CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



189 



time this debt was contracted. As I read to 

 the Senate the other evening from the report 

 of the Committee on Finance, the policy of 

 Congress in 1862 and 163 was, to reduce the 

 value of the paper currency issued by the Gov- 

 ernment so as that there should be an induce- 

 ment on the part of the persons holding that 

 currency to invest it in the bonds. Deprecia- 

 tion was then the policy of the Government 

 a depreciated currency made necessary, in the 

 language of the committee, by the fact that 

 the bonds would not sell under the act of Feb- 

 ruary 25, 1862. The depreciated currency 

 was the consideration the Government re- 

 ceived for its bonds, and that depreciation was 

 brought about upon a purpose and a policy. 

 To secure a sale of bonds then, the currency 

 was purposely depreciated; but when the 

 Government comes to assume and to provide 

 for its payment, then the opposite policy is to 

 be adopted and the currency is to be by spe- 

 cial legislation appreciated, or if it cannot be 

 appreciated, then that the bonds shall not be 

 paid until the Government can pay in gold. 

 Why this reversal of policy ? If it was right 

 that the Government should be paid for these 

 bonds in a currency purposely depreciated, 

 why is there an obligation that we shall pro- 

 vide for an appreciation of the currency when 

 the Government comes to redeem the bonds ? 

 I desire that there shall be an appreciation of 

 the currency ; but, as I said the other evening, 

 I look to that only through a restored pros- 

 perity in the business of the country." 



Mr. Morton, of Indiana, said : " Mr. Presi- 

 dent, I was a member of the committee of con- 

 ference, but I could not sign this report for the 

 reason that it would commit me to a construc- 

 tion of the law and the contract in regard to 

 the five-twenty bonds from which I have al- 

 ways dissented. I believe that under the law 

 the Government had as much right to pay 

 those bonds in legal-tender notes as it has to 

 pay any other debt, and that this declaration 

 is substantially a change of the contract, and 

 it is committing the Government to a payment 

 in coin which is not required by the original 

 contract. Therefore I cannot and will not 

 vote for it. 



" But, Mr. President, this report contains one 

 important statement which I would be very 

 glad to vote for if I could do so without voting 

 for the rest of it. It is, 'and the United 

 States _ also solemnly pledges its faith to make 

 provision at the earliest practicable period for 

 the redemption of the United States notes in 

 coin.' This I regard as a very important state- 

 ment upon the part of the conference com- 

 mittee. It prescribes the way by which the 

 Government shall return to specie payments, 

 and the Government solemnly pledges its faith 

 that it will make provision at the earliest prac- 

 ticable period for the redemption of the green- 

 back currency in coin. The Senator from Ver- 

 mont a little while ago asked a question of the 

 chairman of the committee, whether this would 



interfere with the funding of these notes. I 

 say unquestionably it will. If these notes can 

 be funded and disposed of in that way after 

 the passage of this bill, it would be a direct 

 violation of the solemn pledge that is here 

 given. What is the pledge that is given ? It 

 is a pledge given to the whole country that the 

 Government will make provision at the earliest 

 practicable moment not to fund these notes, 

 not to return to the old policy of contraction, 

 which has been condemned most solemnly by 

 Congress, but that it will make provision to 

 redeem these notes in coin. If this pledge is 

 treated as a nullity before it has even been 

 passed, we need not place much importance 

 upon it hereafter." 



Mr. Williams, of Oregon, said: "Now, the 

 simple question is, as to this part of the bill, 

 did the people of the country expect when 

 these bonds were issued, did those who sup- 

 ported the Government during the rebellion 

 and the men who gave their money to the 

 Government and took these bonds did they 

 expect that they would be paid in depreciated 

 paper ? Was it the general expectation of the 

 country that these bonds would be cancelled 

 by promises of the Government depreciated in 

 value, or was it the general understanding that 

 they would be paid in gold or its equivalent ? 

 Suppose you admit, for the sake of the argu- 

 ment, that they are payable in Treasury notes, 

 then the other conclusion necessarily follows 

 that these notes, when payment was to be 

 made, were to be worth their face in gold. 

 That was the general opinion on the subject at 

 the time the bonds were issued, and it is for 

 the purpose of carrying out that understand- 

 ing in good faith that this bill is enacted, and 

 I do not understand that in any respeat it 

 changes the nature or even the form of the 

 contract. It is simply a pledge on the part of 

 the Government that these bonds when they 

 are paid shall be paid in gold or its equivalent, 

 and that pledge is accompanied by another 

 that the Treasury notes shall also be paid in 

 gold ; so that all the obligations of the Govern- 

 ment, without any distinction, shall be so paid. 

 No preference is given to the bondholders by 

 this bill, none given to those who hold Treas- 

 ury notes of the Government ; but here is a 

 solemn pledge of this nation made at this time, 

 to be noticed by the whole world, that the 

 Government of the United States will redeem 

 all its promises, without distinction, in the 

 money that is recognized as such by the world. 

 This is the promise that is made, and this is all 

 thereisofit." 



" Now > sir, as to the second section, it is not 

 precisely in the form that I should desire .to 

 have it, but it was impossible to agree unless 

 this second section was incorporated in the re- 

 port as it was adopted by the House ; and, as 

 it is a piece of legislation which contains no 

 pledge or promise whatever to anybody, it 

 may, if it is found to be bad in operation, be 

 changed, by subsequent legislation. If this 



