142 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



one party to a contract could not of its own 

 mere motion, by any act of its own, change the 

 character of the obligation, its nature, and its 

 extent, how can it be claimed that that act has 

 affected the right of the holder of the bonds? 

 Was it intended to increase the weight of the 

 obligation ? Was it intended to add a new term 

 to the nature of the contract ? It is not to the 

 purpose, as I have already had occasion to say 

 in another connection, that gold was in fact 

 the only circulating medium since 1873, any 

 more than prior to that act it makes any dif- 

 ference in the nature and extent of the obliga- 

 tion of the contract that no silver coins were 

 in circulation." 



Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, said: "The Sena- 

 tor from Ohio set out with the idea that we 

 had the right, the legal right, the equitable 

 right, to pay our public debt in silver. Sir, it 

 must be known to that Senator as well as to 

 all others that we have not coined silver for 

 forty years for any circulation except as mi- 

 nor coinage. All the silver dollars that we 

 have coined have been for exportation ; none 

 of them to speak of have gone into circulation, 

 and none of them have been paid out or re- 

 ceived by the United States, and the whole 

 amount that we have coined annually for forty 

 years will not exceed about $160,000 per an- 

 num. During all this time we have been in 

 receipt of gold for our customs duties gold and 

 nothing else ; and every dollar of that gold has 

 been pledged for the payment of the interest 

 and the redemption of the principal of the 

 public debt. Now, can it be possible equitably, 

 after we have made a pledge of the revenues 

 collected exclusively in gold, that we can now 

 say that a debt contracted under such circum- 

 stances may be paid in anything else than that 

 which has been received by the Government 

 for duties? Let me read what has once already 

 been read, but I desire to have it emphasized 

 again before the Senate. 



"By the act of February 25, 1862, in the 

 fifth section, it is provided : 



That all duties on imported goods shall be paid in 

 coin 



" And then it goes on further and sets coin 

 apart as follows : 



First. To the payment in coin of the interest on 

 the bonds and notes of the United States. 



Second. To the purchase or payment of 1 per cent, 

 of the entire debt of theUnited States,to be made with- 

 in each fiscal year after the 1st day July, 1862, which 

 is to be set iipart as a sinking fund, and the interest 

 of which shall in like manner be applied to the pur- 

 chase or payment of the public debt, as the Secretary 

 of the Treasury shall from time to time direct. 



" If that pledge of the honor of the Govern- 

 ment shall be carried out, this whole debt will 

 be extinguished in a very short time and after 

 the manner there prescribed. 



"I desire to call attention to another act, 

 passed July 14, 1870, whereby it was provided 

 that the Secretary of the Treasury should re- 

 ceive gold coin for certificates, and should pay 



it out on the public debt, or a part of it, what- 

 ever was reserved beyond a sufficient amount 

 to pay the calls which might be made by hold- 

 ers of the certificates. I will not take time to 

 read it. 



"Now, Mr. President, it does seem to me that 

 the public faith has been pledged in relation to 

 this subject. Our Secretaries of the Treasury, 

 the only authorized agents of our Government, 

 have given assurance according to this inter- 

 pretation of the law, and their acts have never 

 been repudiated. They have given their pledges 

 in relation to this matter, and the Government 

 has profited by those pledges. 



"Mr. President, we passed here at a critical 

 period of our history an amendment to the 

 Constitution in these words : 



The validity of the public debt of the United 

 States, authorized by law, including debts incurred 

 for payment of pensions and bounties for services in 

 suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be 

 questioned. 



" I must say that that amendment of the Con- 

 stitution was adopted through some apprehen- 

 sion of the representatives that might be re- 

 turned here from the States lately in rebellion. 

 It was not intended to apply to the heresies of 

 Ohio ; and yet I am forced to read it upon this 

 occasion, and in this hour of conciliation and 

 reconciliation, when gentlemen have come back 

 here and are rebaptized to their faith in the 

 Union, to appeal to some of them for a patriotic 

 endeavor to support the honor of the country. 

 I say I appeal to them as against the Senator 

 from Ohio. 



"The Senator from Ohio intimated that the 

 law of 1869 was passed for the purpose of 

 doing away with the heresy about paying the 

 debt in paper. Did he and those who then 

 I will not include him, for I believe he was 

 not included in that category but did those 

 who were then opposed to paying the public 

 debt in paper reserve their forces in order that 

 it might be paid in something cheaper, six or 

 seven per cent, less than the value of paper ? " 



Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, said : " Mr. Presi- 

 dent, it seems to me that no more severe or 

 bitter commentary upon the outcome of the 

 management of the finances of this nation, foi 

 the past twelve years, could be made than is 

 contained in the preamble and resolution upon 

 which we are now asked to vote: a severe 

 commentary indeed upon the management of 

 that party which, having complete control of 

 every branch of the Federal Government, yet 

 now, in view of all their legislation for the past 

 sixteen years, sends in, as a reconnoitering ad- 

 vance, this resolution, embodying, as it does, 

 the ominous and alarming question whether a 

 certain proposed act of Congress, of which this 

 resolution is the harbinger, and which has al- 

 ready been resolved upon elsewhere, and lies 

 printed on our table ready to follow on the 

 heels of this discussion, is or is not an act of 

 national dishonor, or, to use the precise words 

 of the resolution, whether it is not ' in viola- 



