Press enter after choosing selection

The Currency Debate

The Currency Debate image
Parent Issue
Day
21
Month
January
Year
1876
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

From the Boston Post. Senator Morrill's advocacy of his bill for putting sensu and honesty into the comproniise Resumption bill of the last season, which passed through the Senate without debate and was driven through the House under the previous question, showed in its whole spirit a partisan desire to make capital for his own party by now pretending to be in liaste about resumption, when the existing Resumption law ought to have shown the same haste without any of this suppleineutary action. His foundation theory is that it would be better to sell or exchange thirty-year 4 or 4 1-2 per cent, bonds for legal tender notes than to exchange United States bonds for gold. He reoommends that all contracts be put upon a specie basis after January lst, 1878, unless otherwise specified. Boutwoll's " growing up " notion gets a deserved Hok from Mr. Morrill. The general discussion of the quostion by him introduced no new points to the attention, while it presentad very matiy which were urged bv Demócrata without the least effect upon Mr. Morrill's own party at the last session. For obvious reasons Senator Thurman opposed the hasty consideration of Mr. Morrill's propositions, but suggested that it be doforred until a more careful examination could be had of the reports of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the suggestions of the President's message and the Finance Committee. Ho very properly urged that, in place of three months of speech making, as was the experience during the long session of the last Congress, the Senate should give its attention to matte rs having a practical bearing and do nothing but what was characterized by good sense. It was useless, he held, to precipítate a debate at the present time. Against the rank partisan temper raanifested in the discussion of a purely financial question by the Senator from Vermont, the calm but vigorous protest of Senator Eaton, of Connecticut, is especially acceptable. He said, what we repeatedly said in these columns last year, that the great question of finance ought not to be made the football of parties. We declared again and again that it is not strictly an issue to bo decided by ballot, but by brains ; and for this some of the self-styled Independent papers stigmatized the Post as "softening" on the hard-money platform. Sonator Eaton has held the same ground before this criticism of Senator Morrill's spirit on the floor of the Senate. It is both practical ly and scientiffically correct. When Senator Eaton cited the agreement of Gludstone and Disraeli on a f}naQial policy, though they were opposed on every other, he was still met by Sonator Sherman, on behali of Senator Morrill, and the publican party in the Senate, with an ffer of parti8an patronage of the most offensive eharacter. Mr. Sherinan hould be the last man to talk in this omplacent style to the Dmocrats of ;he Senate when thoy suggost that finance is something very distinot froin artisanship. Hu cowerod hiuiself under the plain ijuestions of Senator ichun:, and rsfused to an?wr what the icsumption bill meant. Judge Thurman'g final reproduction of the bill RÜencod the wordine98 of Sberiuan and Vlorrill, and revived the true purposo of ;hoso who were engaged in its passage. Ie showed conclusively that it was passed as a strictly party moasure, with inteut to ontangle and embarrass tho Deniociats. And Senator Bayard followed with prooi' that the bill nioant nothing but a party coalition for party ends.

Article

Subjects
Old News
Michigan Argus