SPEECH.

The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. No. 805) to repeal the third section of the Act, entited "An Act for the resumption of Specie Payments"

Mr. GARFIELD said:

We are engaged in a debate which has lasted in the Anglo-Saxon world for more than two centuries; and hardly any phase of it to which we have listened in the course of the last week is new. Hardly a proposition has been heard on either side which was not made one hundred and eighty years ago in England, and almost a hundred years ago in the United States. So singularly does history repeat itself.

That man makes a vital mistake who judges of truth in relation to financial affairs from the changing phases of public opinion. He might as well stand on the shore of the Bay of Fundy and, from the ebb and flow of a single tide, attempt to determine the general level of the sea, as to stand on this floor and, from the current of public opinion in any one debate, judge of the general level of the public mind. It is only when long spaces along the shore of the sea are taken into the account that the grand level is found, from which all heights and depths are measured. And it is only when long spaces of time are considered that we find at last that level of public opinion which we call the general judg· ment of mankind. From the turbulent ebb and flow of the public opinion to-day I appeal to that settled judgment of mankind on the subjectmatter of this debate.

In the short time which is allotted to me I invite the attention of gentlemen, who do me the honor to listen, to a very remarkable fact. I suppose it will be admitted on all hands that 1860 was a year of unusual business prosperity in the United States. It was at a time when the bounties of Providence were scattered with a liberal hand over the face of our Republic. It was a time when all classes of our community were well and profitably employed. It was a time of peace; the apprehension of our great civil war had not yet seized the minds of our people. Great crops North and South, great general prosperity marked the era.

If one thing was settled above all other questions of financial policy in the American mind at that time, it was this, that the only sound, safe, trustworthy standard of value was coin of standard weight and fineness, or a paper currency convertible into coin at the will of the holder. That was and had been for several generations the almost unanimous opinion of the American people. It is true there was here and there a theorist, dreaming of the philosopher's stone, dreaming of a time when paper money, which he worshipped as a kind of fetish, would be crowned as a god; but those dreamers were so few in number that they made no ripple on the current of public thought, and their theories formed no part of

public opinion. The opinion of 1860-'61 was the aggregated result of the opinions of all the foremost Americans who have left their record upon this subject.

I make this statement without fear of contradiction, because I have carefully examined the list of illustrious names and the records they have left behind them. No man ever sat in the chair of Washington as President of the United States who has left on record any word that favors inconvertible paper money as a safe standard of value. Every President who has left a record on the subject has spoken without qualification in favor of the doctrine I have announced. No man ever sat in the chair of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States who, if he has spoken at all on the subject, has not left on record an opinion equally strong, from Hamilton down to the days of the distinguished father of my colleague [Mr. EwING] and to the present moment. The gen eral judgment of all men who deserve to be called the leaders of American thought, ought to be considered worth something in an American House of Representatives on the discussion of a great topic like this.

What happened to cause a departure from this general level of public opinion? Every man knows the history. War, the imperious necessities of war, led the men of 1861-'62 to depart from the doctrine of the fathers; but they did not depart from it as a matter of choice, but compelled by overmastering necessity. Every man in the Senate and House of 1862, who voted for the greenback law, announced that he did it with the greatest possible reluctance and with the gravest apprehension for the result. Every man who spoke on the subject, from Thaddeus Stevens to the humblest member in this House, and from Fessenden to the humblest Senator, warned his country against the dangers that might follow, and pledged his honor that at the earliest possible moment the country should be brought back to the old, safe, established doctrine of the fathers.

When they made the law creating the greenbacks they incorporated into its essential provisions the most solemn pledge men could devise, that they would return to the doctrines of the fathers. The very law that created the greenback provided for its redemption and retirement; and whenever the necessities of war required an additional issue, new guarantees and new limitations were put upon the new issues to insure their ultimate redemption. They were issued upon the fundamental condition that the number should be so limited forever that under the law of contracts the courts might enforce their sanctions. The men of 1862 knew the dangers from sad experience in our history; and, like Ulysses, lashed themselves to the mast of public credit when they embarked upon the stormy and boisterous sea of inflated paper money, that they might not be beguiled by the siren song that would be sung to them when they were afloat on the wild waves.

But the times have changed; new men are on deck; men who have forgotten the old pledges; and now only twelve years have passed (for as late as 1865 this House, with but six dissenting votes, resolved again to stand by the old ways and bring the country back to sound money)-only twelve years have passed, and what do we find? We find a group of theorists and doctrinaires who look upon the wisdom of the fathers as foolishness. We find some who advocate what they call "absolute money; who declare that a piece of paper stamped a "dollar" is a dollar; that gold and silver are a part of the barbarism of the past, which ought to be forever abandoned. We hear them declaring that resump tion is a delusion and a snare. We hear them declaring that the eras of prosperity are the eras of paper money. They point us to all times of

inflation as periods of blessing to the people and prosperity to business: and they ask us no more to vex their ears with any allusion to the old standard, the money of the Constitution. Let the wild swarm of financial literature that has sprung into life within the last twelve years witness how widely and how far we have drifted. We have lost our old moorings, have thrown overboard our old compass; we sail by alien stars, looking not for the haven, but are afloat on a harborless sea.

To those who do not believe in keeping the promise of the nation at any time, I make no argument to-day; but to those of our brethren in this House who believe that at some time or another we ought to return to the ways of the fathers, to the money of the Constitution-to those I address myself. There are many among them who believe that some time or other we can resume specie payments, but who believe that to-day or in 1879 it is impossible or if possible inexpedient; that from such an attempt evils will arise to the country greater than the benefits; and therefore they join in seeking the repeal of the act of 1875. I have no doubt they regret to throw their influence with those men who do not believe in resuming at all. To them I say, before the final vote is taken, "Let us reason together.'

I want it remembered in the outset, that the greenback currency was and is-so known in the courts and so known everywhere-a forced loan, a loan forced by the Government upon its Army and upon its other creditors to meet the great emergencies of the war; and the primary fact connected with every greenback is that it is a promise to pay. Those who believe in resumption, intend that some time or other the nation shall make good the promise.

Now what are the obstacles to resumption, in accordance with the law we have passed? The first great obstacle stated by gentlemen who have argued the question is this: that we have not enough currency in the country for its business and that some measure of contraction will be likely to attend the further execution of the provisions of the resumption law. Before I enter directly upon that objection I desire to state a fact for the consideration of those who hear me. In that prosperous era of 1860, when there was free banking in most of the States, and the banks were pushing all the currency they could into circulation without limit, there were just two hundred and seven millions of paper currency, and that was the largest volume that this country had ever known.

Mr. BUCKNER. Will the gentleman allow me to make a statement on that point?

Mr. GARFIELD. If my time would allow me, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BUCKNER. I wish to say that Secretary Cobb reported in 1857 that we had two hundred and fifteen millions of circulation in paper and two hundred and seventy five millions in coin in gold and silver.

Mr. GARFIELD. I will say to the gentleman from Missouri that not only years ago, but again recently I have gone through the reports and made the most careful estimate of which I have been capable, and I beg to state that two hundred and seven millions is the recognized settled amount for 1860. It is true that for a few months just previous to the panic of 1857 the volume of paper money did reach two hundred and fifteen millions; but that was wholly exceptional. In no year of pros perity had the volume been so great as in 1860.

Now, nobody estimates that the amount of coin in the country in 1860 was more than $250,000,000. The received estimate is two hundred millions. Add that sum to the two hundred and seven millions of paper

circulation, and you have four hundred and seven millions of currency, paper and silver and gold. How much have we to-day? This day, or rather on the first day of this month, we had seven hundred and twenty seven millions of greenbacks, bank notes, fractional currency, and fractional silver; and if you add the nine millions of copper and nickel money now outstanding, it makes a present volume of seven hundred and thirty-six millions of currency, counting no gold whatever, although the Pacific coast uses a large amount..

Now, I put it to the judgment of this House if, under free banking in 1860, four hundred and seven millions was the limit of possible currency that could be kept in circulation, how can it be said that almost twice that amount is needed and is hardly enough for the wants of 1877? Have the laws of value changed in seventeen years? Gentlemen who assert a dearth of currency at the present time must point out the new elements in our fiscal affairs that require three hundred and twenty millions more money than was needed in 1860.

Mr. HARRISON.

tion?

Mr. GARFIELD.

Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a ques

I am speaking in the time of another gentleman; but if the House will extend my time I will be glad to have as much debate as gentlemen please.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio declines to yield.

Mr. GARFIELD. No theory of currency that existed in 1860 can justify the volume now outstanding. Either our laws of trade, our laws of value, our laws of exchange, have been utterly reversed, or_the_currency of to-day is in excess of the legitimate wants of trade. But I admit freely that no Congress is wise enough to determine how much currency the country needs. There never was a body of men wise enough to do that. The volume of currency needed depends upon laws that are higher than Congress and higher than governments. One thing only legislation can do. It can determine the quality of the money of the country. The laws of trade alone can determine its quantity.

In connection with this view, we are met by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] with two historical references on which he greatly relies in opposing resumption. The first is his reference to France. Follow France, says the honorable gentleman from Pennsyl vania, follow France, and see how she poured out her volumes of paper money, and by it survived a great crisis and maintained her business prosperity. O, that the gentleman and those who vote with him would follow France! I gladly follow up his allusion to France. As a proof that we have not enough money, he notices the fact that France has always used more money than either the United States or England. I admit it. But does the gentleman not know that the traditions and habits of France are as unlike those of England and the United States as those of any two nations of the world can be in regard to the use of money? I say to the gentleman that in France, banking as an instrument of trade is almost unknown. There are no banks in France except the bank of France itself. The government has been trying for twenty years to establish branches in all the eighty-nine departments, and thus far only fifty-six branches have been organized. Our national, State, and private banks number nearly ten thousand. The habits of the French people are not adapted to the use of banks as instruments of exchange. All the deposits in all the savings-banks of France are not equal to the deposits in the savings banks of New York City alone. It is the frequent complaint of Americans who make purchases in Paris that the merchants will not accept drafts even on the Bank of France.