318 



CONGRESS, U. S. 



eminent up to this hour, and I find that this 

 bill differs from all of them in several essential 

 particulars. Every other law authorizing the 

 issue of Treasury notes provided that they 

 should bear some rate of interest, whereas 

 these are to bear none ; that they should be 

 payable at a fixed time prescribed in the note, 

 whereas these are only to be payable at the 

 pleasure of the United States; that the notes 

 thereby authorized should be receivable in 

 payment of public debts only by those who 

 were willing to receive them at par, while 

 these notes are to be received by every public 

 creditor who is not willing to forfeit his right 

 to payment at all. These notes are to be made 

 lawful money, and a legal tender in discharge 

 of all pecuniary obligations, either by the 

 Government or by individuals, a characteristic 

 which has never been given to any note of the 

 United States or any note of the Bank of the 

 United States by any law ever passed. Not 

 only, sir, was such a law never passed, but 

 such a law was never voted on, never proposed, 

 never introduced, never recommended by any 

 Department of the Government ; the measure 

 was never seriously entertained in debate in 

 either branch of Congress. 



" The feature of this bill which first strikes 

 every thinking man, even in these days of nov- 

 elties, is the proposition that these notes shall 

 be made a legal tender in discharge of all pecu- 

 niary obligations, as well those which have ac- 

 crued in virtue of contracts already made as 

 those which are yet to accrue in pursuance of 

 contracts which shall hereafter be made. Do 

 gentlemen appreciate the full import and mean- 

 ing of that clause ? Do they realize the full 

 extent to which it will carry them? Every 

 contract for the payment of money is in legal 

 contemplation a contract for the payment of 

 gold and silver coin. That is the measure of 

 the obligation of the one party, and of the right 

 of the other. 



" The provisions of this bill contemplate im- 

 pairing the obligation of every contract of that 

 kind, and disturbing the basis upon which every 

 judgment and decree and verdict has been en- 

 tered. It proposes to say to a party who has 

 entered into a contract, 'You shall be dis- 

 charged from the obligations of that contract 

 by doing something else than that which you 

 have agreed to do.' It proposes to say to every 

 party with whom a contract has been made, 

 ' Though you are entitled to demand one thing, 

 you shall, perforce, remain satisfied with the 

 doing of another.' It proposes to say, 'Al- 

 though you have agreed to pay gold and silver, 

 you shall be discharged upon the payment of 

 these notes ; although you are entitled to de- 

 mand gold and silver, you shall rest content 

 with the reception of this paper.' It proposes, 

 in one word, to release the one party from the 

 obligation of his contract, and to divest the 

 other party of the right which has been vested 

 in him by that contract. Sir, I am sure I need 

 only state the proposition to shock the mind of 



the legal profession of the country, so thor- 

 oughly has it been imbued with the idea of the 

 sanctity of the obligation of contracts by those 

 who have taught it the beneficent maxims of 

 constitutional law. 



" As for the rest, this bill provides that it 

 shall be illegal to make a contract for dealing 

 in gold and silver coin ; or, to state it more ex- 

 actly, it provides that whatever executory con- 

 tracts parties may make concerning the gold and 

 silver coin of the country, they shall be dis- 

 charged upon the performance of another and 

 different duty by the delivery of an equivalent 

 number of dollars in these notes. Where, sir, 

 does Congress get this power? Where is the 

 grant to be found ? One would suppose that a 

 power like that a power which involves the 

 impairing of the obligations of such a vast class 

 of contracts, which proposes to disturb vested 

 rights to such an immense extent would be 

 worthy of a place in the express grants of the 

 Constitution. 



" Sir, it seems to me that if the language of 

 the Constitution, and the weight of authority 

 can settle any proposition, it is that Congress 

 has not the power to do that which it is pro- 

 posed shall be done by the provisions of this 

 bill." 



Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts, stated that the 

 financial plan of the Government embraced 

 three measures : " The first of these measures 

 is the one now before the House, by which the 

 Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to issue 

 United States notes, not to exceed $150,000,000 

 in amount (including those authorized by pre- 

 vious laws), of denominations not less than five 

 dollars. They are not to bear interest, but are 

 to be issued and received as money, convertible, 

 at the option of the holder, into six per cent, 

 stock of the United States, the principal and 

 interest being payable either here or abroad ; 

 and these notes are to be a legal tender. 



" The second measure consists of a tax bill, 

 which shall, with the tariff on imports, insure 

 an annual revenue of at least $150,000,000. 



" The third is a national banking law. which 

 will require the deposit of United States stock 

 as security for the bank notes that are circu- 

 lated as currency." 



Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, opposed the bill, 

 saying: "The subject of issuing $150,000,000 

 of paper currency and making it a legal tender 

 by the Government at a single bound the pre- 

 cursor, as I fear, of a prolific brood of promises, 

 no one of which is to be redeemed in the con- 

 stitutional standard of the country could not 

 but arrest my attention ; and, having strong con- 

 victions of the impolicy of the measure, I should 

 feel that I utterly failed to discharge my duty 

 if I did not attempt to find a stronger prop for 

 our country to lean upon than this bill a meas- 

 ure not blessed by one sound precedent, and 

 damned by all." 



Mr. R. Conkling, of New York, argued 

 against the necessity for the measure, and, al- 

 luding to the power conferred by the Constitu- 



