M'cleary On Money

Among the many able speeches on the jilver question that of Congressman MeCleary of Minnesota has had the widest circulation and has probably excrted more influence on public thought by the scope and accuracy of its opinión and the clearness of its logic than any othcr address in behalf of sound money. Numerous editions of this speech have been published and circulated in all parts of the country and there is still a demand for more co-pies. No serious attempt vas made by Mr. Bryan or any olher -f the free silver advocates to answer McCleary's logic or to dispute his facts. The following summary of the main points in this speech has been made by Mr. MeCleary himself at the request of the Republican national committee, in order to bring it within such compass as admits of its publication in tliia suüolement. The Question Stated. What is the silver question? Stated in its simplest form it is this: Shall we or shall we not perniit the owners of Bilver bullion to take it to the mints of the United States, have it converted into the forrn of coin at the rate of S7Vi grains of pure silver, or 412y2 grains standard silver (that is the 371% grains of pure silver with 41% grains of copper added to harden it, without any expense to the owners of the silver for coming, the coins made out of their silver to be handed back to them with full authority to use them in any quantity in the transaction of business or in the payment of debts? To this question a large number of good, well-intentioned, patriotic American citizens answer, Xea, while another increasingly large nuinber of good, honest, wcll-mtentioned, patriotic American citizena anRUI'l'. NO. What is the present situation? The owner of gold may take nis gold to the mint of the United States, have it converted into the form of coin withouí expense to him for the coining, at the rate of 23.22 grains of pure gold or 0.8 grains of standard gold to the dollar, and hamled back to him with the full authority to use the coins thus made in any quantity in the transaction of business or payment of debts. That is, the owner of gold has the privilege which the owner of silver seeks to have, but which under present laws is denied him. By this statement of the case it woulil r.ppear that the owner of gold is treated 1 ictter than the owner of silver. and it would seem at first glance as if this was jiot fair. But it is always well to pause bef o re making a charge of unfairness against good pcople, and see whether all of the truth has been stated. It has not. The owner of the gold when he goes to the mint says, "Uncle Sain, here are 232.2 grains of pure gold, worth $10 here or auywhere, worth $10 coined or uncoined. Will you be kmd enougli to certity that fact for me by putting your stamp upon it, by converting this gold into the form of coin?" And Unde Sam answers, "Why, certainly, my son, I am always glad to serve my children, when I can do so properly." On the other hand, the owner of the silver wants the privilege of going to the mint and saying something like this: "Unele Sam, here is a quantity of silver worth 53 cents, here or anywhere. Will you be kind enough to certify that it is worth 100 cents?" And Unele Sam makes answer: "Not if the court knows itself. Unele Sam is not in the habit of stating that which is not true, and he cannot begin now, even to accommodate so excellent a gentleman as you are." In other words, the owner of the gold asks simply that Unele Sam shall certify to an existing faet, while the owner of the silver asks the privilege of having Únele Saín certify to that which. is not a fact. "But," someone may say, "if the 3711). grains of pure silver are worth only 53 cents, why not put into the silver dollar enough silver to niake it worth 100 cents, and then. allow to the silver owner the same privilege that is accorded to the owner of the gold"?" This brings us to the nierits of the controversy. Uncle Sarn's answer, in view of the experience that he has hadj would still be, No. Before proceeding to give the exact reason why Uncle Sam would not, even if a dollar's worth of silver were offered to be eonyerted into the form of a dollar (that is if a quantity now worth a dollar were selected as the quantity to be permanently put into the dollar), let me stop and define a few of the technical terms used in this discussion. They are doubtless familiar to the large number of those who have honored me with their presence tonight, but in order that no one need fail to follow the discussion, I know that I will be pardoned if I pause a moment to define them. Our friends on the other side maintain six propositions in relation to silver coinage. They insist that it shall be, 1, f ree; 2, unlimited; 3, on private account: 4, at the ratio of 10 to 1: 5, bv the United States alone (without the aid or consent of any other nation on earth); 6, that the gilvèr coins thus made shall be full legal tender. Coinage may be "on private account" or it may be "on goyernment account." To use a familiar illustration, we all know that there are two classes of grist milis. One of these will reeeive wheat from its owner and eonvert it i'or him iuto flotir, handing back to him either flour made from Bis own wheat, or, if he does not choose to wait, flour made from some one's else wheat. Such a mili we cali a custom mili. It grinds for individuáis. On the other hand, there is a class of grist milis to whicli the individual cunnot take his wheat for grinding. The company owning the mili buys wheat and grinds it for its own benefit, selling the flour for its own profit. It declines to grind for individuáis. Sueh a mili we cali a merchant mili. Now, if the government will receive from individuals the metáis which belong to theru and will eonvert the metal into the form of coin, and hand the coins back to the owner of the metal. either thoso made out of the metal which has brought or an equivalent number made from metal previously brought (just as the owner of the custom mili deals with his customers), we say coinage is "on private account." But if the government, instead of receiving the metal to be coined on private account, buys the metal, thus becoming itself the owner, and coins it and owns the eoins mLde (as the merchant mili does in case or llour), then we say coinage is "on goverunient account." If the eoinage is on private account and the government makes no charge for its .services, we say that coinage is ♦freo." -- ïf the owners of the money metal mny briug it to the mint for eoinage in any quantity whatsoever, no matter how largo, we say that coinage is "unlimitcd." We have all heard amusing explanations of the meaning of the expressiou "16 to 1." If I were here merely to amuse you I should be tempted to detail Bome of these; but as we are here for i_4hft jQ]tf_iOBSidBraüon of _a_3erious qnestion, I shall rofrain. Tbe expression "16 to 1" simply means that there should be sixteen times as many grains of pure silver to the silver dollar as grains of gold to the gold dollar. The meaning of the expression "Independent action of the United States" ,is plain to all. The wisdom or unwisdoni of such action, I shall speak of later. To "tender" is to offer. Anything that may be offered. and which the law will compel the acceptance of in the discharge of a debt, is said to be "legal tender." Suppose that I owe our presiding officer $2 and offer Min this book in discharge of that debt. He is not compelled by law to accept the book for the debt; so we say, the book is not a legal tender. Neither are national banknotes. nor gold certificates, nor silver certificates. But I may offer him four 50-cent pieces, and he is bound by law to accept thern in payment of that debt. If I owe him $10 the law will coinpcl him to accept twenty 50-cent pieces in the discharge of that debt. But it will not compel him to accept any more of them than $10 worth. The fifty pieces have what we cali limitcd legal tender. If, however, I owe hjm $25 or $2500 or $1,000,000. or any suin whatsoever, I can Iawfully compel him to accept silver dollars in the discharge of that debt. So we say that silver dollars have "full legal tender." In other words, the silver dollars have now what the advocates of froe silver desire them to have, viz., full legal tender. They are as niuch "primary money" or "money of ultímate redemptiou" (to use oue of their pet phrases) as the law eau inake them, so we should have no controversy over that point. Now let me repeat the demands of the free-silver advocates, and, as I enumérate them. let each person interpret to himself the expressions used. The gentlemen on the other side of this eontroveray stand for the free nnd unliinited coinage of silver on private account, at the ratio of 16 to 1, by the United States alone, said coins to have full legal tender. The Change is Propos ed by the Silverites At present we have the coinage of gold on private account and coinage of silver on government account. This has been our system for many years. It is they, therefore, and not we, who propose a change. Changes are in themselves fraught with a certain aniount of danser. I see mothers in the audience. They will bear me out in saying that they never see a son or daughter, their husband or other loved one, go away froni the house to be gone a week or more, without a certain amount of anxiety. They know that in the change of food, of water, and of bedding, there is a certain element of danger. Any change which inay affect the welfare of a great nation should be taken with caution. It should be rery certain that the change will bring good and not harm. The burden of proof, therefore, rests upon the advocates of silver coinage ou private account to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the change which they propose from our present plan would very surely do the nation good and not harm. It will not be sufficient justification to reasonable rninds to say that the change may do no harm. A step so momentous, fraught with so many possibilities of danger, should rest on the firm foundation of certain and substantial good; otherwise it would not be prudent for us to make the change. Xheir Reasons Stated. What reasons do the advocates of this change offer to justify it? I asked a gentleman recently why he favored the free coiuage of süver. His answer was, "For the simple reasou that bankers and merchants and well-to-do people generally are against it." I could not help thinking that his answer was a very "simple" one, too simple to be worthy of an intelligent man, so simple as to mark him as a simpleton. And yet there are a great many people who can give no better rcason than this. But if you ask a good, level-headed free-silver man, why he favors the proposition, he will teil you that is it "because we need more money," and that free silver coinage will give it to us. He reasons this way: "If both metala may be coined oa private account, both will be coined; and this will give us more money, better prices and better timos." This course of reasoning is so natural that I do not wonder that many people, of good intelligence, even, have followed it and believed it to be trup. But the fundamental proposition in it is wrong, and all the propositions built thereon fall, thcrefore, to the ground. I shall endeavor to show that, strange as it may seera, if both metáis inay be comed on private account, only one of them will be coined and circulated as money; and that the result of f ree coinage (using this term to cover all the points above mcutioned) would be a contraction and not au expansión of the currency, and that the eirect upon business would be biul and nut good. It might be suffieient juwtiSéation of my position to point to the countries wliosc mints are open to the coinage of both metáis on private account at a fixed ratio. In every such country the volume of money is small, and the standard of living is low. But as a roasonable people we naturally ask, "Why is this so, and is it inevitable?" This brings us to the foundation principies upou which the whole contentioa rests. Some Fuiidameuial Principios. Mighty as is the American Congress, there is a Lawmaker infinitely more powerful; a Lawtnaker whose decrees, like himself, are from eTerlasting to everlasting, the same yesterday, today, and forever. His decrees no liumau Jegislature can abrógate or change. The part of wisdom for us is modestly to study them and implicitly to obey them. This is the wisdom whose ways are "ways of pleasantness," and whose paths are "paths of peace." One of His decrees, written in every human heart, constitute a part of human nature, is that whieh prompts a man to dispose of anything of valué where he gets the best price for it. If he has access to two markets equaliy convenient, he will naturally choose that in whieh he gets the best returns. To show how small a difference in price will determine a choice of markets, let us take, for eiample, the case of a man who has 10,000 pounds of wool to dispose of. By the way, I never come up to this illustration without thinking of an Irish friend of mine living near Winona, Minn. He recently took his wool to markct. and as he looked at the proceeds of the sale (whieh lie could easily hokl in the hollow of his hand) he remarked, with a sad sort of smile on his face, "They told me in "J2 to rote for free wool, and, begorra, I have come mighty close to it!" Suppose that a man liaving 10,000 poumls of wool to dispose of liyes midway between two markets, six miles from each, with the roads equallj good, and the other conditions equal. How small a difference in priee will determine him to select one market rather than the otlier? 'Would it take a cent a pound? That would make a difference of $100. A quarter of a cent a pound would make a difference of $25. Onetwentieth of a cent a pound would make a difference of $5, and one-fortieth of a cent a pound would be a difference of $2.50. Now, as there are only fivt loads in 10,000 pounds, that would be a difference of 50 cents a load, enough to buy his dinner and feed his team at the barn. So one-fortieth of a cent a pound would be ampie to determine his choice of the two markets. The men who have gold and silver to dispose of are human beings, just like the rest of us, prompted by the same motives, animated by the same ambitions. They, too, will dispose of their gold and their silver where it will pay thenl best to do so. Gold and silver are used for other things beside money. Out of gold we make rings, watch cases, jewelry and articles of a thousand kinds. Similarly with silver. The man who makes these articles of gold and silver must buy the metal out of which they are made. So, with the mints open to the coinage of both. gold and silver on private account, a man having either gold or silver to dispose of would have the choice of taking it to the mint or Belling it in the market; and which of them he would do would be determined by the single consideration, which would pay him best? The test of a theory is practice. Fortuuately we do not have to wonder what the result of having gold and silver coined on private account at a iixed ratio would. Jje. The experiment has been tried, tried repeatedly, tried in the United States, in Gerinany, ia France, in England, the Scandinavian countries; in fact, in every civilized country in the world. And some countries are trying it now. The result has always been the same, and we may rest assured that it always will be, because it rests on two everlasting principies. The Act of 1708. Let us briefly review the coinage history of our owu country. Our country declared its independence in 1776. For thirteen years it tried a number of governmental experiments, with results that were disastrous. At .the end of that time the country changed its policy to that of the constitution under which we are now living. Before 1789 each state had the power to coin money. and to declare legal tender anything that it chose. Profiting by bitter experience, our fathers, in framing our constitution, forbade the states to coin money, and speeifically gave that power to the United States. The power is given without limitation. The constitution expressly says: "Congress shall have the power to coin money," and the constitution iinposes no limitation npon that power. Pursuant to this authority, Congress in 1792 established the United States mint. The President, Gen. Washington, had selected Thomas Jefferson as his secretary of state, Alexander Hamilton as his secretary of the treasury and he had other distinguished gentlemen in his cabinet as his trusted advisers. One of the first questions to engage attention was "What shiill be the unit of Should it be that of the mother country, the pound sterling?" To this the ansiver was, No, the reason being that each pound was divided into twenty shillinga. each shilling iuto twelve penïe, ;md each penny into f our farthings, as the result of which computation was difficult. It was determined to adopt a new unit, of conveuient size, and one reasonably familiar to the people. The dollar was selected as the unit, and its divisions were made on a decimal scale, the dollar being divided into ten equal parts called dimes, each. dime into ten e.nual purts callucl cents, each cent into equal parts called milis. This made computatiou easy. The next questiou was, "What shall the dollar be made of? How big shall it be?" Lookiug around, tho men charged with the ánawering of these questions, found in cireulation arnoug the people the oíd Spauish dollar made of silver. They took a number of these, weighed them, divided that weight by the number of coins, and found the average weight to be 371% grains of pure silver. This quantity of pure silver was adopted for the dollar of silver. It was determined also to coin gold on private account. It then beeame a question, "What shal! the ratio be?" To determine this, those wise old fathers of ours studiéd the markets of the world. They did not assume to díctate what the ratio should be, nor endoavor to make the world adopt the ratio that they had seleeted. Perhaps they were not very patriotie American citizens, but among them was Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the declaration of independice, and George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Gen. Knox, whose swords flashed in the snnlight to achieve that independenee. We have always been under the impression that they had a high regard for American independence, vet thpy thonght it wise to study the 'markets of the world in determining thiB question of the relative value of gold and silver, and to govern themselves accordingly. Fixing the Ratio In 193. Having studied the markets of the world. they concludtd that in those markets an ounce of gold was worth as inuch as fifteen ounces of silver. So they estaulished as the coinage ratio, fifteen to one. Since the silver dollar, already selected, was fixed at 371% grains, all they had to do to determine the quantity ot pure gold to the dollar, was to divide SVi by 1The result is 24% grains. And so the mints were opened to the comage of both metáis at the rate of 371% grains of pure silver or 24;ii graine of pure gold to the dollar. It should be noted that they put exactly one dollar's worth of silver into the silver dollar, and a dollar's worth of gold into the gold dollar. In other words, they tried the experiment then, which sonïe good people would like to have tried aga in. Uncle Sam was simply called upon to teil the truth, to stamp upon the metal the value of which it possessed, whether coined or uncoined. They hoped, those good fathers of ours, that, since the man having gold and the man having silver had the privilege of bringing them to the mint, both would come to the mint for coinage. It séemed a very reasanable hope, and yet they were disappointed. At the time the ratio was fixed, it was a true ratio, but within a year it ceased to be the true ratio, and has never been true since then. Owing to the discovery of a great silver mine, the value of silver began from that time slightly to fall. By the year 1800, an óuiiee of gold was worth in the market 15.6a ounces oí snver. Now let us see what a man having gold to dispose of at that time would naturally do. He would reason with himself somewhat like this: "If I take my gold to the mint, every ounce of it will be treated as egual to fifteen ounces of silver; but if I take it to the market and sell it as bullion, every ounce of my gold is as valuable as 15.68 ounces of silver. Clearly it would pay me better to sell it as bullion, than to have it eoined into money." Which would you have done under those circumstances? You would have taken your gold to the market and not to the mint. And this is precisely what history tells us that the men of those days did do. On the other hand, a man having silver to dispose of, would reason with himself somewhat like this: "If I take my silver to the mint, it will require only fifteen ounces of it to be equivalent to an ounce of gold; but if I take it to the market it will require 15.68 ounces of silver to be equal in value to an ounce of gold." Evidently the best place for the man to take his silver, the most profitable for him, was to the mint. That was wliere it would naturally go, that was where it did go. And thus we see, that with the mint open to the coinage of both on private account, one of the metáis weat to the mint and the other went to the market. Thus lias it ever been; thus will it ever be. It is highly important that we remember that the relative value of gold and silver constanüy fluctuate. They have done this through all the ages, and there is no power on earth to prevent their doing it. There was a timo, according to Álexander Delmar, when gold and silver were equally prized by man, whon an ounce of gold was exactly equal in value to an ounce of silver. They separated in some way, we do not know how, untold centuries ago, and have been. drifting further and further apart from that day to this. And, therefore, a fixed ratio, by the very fact of its being fixed, cannot temain a correct ratio. Just as soon as it ceases to be correct it becomes more profitable to take one of the metáis to tho mint and the other to the market. And the great law of human nature to which I have adverted soon asserts itself ; one then goes to the mint and the other to the market. That is, with theoretical bimetallism we have practical monometallism. This is the basis of the great fundamental principie of coinage, a principie enunciated by Oréame of France, later by Copernicus, tu.e astLoftojgejv ttd latejr itül by Sir Thomas Greskam, counselor of Queen Elizabeth of England, namely, tiiat with unlimited coinage of two metals on private account, at a fixed ratio, the one that is over-valued at the mints wil! go to the mint, while the one that is uudervalued at the mint will go to the market. At first our people were Tery well satisfied to have silver for money. Tney were poor and had but little traje. Must of the families tried to supply their wants within themselves. They raised their own sheep, clipped the wool, carded it, spun it, wove it into cloth, and cut and made from the cloth the garments for the members of the family. ïhey made their own rude wagons and sleds. They raised what they aeeded to eat and drink. There was little trade; henee little need for money. But as they worked hard, were prudent, and grew in wealth, thpy gradnally bogan to gratify their tastes for finer things. It was found that this neighbor's daughter had a special skill in making dresses; that this neighbor's sou was haudy making wagons. And so the work gradnally feil to those best fitted to do it. Thus tra de was enlarged and this necossitated a largor use of money. Then people beg;tn to (lesire a more compact and more convenient money than silver. Early in this contury the demand for gold in our eirculation began to be heard. It grew louder, until about 1830, when that great senator from Missouri, Thomas H. Benton, made it the central thought of his congressional life to get it back into circulation. Upon iuvestigating the questidn why gold did not come to the mint for coinage. he discovered that it was because it did not pay to bring it. It took too mueh gold to make the gold coins. The remedy was simple. Id. 183-1 by act of Congress the size of the gold cöin was cut down from 24.75 grains of pure gold to the dollar to 23.2 grains. This proved to be a slight over-valuation of gold, and as a consequence the current began to run the other way. After 1834 it was moro profitable to take gold to the mint than to sell it in the market, so gold went to the mint. On the other band, at the sanie time it became more profitable to sell silver in the market than to have it coined and silver began to retire from circulation, that which had been coined being melted down or transported. Thus we see, again, that with unlimited coinage of both metáis at a" fixed ratio, one came to the mint while the other refused to come. This had been the experience of every country that has over tried the experiment. It is founded on tyo everlasing facts. First, that the relative values of gold and silver are constantly fiuctuating, and that therefore no fixed ratio can be a correct ratio for any length of time. Second, the great principie of human nature, whicb prompts every man to do that which is to his own best interests. These two principies being permanent, it is impossible to secure the concurrent cireulation of the two metáis by having the mints opened to the coinage of both on private account at a fixed ratio. Certain foreign coins had been declared by Congress to be legal tender. But as they all contained proportionally more silver than our own coins, they too retirud from circulation, except such as were badly worn and which it did not pay to melt down or export. Silver is the natural money of the pocketbook, the natural money of small exchanges. Our people soon began to miss it. Early in the '40s the cry for money for change began to come up to Congress, and it became very loud in the Tatter part of the '40s. In response to this demand for change, Congress in 1840 ordered the coinage of the $1 gold piece. (Before that only the eagle, halfeagle, and quarter-eagle had been authorized). These one-dollar gold pieces were very pretty to look at, and people were pleased at first to get hold of one or two of them, but It soon became apparent that they were not adapted to business purposes. They were so small as to be in constant danger of being lost, and they were so valuable that people could not afford to lose them. And so the ery went up again, "Congress, give us money for change, give us silver mouey. It is better adapted for small change than gold is. We do not want gold driven out of circulation, but we do want silver brought back into circulation." For three or four years Congress wrestled with this problem, and in 1853 solved it. Únele Saín said, "My children have been calling for small change, and I think they are right. I have given you men who own silver the privilege of bringiug it to the mint, and you have declined to do so. Now I shall make it my own business to see that the demands of niy children are satisfied." You wil! not bring your dlver to be coined so I must and will biy the silver and coin it on my own account. But if I should ma.ke the pieces as large as I have been making them, you would smelt them down, and thus my object would be defeated. Instead of putting 5IV2 cents worth of silver into the half doiíár, and proportionally in the smaller pipros, 1 wiü iiul" Mhniif 4S reits wyrth of silver into the half dollar, and proportionally in the smaller pieces. Then the temptation to melt them down will be removed. But my children are all in danger of having their housen burned down, and if they sjionld have any of these silver pieees ra their houses and they should be melted, they would lose about 2 cents on each half dollar. In take too mueh risk, I wiD make it impossible for anyone to compel any of my sons or daughters to accept more than a small quantity of this silver, say $5.00 worth." Putting this into technical language, Congress in 1853 closed the mint to the coinage of subsidiary silyer on private account, and began coining on government account. The size of the half dollar was cut down from 20b'A grains of standard silver to 192 grains of Standard silver, and the smaller coius in proportion. And the silver thus coined was limited in legal tender up to $5.00. A Brief Keview. Glancing back over the ground thus far covcred. we see that in 1792 the experiment was tried of ha ving unlimited coinage of gold and silver on private account, and that the proportions fixed were the true proportions; that is, a dollars worth of silver was put into the silror dollar and a dollar's worth of gold into the gold dollar, or in that proportion. The ratio was correct at the time it was fixed, but it ceased to be correct within a year afterward, and the experiment failed. lts failure was due tü two t'aets: lst, the constant and unpreventable fluctuations in the relative values of gold and silver; 2, the principie of human nature which prompts a person to do the best he can for himself. These two facts continue from age to age. They caused the failure of the experiment then; they have caused the failure of the experiment whenever and wherever it has been tried; and that will assuredly be their effect if we try the experiment again. Ha ving established a correct ratio in 1792; having corrected the error which had arisen in 1834; and having failed in each instance to secure what we all desired (namoly the concurrent use of both metáis as money) this country in 1853 avowedly and deliberately abandoned the experiment of endeavoring to secure the use of both gold and silver through coinage of both metáis on private account, a ml adopted the principie of having one (gold) coined on private account, and the other (silver) coined on government account. And that has been our principie of coinage ever since. The act of 1853 made no mention of the silver dollar. It did not speeifically forbid the coinage of that dollar, but left it to the higher law of human nature which would not permit a man to take 103 cents worth of silver to the mint to have it coined into a form where it would pass for 100 cents. It is true that some silver dollars were coined after 1S53; but not one of them was coined for the purpose of circulation. They were coined simply to facilítate their sale as bnllion, the stamp being a certifícate of the fineness of the metal. This principie of the coinage of gold on private account and the coinage of silver on government account, established in 1S53, is three years older than the Republican party. It is the principie for which the Republican party has always stood and for which it stands today. By reason of this principie, we had after 1853 until after the breaking out of the war the concurrent use of gold and silver, gold for the large transactions and silver for the small transactions. The principie then established is the only one ever devised by the wit of man that has actually succeeded in securing at the same time the use of both gold and silver as money. The Act of 1873. We now come to a brief discussion of an act of Congress which has been more misunderstood and more misrepresented, often by people who would not intentionally state anything but the truth, than any other act ever passed by Congress. I refer to the Mintage Act of 1873. That act omitted from coinage the old silver dollar of 412% grains. It has been charged that the omission of the silver dollar was done "surreptitiously" and as a result of bribery. One gentleman (whose books have had a very much wider sale than their ïnerits entitle them to) has written a book to show that the old standard dollar of 412% grains was dropped out of the bill about the 20th of January, 1873. Another gentleman declared to me last weok that it was in the bill at the time of its passage, and that it was dropped out "somehow" while the bill was being carried over to the White House! If thej-e had been any such fraudulent action, it would naturnlly and properly arouse the indignation of all right-minded people. But the story is not true. The 412% grain dollar never was in the bill from first to last! It was not in the original bill introduced April 28th, 1S70, and its omission from that bill was plainly pointed out in the report accompanying it. I have an official copy of that original bill and one of that original report here on the tablo, and I shall be glad to show them at the close of the exercises to anyone who desires to see them. Moreover, I have the debates on the bill, not simply a newspaper report of them. but the original records containing the report of what was said, taken down in shorthand at I the: Br' :ve a committee appointed, composed in part of free-silver men, to examine these records and thus silence once and forever this miserable story! I never made a bet in my life and I never expect to; but I make this offer, which will rernain good as long as I live: To anyone who will find any im fif tiit bill. ff&s tfcs.tinjs it wm introdueed in 1870 anti] it was passcd February 12, 1873, which eontained the 412% grain dollar, 1 will give $500. In making this offer I am perfectly safe, because the 412% grain dollar never was in the bill or any form of it. It could not, therefore, have been "dropped out," surreptitiously or otherwise; and, therefore, there was no "crime of '73." The question is sometimes asked, "Why was the dollar omitted from the original bill?" The answer is plain. It had not been coined for the purpose of cjrculation for pearly forty years. The few dollars which had been coined after 1834 were coined simply for the purpose of sale. Mr. Hooper, who had charge of the bill, told, in a speech delivered on the bill April 0. 1872, why itï coinage was stopped. He said: "The silver dollar of 412% grains, by reason of its bullion or intrinsie value being greater than its nominal value, long since ceased to be a eoin of circulation, and is melted by manufacturera of silverware. It does not circuíate now in commercial transactions with any country, and the convenienee of the.3ö manufacturers in this respect can better be met by supplying small stamped bars, of the same standard, avoiding the less expense of coming the dollar for that purpose." The only legitímate purpose of coining a metal is to have it circuíate as inoney. The silver dollar was not thus circulated, but the mint was being made use of for the private benefit of men who had silver to sell. Henee, as Mr. Hooper said, it was better to stamp bars fop them, if need be, and thus save the useless expense of coining th.e silyer dollars. , ,,a Tlie Act of 187. During the five years between 1873" and 1878 the silver dollar of 412% grains was not coined at the United States rmnts. But the coinage of silver was not prohibited. More silver was converted into the forrn of money in those five years than during any preceding twenty-five years of our country's history. Nor was this the first time that the coinage of the 41214-grain dollar was prohibited. By the orders of PresidentsJefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson and Van Buren, the 412%-gruin dollar was cornpletely barred from coinage from 1805 to 1840, except that irc the year 1836 one thousand were coined,, and in 1839 three hundred were coined.. The coinage of the 412%-grain dollar was resumed in 1878. since which time more than 430,000,000 of them have been coined, every one of which has full legal tender. If silver was demonetized in 1873, it was certainly demonetized in. 1878. Strictly speaking, however, silver has never been demonetized. Tha coinage of it is now done on government account, instead of as formerly on private account. But flour made at a raer- chant mili is just as vaiuaDie lor tooa as flour made in a eustom mili; and silver coined on geverninent account is just as effectual for the purposes of. trade as that coined on private account.. Free Coinage will Contract the Currenoy. To open our mintS now to the coinage, of silver with gold on private accountat the ratio of 16 to 1, when the market' ratio is about 31 to 1, would be but to repeat the experiment of the early part of the century. lts result now, as tben, would be to drive gold out of circulation, to bring us io a silver basis, and leave us with only silver (or paper based onsilver) for use as inoney. This would not be bimetallism, but the worst kind of monometalism. It would iiot be to expand our eurrency, but to contract it. lts result would be to give to the silver producers a monopoly of furnishing our metal money. This is probably what they want. But the American people are not fond of monopolies and will not yield to their desires. Our present contention, therefore, is not between gold on the one hand and silver on the other; it is between gold and silver on the one hand, and silver alone on the other. Government Fiat Does Not Give Valué. There are those who contend that it is the stamp of the governnient that makcs money and gives it its value. Nei-ther of these propositions is true. l Metals were used as mouey long before they were coined. One of the oldest business transactions on record is that described in Genesis xxiii., 1G, when Abraham bought from Ephron a burial place for Sarah. The transaction is thus recorded: "And Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver 400 shekels of silver, current money with the merchant." This transactioii emphasizes two great truths. They were traths then and will always continue to be. It is to be noted in the first place the Abraham "weighed" the silver; that is, its value depended npon its quantity. There was no coinage at that time. But in that same connection we are assuredthat it was "current money with themerchant." lts value was determined' by the laws of trade then, and it is tmi determined now. This reminds us, too, that trade carnebefore trust; that money was used tot buy "with long before it was used to pay debts with. And its buying function is today by far the most important function. Siniply the clearings of the one city of New York alone far exceed in volume each year the wildest estimata as to the total indebtedness of all kinds now in existence in the whole country. The clearings of New York averaga more than S600.000.000 a week, or inora than $30,000,000,000 a year. And these clearings do not represent the volume of business transacted, even of that transaeted through the banks. They; represent simply the settlement oí balances. Metal us-ed for money formerly passed from hand to hand by weight and the fineness of the metal had to be tested in each transaction. Inasmuch as only, a few people had the skill to do thia testing, the many were at the mercy ol the few. In self-defense the people began to look around to see if there waa not someone whom they all knew and whom they all could trust, whom they could anthorize to cut the metáis into pieces of convenient size and of uniform fineness, and who should stamp upon the side of each piece its weight and purity. Looking around they found such a person in their ruling prince, and to him they gave this authority. It haa remained one of the functious of government from that day to this to coin. money, that is to certify its weight and fineness. The value of the coins, their exchangeable power, is determined by the laws of trade. These override anu overrule the laws of any legislative body, however powerful, because they rea1 upon decrees of the Great Lawmaker. The Silver Dollar Wonld be Keduoed la Talue. I ask your attention now to anothef great coinage principie, viz.: that with "free and unlimited coinage on private account" the value of a coin is exactly equal to the ralue of the metal in the Do not let us misunderstand each other. The United States has absolute power to declare three inches a foot, in which case each of us would be four times as many feet tall as we now are. But this wouldn't add a hair s breadtn to our stature. The United States has absolute power to declare 371% grains of pure silver a dollar and to open lts mista to coinage on private account, but the dollar thus coined would have the purchasing power of the silver in the coin. The first effect of this action would undoubtedly be to raise the value of silver bullion. There would be a period of speculation in silver which. would enhance its value teinporanly; but the bubble would soon burst, and silver would fall again to a price lower than the present. Thé dollar made from silver would be subject to all these üuctuations. No man would know from day to day the valfre of the_oney_in:_-j ;SsnB"reorniue is as certairfas anything in the future can be, that within a year after the mints have been opened to silver eoin age on private account, silver bullion will be wortb. lesa than. it now is, ancf the silver dollar would fall to the ejuiv alent to our present 50 cents or lesa Gold bine drive out ef ase, thia wouU( he the .uj un U ripnjlutio, "THE OUTLOOK 15 VERY ENCOURAGING," SAYS SENATOR JONES.