and
communicated to Congress. These sections, in the three years that
the bill was pending in Congress, were changed either in the House
or Senate in only one or two unimportant particulars.
Accompanying the report of Mr. Knox were the statements of Robert
Patterson, of Philadelphia, confessedly one of the ablest scientists
and metallists in the United States, in favor of dropping from our
coinage the silver dollar. Dr. Linderman, the director of the
mint, made the same recommendation. In the report accompanying
the introduction of the bill, under date of April 25, 1870,
Comptroller Knox gives the history of the silver dollar and the
reasons for its discontinuance as follows:
"The dollar unit, as money of account, was established by the act
of Congress April 2, 1792, and the same act provides for the coinage
of a silver dollar, 'of the value of a Spanish milled or pillar
dollar, as the same is now current.' The silver dollar was first
coined in 1794, weighing 416 grains, of which 371¼ grains were pure
silver, the fineness being 892.4. The act of January 18, 1837,
reduces the standard weight to 412½ grains, but increases the
fineness to 900, the quantity of pure silver remaining 371¼ grains
as before, and at these rates it is still coined in limited
amounts."
He then says:
"The coinage of the silver dollar piece, the history of which is
here given, is discontinued in the proposed bill. It is, by existing
law, the dollar unit, and assuming the value of gold to be fifteen
and one-half times that of silver, being about the mean ratio for
the past six years, is worth in gold a premium of about three per
cent. (its value being 103.12) and intrinsically more than seven
per cent. premium in our other silver coin, its value thus being
107.42. The present laws consequently authorize both a gold dollar
unit and a silver dollar unit, differing from each other in intrinsic
value. The present gold dollar piece is made the dollar unit in
the proposed bill, and the silver dollar piece is discontinued.
If, however, such a coin is authorized, it should be issued only
as a commercial dollar, not as a standard unit of account, and of
the exact value of the Mexican dollar, which is the favorite for
circulation in China and Japan and other oriental countries.
"Note.--Assuming the value of gold to be fifteen and one-half times
that of silver, the French 5-franc piece is worth about 96½ cents
(96.4784); the standard Mexican dollar 104.90, our silver dollar
piece 103.12, and two of our half-dollar pieces 96 cents."
The finance committee carefully examined the bill. We were not in
any hurry about it. It was sent to us in April, 1870, and was
printed and sent, by order of the Senate, to everyone who desired
to read it or look over it.
That committee was composed of Messrs. Sherman, Williams, Cattell,
Morrill, Warner, Fenton and Bayard.
The bill was reported unanimously to the Senate December 19, 1870,
after lying in the committee room for eight months.
The dollar was dropped from the coins in the bill framed in the
treasury department. It was then an unknown coin. Although I was
quite active in business which brought under my eye different forms
of money, I do not remember at that time ever to have seen a silver
dollar. Probably if it had been mentioned to the committee and
discussed it would have been thought, as a matter of course, scarcely
worthy of inquiry. If it was known at all, it was known as a coin
for the foreign market.
No one proposed to reissue it. The Pacific coast had six intelligent,
able, and competent Senators on the floor of the Senate. They
would have carefully looked out for the interest of silver, if the
bill affected them injuriously. The authority given in the bill
as it finally passed for coining the so-called trade dollar, met
all the demands of the silver producing states. But the silver
dollar at that time was worth more than the gold dollar. California
and Nevada were on the gold standard.
The bill was printed over and over again, finally reported, and
brought before the Senate. It was debated there for three days.
Every Senator from the Pacific coast spoke upon the measure.
Representing the committee, I presented the questions as they
occurred from time to time, until finally we differed quite seriously
upon the question of a charge for the coinage of gold. The only
yea and nay vote in the Senate on the passage of that bill, after
two days debate, occurred on the 10th of January, 1871. Those who
voted in favor of the bill were Messrs. Bayard, Boreman, Brownlow,
Casserly, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Davis, Gilbert, Hamlin, Harlan,
Jewett, Johnston, Kellogg, McCreary, Morton, Nye, Patterson, Pomeroy,
Pool, Ramsey, Rice, Saulsbury, Spencer, Stewart, Stockton, Sumner,
Thurman, Tipton, Trumbull, Vickers, Warner, Willey, Williams, Wilson
and Yates--36.
Every one of the six members of the Pacific coast voted for the
bill after full debate.
Against this bill were Messrs. Abbott, Ames, Anthony, Buckingham,
Carpenter, Chandler, Fenton, Hamiliton, of Texas, Harris, Howell,
Morrill, of Vermont, Pratt, Scott and Sherman--14.
So on the only yea and nay vote which was ever taken upon the bill
I voted against it. It was not on account of demonetizing the
silver dollar. I did not do it because of that, but I did it
because gold was then only coined for the benefit of private
depositors; we were not using gold except for limited purposes.
Gold was the standard in California, and we thought the people of
that state ought to continue to pay the old and reasonable rate
for coinage of one-fifth of one cent to the dollar. No action was
taken on the bill in the House of Representatives, and it failed
to pass during that Congress. At the beginning of the next Congress
the bill was introduced by Wm. D. Kelley, and reported by him
favorably to the House of Representatives. It gave rise to
considerable debate, especially the section defining the silver
coins. No one proposed to restore the old silver dollar, but the
House inserted a coin precisely the equivalent of five francs, or
two half dollars of our subsidiary coin, and this franc dollar, as
it was called, was made, like other subsidiary coins, a legal tender
only for five dollars. On the 9th of April, 1872, Mr. Hooper,
having charge of the bill, called especial attention to the dropping
of the old dollar and the substitution of the French dollar. He
said, on April 9, 1872:
"Section 16 re-enacts the provisions of existing laws defining the
silver coins and their weights, respectively, except in relation
to the silver dollar, which is reduced in weight from 412½ to 384
grains; thus making it a subsidiary coin in harmony with the silver
coins of less denomination, to secure its concurrent circulation
with them. The silver dollar of 412½ grains, by reason of its
bullion and intrinsic value being greater than its nominal value,
long since ceased to be a coin of circulation, and is melted by
manufacturers of silverware. It does not circulate now in commercial
transactions with any country, and the convenience of those
manufacturers, in this respect, can better be met by supplying
small stamped bars of the same standard, avoiding the useless
expense of coining the dollar for that purpose. The coinage of
the half dime is discontinued for the reason that its place is
supplied by the copper nickel five-cent piece, of which a large
issue has been made, and which, by the provisions of the act
authorizing its issue, is redeemable in United States currency."
When the bill was sent to the Senate it, in compliance with the
memorial of the legislature of the State of California, inserted
in place of the French dollar, of 384 grains of standard silver,
a dollar containing 420 grains of standard silver, called the "trade
dollar." This was urged upon the ground that, as the Mexican dollar
contained 416 grains, or 3½ grains more than the old silver dollar,
it had an advantage in trade with China and Japan over our dollar,
and that a coin containing a few grains more than the Mexican dollar
would give our people the benefit of this use for silver. This
dollar was, in conference, agreed to by the House, but was a legal
tender for only five dollars. On final action on that bill, the
conferees on the part of the Senate were Messrs. Sherman, Scott
and Bayard. The amendment of the Senate adopting the trade dollar
was agreed to by the House, and the bill passed in both Houses
without a division.
There never was a bill proposed in the Congress of the United States
which was so publicly and openly presented and agitated. I know
of no bill in my experience which was printed, as this was, thirteen
times, in order to invite attention to it. I know no bill which
was freer than any immoral or wrong influence than this act of 1873.
During the pendency of this bill, the Senators and Representatives
from the Pacific coast were in favor of the single standard of gold
alone. This was repeatedly shown during the debates, but now they
complain that the silver dollar was demonetized, and that, though
present, taking the most active interest in the consideration of
the bill, they did not observe that the silver dollar was dropped
from the coinage. The public records are conclusive against this
pretense. Mr. Stewart, Senator from Nevada, and all the Senators
from the Pacific coast, who took an active part in the debate on
the bill, must have known of the dropping of the silver dollar from
the coinage. It appears from the "Congressional Record" that, on
the 11th of February, 1874, Mr. Stewart said:
"I want the standard gold, and no paper money not redeemable in
gold; no paper money the value of which is not ascertained; no
paper money that will organize a gold board to speculate in it."
Again, only a few days after this, on the 20th of February, when
he was speaking in favor of the resolution, instructing the committee
on finance to report a bill providing for the convertibility of
treasury notes into gold coin of five per cent. bonds, he said:
"By this process we shall come to a specie basis, and when the
laboring man receives a dollar it will have the purchasing power
of a dollar, and he will not be called upon to do what is impossible
for him or the producing classes to do, figure upon the exchanges,
figure upon the fluctuations, figure upon the gambling in New York;
but he will know what his money is worth. Gold is the universal
standard of the world. Everybody knows what a dollar in gold is
worth."
To review the history of the act of 1873: It was framed in the
treasury department after a thorough examination by experts,
transmitted to both Houses of Congress, thoroughly examined and
debated during four consecutive sessions, with information called
for by the House of Representatives, printed thirteen times by
order and broadly circulated, and many amendments were proposed,
but no material changes were made in the coinage clause from the
beginning to the end of the controversy. It added the French dollar
for a time, but that was superseded by the trade dollar, and neither
was made a legal tender but for five dollars. It passed the Senate
on the 10th of January, 1871--36 yeas and 14 nays--every Senator
from the Pacific coast voting for it.
It was introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Kelley,
at the next session. It was debated, scrutinized, and passed
unanimously, dropping the silver dollar, as directly stated by Mr.
Hooper. It was reported, debated, amended, and passed by the Senate
unanimously. In every stage of the bill, and every print, the
dollar of 412½ grains was prohibited, and the single gold standard
recognized, proclaimed, and understood. It was not until silver
was a cheaper dollar that anyone demanded it, and then it was to
take advantage of a creditor.
It has always been within the power of Congress to correct this
error, if error was made; but Congress has refused over and over
again to do it. When the controversy arose, in 1878, on the Bland
bill, and the House of Representatives proposed the free coinage
of silver, the Senate rejected it after a deliberate contest, and
substituted in place of it what is called the Bland-Allison act,
which required the purchase, by the government, of silver bullion
at its market value, and its coinage to a limited amount. Every
effort has been made, from that time to this, to have the Congress
of the United States pass a free coinage act.
If this is done, it will be to secure a cheaper dollar of less
purchasing power, with the view to enable debtors to pay debts,
contracted on the basis of gold coin, with silver coins, worth,
with free coinage, less than one-half of gold coins.
In reviewing, at this distance of time, the legislation of 1873,
in respect to the coinage of silver, I am of the opinion that it
was fortunate that the United States then dropped the coinage of
the old silver dollar. No one then contemplated the enormous yield
of silver from the mines, and the resulting fall in the market
value of silver, but, acting upon the experience of the past, that
a parity between silver and gold could not be maintained at any
fixed value, Congress adopted gold as the standard of value, and
coined silver as a subsidiary coin, to be received and maintained
at a parity with gold, but only a legal tender for small sums.
This was the principle adopted in the act of 1853, when silver was
more valuable than gold at the legal ratio. Silver was not then
coined into dollars, because it was then worth more as bullion than
as coin. It was needed for change, and, under the law of 1853, it
was furnished in abundance. Similar laws are now in force in all
countries where gold is the sole standard. Under these laws, a
larger amount of silver is employed as subsidiary coins than when
the coinage of silver was free.
The same condition of coinage now exists in the United States.
While silver is reduced in market value nearly one-half, silver
coins are maintained at par with gold at the old ratio, by fiat of
the government. It is true that the purchase of silver, under
recent laws, involved a heavy loss to the government, but the free
coinage of silver, under the ratio of sixteen to one, would exclude
gold from our currency, detach the United States from the monetary
standard of all the chief commercial nations of the world, and
change all existing contracts between individuals and with the
government. In view of these results, certain to come from the
free coinage of silver, I am convinced that until some international
arrangement can be made, the present system of coinage should
continue in force. This has now became a political, or, rather a
monetary question, to be decided sooner or later, by popular opinion,
at the polls. This subject will be further discussed at a later
period, when efforts were made to adopt the free coinage of silver
at the old ratio.
Prior to the meeting of Congress in December, 1870, a controversy
had arisen between Senator Sumner and Secretary Fish, which created
serious embarrassment, and I think had a very injurious influence
during that and succeeding sessions of Congress. Mr. Sumner had
long been chairman of the committee on foreign relations, and no
doubt exercised a domineering power in this branch of the public
service. Mr. Fish and Mr. Sumner had differed widely in respect
to the annexation of San Domingo and certain diplomatic appointments
and former treaties, among them the highly important English
negotiations for the settlement of claims growing out of the war.
On these topics the President and Mr. Sumner could not agree. Mr.
Sumner insisted that the hasty proclamation by Great Britain of
neutrality between the United States and the Southern Confederacy
was the gravamen of the Alabama claims. The President and Mr. Fish
contended that this proclamation was an act of which we could not
complain, except as an indication of an unfriendly spirit by Great
Britain, and that the true basis of the Alabama claims was that
Great Britain, after proclaiming neutrality, did not enforce it,
but allowed her subjects to build cruisers, and man, arm and use
them, under cover of the rebel flag, to the destruction of our
commercial navy.
This difference of opinion between the President and Mr. Sumner
led to the removal of John L. Motley, our minister to England, who
sided with Sumner, and unquestionably intensified the feeling that
had arisen from the San Domingo treaty.
As to that treaty it was a conceded fact that before the President
had become publicly committed to it he had, waiving his official
rank, sought the advice and counsel of Mr. Sumner, and was evidently
misled as to Mr. Sumner's views on this subject. The subsequent
debating, in both open and executive session, led to Mr. Sumner's
taking the most extreme and active opposition to the treaty, in
which he arraigned with great severity the conduct of the naval
officers, the Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Fish and the President.
This was aggravated by alleged public conversations with Mr. Sumner
by "interviewers," in which the motives of the President and others
were impugned.
In the meantime, social relations between the Secretary of State
and Mr. Sumner had become impossible; and--considering human passion,
prejudice and feeling--anything like frank and confidential
communication between the President and Mr. Sumner was out of the
question.
A majority of the Republican Senators sided with the President. We
generally agreed that it was a false-pretended neutrality, and not
a too hasty proclamation of neutrality, that gave us an unquestionable
right to demand indemnity from Great Britain for the depredations
of the Alabama and other English cruisers. And as for the San
Domingo treaty, a large majority of Republican Senators had voted
for it--though I did not; and nearly all of us had voted for the
commission of inquiry of which Mr. Wade was the chief member.
When we met in March, it was known that both these important subjects
would necessarily be referred to the committee on foreign relations,
and that, aside from the hostile personal relations of Mr. Sumner
and the Secretary of State, he did not, and could not, and would
not, represent the views of a majority of his Republican colleagues
in the Senate, and that a majority of his committee agreed with
him. Committees are and ought to be organized to represent the
body, giving a majority of the members to the prevailing opinion,
but fairly representing the views of the minority. It has been
the custom in the Senate to allow each party to choose its own
representatives in each committee, and in proportion to its numbers.
In the Republican conference the first question that arose was as
to Mr. Sumner. He was the oldest Senator in consecutive service.
He was eminent not only as a faithful representative of Republican
principles, but as especially qualified to be chairman of our
foreign relations. He had long held that position, and it was not
usual in the Senate to change the committees, but to follow the
rule of seniority, placing Senators of the majority party in the
order of their coming into the Senate and those of the minority at
the foot of the list.
In deciding Mr. Sumner's case, in view of the facts I have stated,
two plans were urged;
First--To place him at the head of the new and important committee
of privileges and elections, leaving the rest of the committee on
foreign relations to stand in the precise order it had been, with
one vacancy to be filled in harmony with the majority.
Second--To leave Mr. Sumner to stand in his old place as chairman,
and to make a change in the body of the committee by transferring
one of its members to another committee, and fill the vacancy by a
Senator in harmony with the majority.
My own opinion was that the latter course was the most polite and
just; but the majority decided, after full consideration and debate,
upon the first alternative.
Simon Cameron was next to Mr. Sumner on the list of Republican
members of the committee, and, by uniform usage, became its
chairman.
This affair created feeling in the Senate which it is difficult
now to realize, but it was decided in a Republican caucus, in which
there was an honest difference of opinion. We foresaw, whichever
way it should be decided, that it would create--and it did create
--bad feeling among Senators, which existed as long as Mr. Sumner
lived. I think it proper to make this statement of my own views
at the time, though by the happening of great events this incident
has almost passed out of memory.
Mr. Sumner died in Washington, March 11, 1874. He was distinguished
for his literary attainments, and his strong opposition to the
institution of slavery and his severe arraignment of it. The brutal
attack made upon him by Preston S. Brooks created profound sympathy
for him.