5S> 
 
a 
 
 vr&frt 
 
 University Library 
 University of California Berkeley 
 
SILVER NOT A LOCAL, ISSUE. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 HON. DARWIN R. JAMES 
 
 OF 2>TE:^*7- YORK. 
 
 In the House of Representatives, 
 
 March 20, 1886. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 R. O. POLKINHORN, PRINTER. 
 
 1886. 
 

 
 SILVER NOT A LOCAL ISSUE. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OP 
 
 Hon. Darwin 'R. James : 
 
 o^ istzetkt ^ztotitz:. 
 
 PLAIN WORDS FROM A PLAIN MAN FOR PLAIN PEOPLE. 
 
 The House having under consideration H. Pw. 5690, for the Free Coinage of 
 Silver &c, upon the adverse report of the majority of the Committee on Coin- 
 age, Weights and Measures, (presented "by Mr. James for the Committee on 
 February 10, 1886.) 
 
 Mr. JA.MES said: Mr. Speaker, before I enter upon the subject of 
 debate I desire to say a few words in way of personal explanation. 
 
 I am a business man. I am not a lawyer nor a professor, neither 
 has my life been closely interwoven with the interests of practical poli- 
 tics, but I have attended to the business of a merchant. But I do not 
 deem it presumptuous that I regard my mandate from my constit- 
 uents in Brooklyn to be a member of this body, and my mandate from 
 the Speaker of this House to serve on the Committee on Coinage, 
 "Weights, and Measures as a warrant for taking the time of the House 
 in setting forth my views on the subject now under consideration. 
 
 People are more wont to look to the lawyer, to the professor, and to 
 the political leader for light on these questions than to plain, business 
 men. But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this habit of looking to the 
 lawyers, the professors, and the recognized political leaders does not 
 seem to have produced good results in this matter of the coinage of 
 the silver dollar. We have tried it for eight years, and here we are 
 now in a slough. How are we to get out oi it ? This is the ques- 
 tion. The car of state is very nearly being ditched. It is not a ques- 
 tion of making good time on the road, it is a question of getting the 
 wheels out of the slough. It is a question of making salvage that is 
 before the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and M3asures and this 
 House. What are we to do about it ? This is as far as the country 
 has advanced on the silver question. Things have gone on from 
 bad to worse, and this is the outcome of the leadership of the lawyers, 
 the professors, and the authorized leaders of politics. 
 
 These circumstances, Mr. Speaker, have convinced me that I ought 
 to take a hand in the debate. Without laying claim to anything par- 
 ticularly meritorious I may at least claim to be heard. I have all the 
 
more reason for this from the fact that the monetary question is pecu- 
 liarly a business question. On final analysis, the monetary question 
 is a question of prices, a matter of buying and selling ; and so it is, as 
 I have said, peculiarly a business question. 
 
 Then, again, Mr. Speaker, I ask the attention of this House to what 
 I have to say because the business men of the country are, after all, 
 a very numerous and influential class. They need awakening ; they 
 need it in my district, they need it in your district. Gentlemen, I am 
 afraid we shall find that they need it in all of our districts. 
 
 I wish to be entirely frank about this matter. I am afraid that the 
 business men of the country have not been doing their duty to the 
 country. They have been buying and selling and have let high poli- 
 tics alone, even when high politics affected them most seriously. In 
 this they have failed in their duty to themselves as well as to the country. 
 
 I have no doubt that if the business men had had the power to deal 
 with the silver question the team of State would not have been stalled in 
 the mire as it is now, and it is largely their fault that it is so, for they 
 knew what the end would be. They should have spoken out from one 
 end of the country to the other ; they should have insisted that their 
 advice be followed. If I speak, therefore, of business men in my dis- 
 trict, of business men in your district, business men in all of our dis- 
 tricts needing to be awakened, I do it for the purpose of urging you, 
 gentlemen of the House, to talk this matter over with them as you see 
 them, and to elicit expressions of opinion from them upon this great 
 and far-reaching subject. I think this comparison of views will do 
 good. 
 
 I want to hear from the sovereign people on this questtion of money 
 legislation. To handle this question wisely and to the best interests 
 of all, we need the advice of the men of business in our constituencies. 
 If my own voice could reach beyond this floor I would gladly see to 
 it that the business men throughout the country should at least hear 
 one loud call to join their forces for a righteous handling of this great 
 question. If we could accomplish this, enlightenment and instruction 
 would follow a discussion so general amid a people so sensible and 
 so practical as ours. I believe we should be practically unanimous 
 after hearing from them in voting a measure which would close the 
 current chapters of the history of compulsory coinage. "What that 
 measure should be I am here to suggest. 
 
 I have given study to the facts which make the theories upon this 
 issue, and have measured the measures proposed with the same spirit 
 of determination to be right which applied to my own business while 
 in India, where I handled the rupee, or in New York, where I sold 
 the products of the East. The result may be summed up in these 
 words : the so-called demonetization of silver has been from the start 
 a great business blunder. 
 
 I do not wish to be misunderstood by either the extreme gold men 
 on one side or the extreme silver men on the other, in my use of this 
 term. I speak of the demonetization of silver. They may presumably 
 think I mean the anti-silver law passed by Congress in 1873, and the 
 revision of the statutes in which the silver dollar was spirited away. 
 I do not. Perhaps they think I ought to mean it if I speak of de- 
 monetization. I do not think so. I say that I am right and that 
 they are wrong, for it is more than a question of words, Mr. Speaker ; 
 it is a question of ideas. 
 
 In the first place, who demonetized silver ? My friends here talk 
 as if the United States had done it. 
 
 The so-called demonetization, which is in fact only an effort at de- 
 monetization (a partial outlawry of silver) is the culmination of a joint 
 
 
undertaking. The chief quota of outlawry belongs to the nations that 
 controlled most silver and gold. France and her allies of the bimetal- 
 lic, free-coinage union, controlled nearly two-thirds of the metallic 
 money of Europe. 
 
 With their alternative free coinage, coining all that came, whether 
 gold or silver, at an express valuation by weight, they held the par 
 steady for generations. England's anti-silver quota had been sub- 
 scribed and paid so long that it had all been spent. Germany's quota 
 to the fund was very large ; in fact, the responsibility for the evil re- 
 sults which followed demonetization in Europe is chargeable to the 
 action of Germany. 
 
 After the capture of Paris, in 1871, a series of anti-silver and pro- 
 gold laws were enacted, followed in 1873 by direct acts of calling in 
 silver coin to be sent to the melting pot, and thence to the bullion mar- 
 ket. France saw that if she continued the coinage of silver she was 
 simply " bulling " the market for German silver, and was paying out 
 gold for a metal that would become a burden to her if Germany's ac- 
 tion should be followed by other nations. She therefore stopped its 
 coinage. The action of France was thought to be necessary, but it 
 was very unfortunate. She felt that she could not afford (by keeping 
 her mints open to silver) to enable Germany to transmute her stock of 
 silver into gold, taking French gold for demonetized German silver. 
 It was not agreeable to France to "bull" silver for Germany's benefit, 
 and face the uncertainties of the monetary future with the added bur- 
 den to carry off the rejected silver of Germany. 
 
 It was said in 1870 by a leading statesman in Europe, Feer-Herzog, 
 that the anti-silver campaign is like a steeple- chase those that demon- 
 etize first will win the prize, and those that come later will pay for all 
 the demonetization that has preceded theirs. Each was, therefore, in 
 a hurry to demonetize for fear the other would demonetize first; each 
 afraid to keep up silver coinage because the other rejected it. The 
 impetus giyen by Germany's attack was passed along the line, and one 
 after the other of the mints of Europe was closed to silver. Now, 
 when I say this was a business blunder I do not say that it was a blun- 
 der of each nation acting by itself and with the sole alternative of 
 keeping up free coinage within its own borders for all the silver that 
 might come, or, on the other, of closing its mints. If it had been a 
 simple choice between these two courses there would seem to have 
 been no way other than to stop. 
 
 As the case was presented to France in 1874 and to Holland in 1875 
 it was the only safe alternative to be pursued. There are occasions in 
 one's business experience when the question arises, " Shall we sell or 
 hold?" Our neighbors, like ourselves, are loaded with the same ar- 
 ticle; if we sell it is at a sacrifice; if we hold there is a loss; but if we 
 combine and arrange we can all sell at a profit. 
 
 But'suppose you can not arrange, or think you can not, and there- 
 fore do not try, what is the result? You force sales; the bottom is 
 knocked out of the market, and down goes the price. It was a great 
 blunder of the nations as a whole, and it was a blunder of each single 
 nation in so far as that single nation could have stopped the ruinous 
 course of all. No one nation could afford to have the others unload 
 upon it. In point of fact there was neither sense or reason in any na- 
 tion trying to unload. It was a blunder to try; each nation as it closed 
 its mints to silver helped to depreciate the stock of silver coin it had 
 on hand, helped to render the money-basis of its valuations insecure, 
 and helped to re-enforce the momentum of Germany's attack on the 
 stability of the existing valuations of property throughout the world. 
 
The result was insecurity, uneasiness in the money markets, and a 
 great check to business activity. 
 
 I am aware that there has been a widespread habit of ignoring these 
 facts. It was fashionable, so to speak, at one time to shout for the 
 single gold standard and for the demonetization of silver. Those who 
 did the shouting do not much care at this time to be known. For 
 several years they tried to conceal the harm they produced but they 
 could not. The facts are against them. The business of Europe was 
 done with both metals; by legislative enactment one is stricken down 
 and becomes non exportable except as bullion. Now, who will pre- 
 sume to maintain that a country like Holland can do business as easily 
 and successfully with its twenty millions of gold, full weight and ex- 
 portable, and eighty millions of non-exportable, because depreciated, 
 token money, as with one hundred millions of full weight exportable 
 money? To depreciate the scope of that eighty millions or, in other 
 words, to strike it with lameness, was bad business. Yet Germany 
 and France had forced Holland into this position, and so she stopped 
 coining silver and took to coining gold, doing what she could to in- 
 crease her stock of this metal. 
 
 The outlawry of silver in Europe reduced a thousand millions of sil- 
 ver to the condition of inexportable, non- international, depreciated 
 money, in other words, to the condition of tokens which are a burden 
 to the state and to the business community. Now, all this never 
 would have occurred if there had not been anti-silver laws. Had it 
 not been for these there would have been no depreciation of silver. 
 Hence it is I say that the outlawry of silver was an immense business 
 blunder and a great business loss "for each nation affected by it. The 
 story of the last ten years in Europe is a story of business depression 
 unexampled in history, and the main cause of the depression lies where 
 any business man can see it if he takes the trouble to look, namely, in 
 the series of laws in the different states of Europe artificially contract- 
 ing the metallic basis of valuations and making insecure a foundation 
 which should have been solid. 
 
 Gentlemen, do you want evidence of these facts? I doubt if you do. 
 The history of these ten years in each country is one of business crip- 
 pled, of marking down of prices, and suffering in every direction. 
 You know how it has been in our own country and can imagine how 
 it has been in other countries. Take England as a sample for Europe 
 and read Thorold Rogers and Robert G iff en in 1879 (Document of Con- 
 ference of 1878). Read Mr. Goschen's address in Manchester in July, 
 1885, and Robert Giffen in Contemporary Review for June, 1885; also, 
 recall the fact that a royal commission is to-day investigating the cause 
 of the depression of trade. What it all means for Germany is plainly 
 stated by Baron vop Mpbach in an address from which I shall quote 
 later. 
 
 But permit me, Mr. Speaker, to bore a little deeper into the facts. 
 Let us look at the state of affairs in Europe as a whole. We see the 
 nations of Europe engaged in a sort of monetary war, each nation lay- 
 ing an embargo upon the silver coin of other nations and u pon new 
 silver from the mines. A state of affairs is thus produced which is 
 expensive to their treasuries and injurious to the industries and the 
 trade of each What is the cause? Practically the start was made by 
 Germany, and it was a monetary continuance of the invasion of France. 
 The action of Germany forced the Latin Union to adopt the German 
 embargo on silver; it forced Holland to do the same thing, and France's 
 embargo forced Germany to give up her sales of silver iu 1879. I desire 
 to make this thought clear. This anti-silver movement practically in- 
 volves national hostilities, national pride. 
 
But let us go one step further and ask how it came about that Ger- 
 many forced Europe into this embargo. 
 
 Here we touch upon a vast question. Who can measure all the in- 
 formation and prejudice of the savants who sought to control national 
 action ? About the time of our war a " craze " seemed to take hold of 
 the economists, and it became fashionable to be an anti- silver man, an 
 anti bimetallist, a gold single-standard man. 
 
 This is the gist of the facts. You can read the story in the books of 
 the conferences from 1867 to 1881. Now, we have heard repeatedly 
 from the extreme silver men that this anti-silver movement has been 
 and is a great, conspiracy of the creditor class, of the bondholders of the 
 civilized nations, and that they worked up this sentiment for selfish 
 ends. Such is not the truth. The professors of political economy who 
 directed the thought of a generation, were not what is called "the 
 servile hirelings of bloated bondholders." These men thought they 
 were reformers, and they meant well : but their foresight was incorrect 
 They made a mistake. The outcome of their work was an enormous 
 business loss which they had not foreseen, and was consequently a 
 great business blunder. 
 
 The end is not yet. "We are only in the midst of this craze, which, 
 as has been well said, was the outcome of scientific error, re-enforced 
 by national pride, and uniting the chief nations of Europe in a joint 
 attack upon silver. Now, how is this movement to be reversed ? It is 
 a great question; those who have carefully studied the reports of the two 
 international conferences called by the United States can form an idea 
 of the extent and intricacy of the subject. People talk of the lack of 
 success of those conferences. They do not comprehend how vast a 
 matter we were trying to handle ; nor do they comprehend the innu- 
 merable difficulties in the way arising from national pride, blind sel- 
 fishness, and a reluctance to being taught, which the commissioners 
 had to meet. 
 
 Now, let me turn to the question, how has our coinage of the silver 
 dollar operated upon Europe ? 
 
 I affirm with certainty that it has operated injuriously to the success 
 of the effort to restore bimetallic free coinage. There is one thing, Mr. 
 Speaker, which we may take for granted: there is a good deal of 
 human nature in Europe as well as in America Europeans are men, 
 and they are not devoid of sense. If you or I were European and lived 
 in the midst of prejudice as general as that which induced the poli- 
 ticians of European nations to commit themselves to an anti silver 
 policy, and when those great bodies, which move so slowly, had already 
 moved and taken a stand, I think we should consider it a very pleasant 
 thing if a powerful and wealthy nation across the sea would take hold 
 and help us out without asking any help in return. 
 
 The coinage of silver by the" United States eased up the situation for 
 the gold monometallists of Europe. The statesmen who committed 
 themselves and their countries to monometallism found allies in the 
 United States, and of this number not one more efficient than the gen- 
 tleman from Missouri [Mr. Bland]. Outside of what the coinage of 
 silver has been doing all the time, it has been a constant promise for 
 the future that they are to be "let out" more completely. I can not 
 understand, Mr. Speaker, why the extreme silver men fail to see that 
 they are really the cat's-paws of European monometallists. I do not use 
 the word in any way offensively but it is strong, in so far as they 
 seem to be picking the chestnuts out of the fire. Perhaps there may be 
 a tinge of blind self-interest in the ground they take, or, if that does 
 not suit, let us suppose that they have found the silver question a much 
 more momentous one than they have hitherto contemplated and do not 
 
6 
 
 now care to face it in all its diverse bearings. Perhaps they have 
 thought that silver is a "local issue," as a certain distinguished gen- 
 tleman once remarked with reference to the tariff. If so, they were 
 again mistaken . 
 
 It is more than a local issue, it is an international one, and it is be- 
 cause the silver men have failed to comprehend this fact that they have 
 gone on in their blind, selfish advocacy of a financial policy which has 
 operated as disastrously at home as it has abroad, and which threatens 
 at this moment to strike down with paralysis the commercial and in- 
 dustrial interests of the country. 
 
 With these views and under these circumstances I do not hesitate to 
 say that the coinage under the Bland act has been from the beginning 
 and is now a colossal business blunder. The advocates of the measure 
 proposed and expected it to restore the price of silver, but it has 
 steadily declined as compared with gold from an average price of 52 
 -16d. per ounce in 1878 to an average of 48 9-lQd. in 1885, and at 
 this time it is quoted in London an 46-d. per ounce. Such are the 
 facts, and here we are with the silver question still on our hands. 
 
 If it had not been for the passage of the Bland bill in 1878, 1 believe 
 that long ere this silver would have been remonetized in Europe, and 
 that both in Europe and the United States the mints would have been 
 open to the free coinage of silver as they are to gold, and that the two 
 metals would have been at a parity one to the other at a fixed ratio, as 
 agreed upon. 
 
 The true friends of silver, the people who want silver restored to its 
 proper place relatively to gold, as it was before its outlawry in Europe 
 began, all recognize this. They have said it in print continually. The 
 European bimetallists have fought a good fight ; they have been in 
 battle array all these years fighting for the cause of silver. 
 
 But during these years they have said and felt that the men in the 
 United States who desire to keep up a local silver coinage when other 
 nations have stopped are the enemies of bimetallism. Our bimetallist 
 friends are there carrying on a tight against stupidity in high places, 
 and those who ought to be their friends, who claim to be their friends, 
 are all the time encouraging their enemies to hold out, encouraging 
 them with present help and with promises for the future ; in fact, 
 many of these men who called themselves bimetallists have now 
 thrown off the mask and are pronounced silver monometallists, 
 and demand free coinage. Now, Mr. Speaker, these European bi- 
 metallists are the men beside whom we ought to stand and with whom 
 we ought to join forces ; they are our friends. We ought to help them 
 in their struggle with indifference and prejudice in high places and 
 with the gold monometallists who want the single standard through 
 error or greed. 
 
 To do this we must follow the advice of those who know something 
 about the importance of the international side of the controversy, and 
 suspend the coinage of silver, in order that we may help our European 
 bimetallist friends to accomplish that which is of paramount import- 
 ance to us namely, the remonetization of silver in Europe. But 
 why have we not done this ? Because our people have not understood 
 the question. The silver mine owners, in their greed for present gains, 
 have not looked to the future. They have been content to take the best 
 price they could get for their bullion on a declining market rather than 
 wait until international bimetallism is restored, when their profits 
 would be largely increased. They have kept up a cry against bond- 
 holders and the " gold-bugs" of New York whereby they have deceived 
 the people ; they have flooded the country with their publications, and 
 have had, as they have now, large sums of money at their disposal for 
 
manipulating public sentiment; in fact, they are thoroughly organized, 
 with a headquarters in this city. 
 
 The true friends of bimetallism are undoubtedly largely in the ma- 
 jority, but they are scattered and are fighting at odds against an organ- 
 ized force. But I predict that it will be as it was in the days of the 
 "greenback craze," that when the people come to understand the 
 question they will speak out for the suspension of the coinage of the 
 standard dollar as they spoke in no unerring tone at the period to which 
 I refer. 
 
 It may be that they will not learn the lesson except by further finan- 
 cial disaster consequent upon continued coinage. But, under any 
 circumstances, this is a campaign in which there can be but one suc- 
 cessful issue, namely, the re-establishment of silver in its proper place 
 relative to gold through international agreement. Until this is ac- 
 complished, there must be no surrender. The fight must be main- 
 tained. Coinage under the Bland law must be suspended entirely, for 
 to continue coinage under this law is but organized chaos for the 
 United States. 
 
 The continuance of the present law is sure to thoroughly disarrange 
 the monetary system, and to further shake public confidence. It is the 
 very indefiniteness of the continuance of coinage without concurrent 
 coinage in Europe that so completely alarms business men ; and I say 
 this as a representative of the business interests which are concen- 
 trated in and around New York. New York is the commercial and 
 financial center of the nation. That which affects the business inter- 
 ests of New York, affects the business interests of the entire country, 
 and vice versa. 
 
 With some regret, I say that I have often felt chagrined at remarks 
 made upon this floor concerning New York; there seems to be an im- 
 pression that her interests are inimical to those of the great West and 
 South; that her merchants are moved largely by motives of narrow 
 selfishness, and that it is her "bloated bondholders" who are the 
 conspirators against silver and who are seeking to bring about the single 
 gold standard for their own profit. This is an eminently unfair char- 
 acterization. There are extreme silver men in New York, in fact, I 
 see it charged in certain metropolitan journals that the seat of the 
 agitators (I do not use the word conspirators) for free and unlimited 
 silver coinage is in New York. Undoubtedly there are extreme gold 
 men there also, but during the last two years important lessons have 
 been learned, the subject has been studied in the light of new experi- 
 ence, and to-day New York, as a State, is pronouncedly in favor of 
 international bimetallism. 
 
 As I have said, New York has studied this question in the light of 
 events and New York stands to-day on the side of the minority in 
 Berlin and the minority in London, who are trying to get the majority 
 to surrender the citadel of the single gold standard and so to establish 
 international bimetallism. Remember, gentlemen, that New York is 
 a great city, and great cities sympathize with each other and naturally 
 look at many things in the same way. When London was shouting 
 for gold, Paris for gold, Berlin for gold, it was quite natural that New 
 York should also shout for gold I regret that this was so, and think 
 that it was a mistake, but it was a very natural one. 
 
 Now, as I have intimated, the great mass of the merchants and 
 bankers are international bimetallists, who demand that silver be re- 
 stored by treaty agreement to its proper place in relation to gold, and 
 these men will not be satisfied until it is accomplished, for they recog- 
 nize it as the only true solution of the silver problem. They recognize 
 the fact that a gigantic business blunder was commited when silver 
 
8 
 
 was stricken down by the European nations, and though some of them 
 may at the time have thought the course a wise one, they have long 
 since repented having had any sympathy with it. Gentlemen, there 
 can be no general prosperity upon a sound basis in this country until 
 silver is restored through concurrent action of the nations agreeing to 
 open their mints once more to free coinage at a fixed ratio with gold. 
 The result of eight years' experience has shown to the true friends of 
 international bimetallism that the enactment of the Blund law was a. 
 gigantic mistake, as it has been the principle hindrance to the settle- 
 ment of the question upon a broad international basis. 
 
 Judge Buckner, of Missouri, who served six terms in this House, 
 was one of the ablest advocates of the Bland bill. In a speech made 
 during the closing days of the Forty-eighth Congress he said: 
 
 Our people are thoroughly bimetallic, and will never he content with a mone- 
 tary circulation composed exclusively either of gold or silver. Theirtraditiona- 
 as well as their interesrs demand the. use of both metals with the values of 
 each regulated at such ratio as that neither shall he degraded to the condition 
 of a mere money token, and both shall perform their part in the commercial 
 exchanges of the world on terms of perfect equality. 
 
 This can only be done by the concerted action of the chief nations of Europe 
 with our Government ; and to bring about this concert of action, the first step 
 must 1 e taken by us, and that step should be to suspend the operation of the 
 silver coinage act for a time, in whole or in part, and at once enter upon ne- 
 gotiations with European nations to establish a fixed ratio of valuation between 
 the two metals, and open their mints to the free coinage of both gold and silve* 
 on such terms as may be agreed upon. If we pursue our present policy there 
 is nothing more certain than that the gap between the market value of the two 
 metals will continue to grow wider and wider, and this country will be comr 
 pelled to make choice between gold or silver monometallism. I would regard 
 either as a great calamity to this country and the world, and I have an abiding 
 conviction that the present is an opportune period for taking prompt and de- 
 cisive action on this important question. 
 
 As a business man, and speaking from a business standpoint, I say 
 that proposition is a sound one. But I desire to be understood that I 
 am not opposing silver ; I recognize its importance with gold as a coin 
 of our Government. 
 
 I have more confidence in it than the distinguished Senator from 
 Colorado (Mr. Teller 1 , if he meant what he is reported to have said 
 in his speech of January 19. His words are as follows: "Suspension 
 will degrade silver to such an extent that it will cease to be a money 
 metal." 
 
 In this one sentence he has given away his cause. He evidently has 
 no respect for the article. In his view the only thing that keeps it a 
 money metal is the coining of two million Bland dollars per month 1 
 Preposterous ! 
 
 If silver had no better advocates its cause would be lost. What, 
 cease to be a money metal when Europe holds a thousand million of it 
 as full legal tender, when it is still the standard of Austria and Russia, 
 and when all Asia uses it as money, whether coined or not, to say 
 nothing of Mexico, Central America, and most of the countries of 
 South America! Silver, had it a voice, might well cry, "Save me 
 from my friends ! " if they be such as the Senator from Colorado. 
 
 We can continue the present anomalous law of compulsory coinage 
 of two millions per month, or we can take the panacea proposed by 
 the honorable member from Ohio [Mr. Warner], permitting the hol- 
 ders of silver bullion of standard fineness to carry it to the Mint and 
 receive therefore Treasury certificates, or the plan proposed by the 
 honorable Senator from Ohio [Mr. Sherman], whereby the Secretary 
 of the Treasury is authorized to purchase not less than 2,000,000 nor 
 more than 4,000,000 ounces of silver per month, of standard fineness* 
 
9 
 
 for which coin certificates are to be issued on the cost of the bullion ; 
 we can continue as we are, or adopt either of the above plans, or any 
 one of the half dozen other plans proposed, but, in my judgment, 
 they are all but temporary expedients, and should not be entertained 
 by the Congress of the United States. 
 
 Free coinage is what we want to accomplish, and in my opinion it 
 can only be done through the medium of suspension. So long as this 
 coinage continues and uncertainty exists as to our future course, so 
 long it is easy for European statesmen to put off dealing seriously with 
 the question. But a date for suspension would, as has already been 
 well said, serves as " a notice to quit." 
 
 Opinion in Europe is reassuring on this point. In Germany the 
 convention of agriculturists had repeatedly discussed the silver ques- 
 tion in its general assemblies, and expressed itself in favor of the in- 
 ternational double standard as being in the interest of German agricul- 
 ture. During the past year the distress of these interests became so 
 much greater that the executive committee of the convention felt it to 
 be its duty to address an earnest petition to the Diet, and a resolution 
 favoring the international double standard was passed November 12. 
 
 Up to January 11 of this year petitions for the " establishment of 
 the international double standard under guarantee of treaty " had been 
 sent to the chancellor and to the Reichstag from two hundred and 
 seventy-eight agricultural associations. These associations (varying 
 in the number of their membership) represented all parts of Germany. 
 I find for example, that all the provinces of Prussia proper were rep- 
 resented; all the provinces of Saxony, Lubeck, Hanover, Anhalt, 
 Westphalia, Schleswig, Holstein, Wurtemburg, Bavaria; in fact all 
 parts of Germany. In all eight hundred petitions had come to the 
 chancellor and the Reichstag up to a recent date praying for the inter- 
 national double standard. That the pressure in Germany is very strong 
 we are getting evidences almost daily. On January 22 a remarkable 
 speech was delivered by Finance Minister Scholz before the Landtag. 
 Among other things he said: 
 
 I have therefore observed with regret how wide a circle has been drawn into 
 sympathy with this agitation, and especially that the agricultural interest, now 
 in a pitiful condition, which demands our sympathy, has been led to hope that 
 it can find therein the means of bettering its existence. 
 
 Of course Mr. Scholz being a minister of finance puts on a brave 
 front as a gold monometallist, but he said of himself that he was not 
 " a fanatical advocate of the single gold standard," and that he was 
 u not insensible to the heavy losses which had been incurred by the 
 demonetization of silver." Baron Von Mirbach, (to whom I have al- 
 ready referred), a nobleman of Eastern Prussia and a leading member 
 of the Diet, in an address to the people of Germany entitled, "The 
 serious injury done by the gold standard to those engaged in agricul- 
 ture, in the mechanical arts, to manufactures, to laborers, to all who 
 labor with hand and mind," says: 
 
 The establishment of the gold standard in Germany was a serious mistake, 
 as the Chancellor of the Empire himself has said. It cost the country, that is 
 the tax-payers, over 70,000,000 marks (seventeen and a half million dollars), and 
 injured the entire population that lives by labor, and benefited only those who 
 had money. 
 
 If Prince Bismarck had not stopped the further sale of the thalers (silver) in 
 the year 1879 we should have suffered more than twice the loss already borne. 
 
 And further: 
 
 It is true that most people do not understand the monetary question, and 
 tnls is so much to be lamented, for no question is of such far-reaching, practi- 
 
10 
 
 cal importance for the weal or woe of all classes of labor, nay for the happiness 
 of the citizen. It is much more important than the question of protection, in 
 fact than all the issues of economic politics, which are so much discussed to- 
 day. If it were only understood by the majority of the people they would raise 
 a storm which would sweep the gold standard away as wind sweeps away chaff. 
 
 Dr, Otto Arendt, secretary of the " German association for the 
 double standard under guarantee of treaty," writes, under date of 
 January 12, 1886. 
 
 We need both metals. The equilibrium between them has been broken by 
 the experiment of the gold standard. No single state is in position to restore 
 that equilibrium ; an international agreement is necessary. All states except 
 England are ready for such an agreement if Germany decides to join. If we 
 leave this one nation in its isolation the monetary problem which seems so 
 difficult will be solved. Future generations will instance among the greatest 
 aberrations of the human mind the idea and the experiment of the gold stand 
 ard which has brought such unspeakable misery upon the world. 
 
 On February 11 a Reuter telegram from Berlin stated that the mo- 
 tion introduced by Herr Huene in the Reichstag on behalf of the Con- 
 servatives, urging a new and searching inquiry into the currency ques 
 tion, with a view to ascertaining whether it would be better to adhere 
 to monometallism or return to a double standard, was adopted by a 
 vote of 145 to 119. The result is a step forward for the international 
 bimetallists. Gentlemen, I could produce evidence almost indefi- 
 nitely to show that Germany is alive to the importance of a settlement 
 of this question, and with a little more pressure would be ready to 
 agree to an arrangement, but so long as we are bound by law to con- 
 tinue indefinitely to grind out at least two millions of Bland dollars 
 per month we greatly retard if we do not directly prevent success. 
 With one more quotation from Minister of Finance Scholz I will make 
 no further reference to Germany. 
 
 In the speech to wnich I have already referred he alluded to the 
 -embarrasments of the United States, from which he said with pride, 
 that Germany was free because she had stopped the coinage of silver. 
 Is it not obvious that it is desirable that we now enter upon a course 
 whereby we may be relieved, and shift the embarrassment upon them; 
 in other words, allow Germany to "lie awake nights" over the silver 
 question instead of continuing to do so ourselves ? To me everything 
 indicates that Germany is in a condition where pressure is sure of pro- 
 ducing a favorable result. 
 
 Turning to France, I think I am safe in saying that, judging from 
 her past history and from recent action, she would not be slow to 
 consent to enter into negotiations to establish international bimetal- 
 lism. From the London Bullionist of February 6 we learn that an official 
 decree had been promulgated appointing a permanent commission to 
 consider the monetary question in France and other countries. I can 
 say on excellent authority that there is not a prominent man in Holland 
 who is not an international bimetallist. The chief powers comprising 
 the Latin Union are France, Belgium, Switzerland . and Italy. 
 
 Concerning France I have already spoken. Of the remaining states 
 I can say without hesitation that international bimetallism through 
 guarantee of treaty will be to them the solution of a serious problem- 
 Turning to England, we find that the friends of the double standard 
 are waging a hand-to-hand fight with the advocates of the gold stand- 
 ard, and that latterly the conflict has become very sharp. On January 
 22 the annual meeting of the " International Monetary Standard Asso- 
 ciation " was held in London. Henry H. Gibbs, ex-governor of the 
 Bank of England, presided, and among other things said, that "he be- 
 lieved that the royal commission (of which he is a member) on the 
 
11 
 
 depressed condition of trade in Great Britain would report that the 
 present condition of the silver question had an important bearing on 
 the depression." 
 
 The meeting, before adjourning, resolved to form a gold and sliver 
 league on a popular basis. At Manchester, on the evening of Febru- 
 ary 16, a large and important silver meeting was held, including many 
 members of Parliament and prominent silver advocates, Mr. Grenfell, 
 ex-governor of the Bank of England, a prominent bimetallist, de- 
 nounced the Government for refusing to answer questions connected 
 directly with the currency, and declared that the people had a right 
 to the information for which those questions called. 
 
 On the 23d of February a meeting of the chambers of commerce of 
 Great Britain was held ar London. 
 
 The meeting, by a vote nearly unanimous 
 
 Resolved, That the depreciation of silver and its present tendency to disuse 
 as money are disturbing- trade generally, and England's Eastern commerce in 
 particular. 
 
 Another resolution adopted contained the following language : 
 
 We urge the Government to unite with other countries in an endeavor to 
 restore silver to its former function as a legal tender, thereby giving it a per- 
 manent instead of a fluctuating value. 
 
 Mr. Moreton Frewen, in a letter to the Pall Mall Gazette, in Septem- 
 ber, said : 
 
 There is no question of the day of the same importance to England as is the 
 question of the future of silver. We in England require to know betimes 
 what action Congress will take on this issue. A fall of 12 pence in the price of 
 the ounce of silver has contracted the imperial revenue of India to the extent 
 of some 6,000,000 sterling, and, far worse than even this, has absolutely dis- 
 located our commercial relations with all those nations which use silver. 
 
 He further shows that the suspension of the coinage by the United 
 States of the two million or more standard dollars per month would 
 put England and her Indian empire in a position of extreme and, from 
 our point of view, well deserved difficulty. Mr. H. Schmidt, in a 
 paper entitled "The Future of Silver," read before the Institute of 
 Bankers in London on March 18, 1885, admitted that the proposed 
 suspension of the Bland act was chiefly directed at England, but not 
 so much directly as indirectly, through India, and that the immediate 
 result would be disastrous. 
 
 While I have no doubt that we could force Great Britain into a 
 very awkward position, and while the minority party which favors 
 the remonetization of silver is very active and aggressive, yet her 
 people as a whole are extremely conservative; and the effort might 
 prove unsuccessful. International bimetallism can be accomplished, 
 however, without England, for it existed without her from 181G, when 
 she demonetized silver, until 1871. It was then that Germany began 
 her attack upon silver in endeavoring to follow the example of Eng- 
 land, and became a gold single-standard country. 
 
 This brief review of the state of opinion in Europe shows that the 
 scheme of getting the nations to agree upon the measure of mutual 
 benefit which the United States proposed to them in 1878, and again 
 in 1881, is a practical one, based upon the enlightened self-interest of 
 the various* nations whose agreement is sought. It shows that the 
 obstacle to success is the indifference, the dullness and ignorance, of 
 men in power in those governments ; and, further, it shows the prac- 
 tical difficulty of getting nations to move. 
 
I 
 
 12 
 
 Every member of this House realizes the difficulties of getting laws 
 enacted, or of getting the Departments or the Executive head of the 
 Government to do something new, something out of the ordinary 
 course, and particularly if that something implies that there has been 
 a blunder which will be shown by a change in the plan of action. 
 You, gentlemen, should be the first to recognize the practical diffi- 
 culty of which I speak. You know that nations move slowly, follow- 
 ing in the rear of an enlightened public sentiment. You, of all others, 
 ought to be able to see that what these high officials need in order to 
 ;et them to move faster is to be shaken up. They need to be brought 
 ace to face with their responsibilities in the eyes of all the world, 
 and the opportunity ought not to be afforded of seeking refuge behind 
 a pretext of any character, no matter how adroit it may apparently be. 
 Now, gentlemen, the measure which I advocate will accomplish 
 this result in every nation in Europe. A date fixed by us for suspen- 
 sion of the coinage of the standard dollar, unless there shall be inter- 
 national concurrence before this specified time, is a summons left in 
 the hands of every European statesman who has any responsibility to 
 his country, to his sovereign, or to his constituents a summons 
 which he cannot forget or ignore to wake up and take hold of this 
 question, in order to bring about its settlement upon the only basis 
 which can possibly be permanent and satisfactory, the basis of inter- 
 national bimetalism through treaty agreement to open mints to the 
 free coinage of silver at an established ratio to gold. 
 
 I shall devote the remainder of my time to some of the arguments 
 of my opponents. 
 
 The honorable member from Ohio [Mr. Warner], in his remarks 
 upon this floor, quoted Pliny as saying that " gold was a curse." In 
 Article X, on "National Problems," he also quotes from the same 
 writer and uses the following language : 
 
 Pliny speaks of the introduction of the gold denarius as a ''crime com- 
 mitted against the welfare of mankind." If the introduction of gold coins 
 into the Roman republic was for the purpose of increasing the money stan- 
 dard, then the denunciation of Pliny was not unmerited. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I take it that every member has heard of Pliny, and 
 has a wholesome respect for an ancient Roman who could so far 
 triumph over the ravages of time as to transmit an anti " gold bug " 
 message to the Forty-ninth Congress, in a land that was not heard of 
 until fourteen hundred years after his death. I can imagine a " gold- 
 bug" writhing under the application of Pliny, and I see the con- 
 stituencies of silver rejoicing over the unexpected reinforcement 
 which they owe to the learning of the honorable gentleman from 
 Ohio. It is, however, my painful duty to tell the honorable gentle- 
 man that "all that glitters is not gold." Information is great, but 
 accuracy is greater. 
 
 I hold in my hand a copy of the works of the aforesaid Pliny, and I 
 find him on page 111, volume 6, talking of " silver ore as another folly 
 of mankind." 
 
 The melancholy fact is that the gentleman did not read far enough. 
 This great Roman whom he has seen fit to throw at our heads was not 
 an anti-gold man or an anti -silver man; he was an anti-money man. 
 He believed in barter: he objected to money; and his reasoning was 
 excellent. He objected to men's spending time in digging after money 
 when they ought to have been digging after chemicals and drugs. He 
 was writing a book on natural history, and he was a medical enthusi- 
 ast and spared nothing in his praise of medical knowledge. His idea 
 was that men should be searching: for remedies to cure diseases rather 
 
13 
 
 than to be spending their time in making iron for swords, or mining 
 silver and gold for luxury and treasure. 
 
 But, gentlemen, I am not here to vindicate Pliny, nor to pick flaws 
 in the literary productions of the member from Ohio, but I stand before 
 you to bear testimony to the fact that the entire argument of the ad- 
 vocates of the standard silver dollar rests upon flimsy foundations. It 
 will not pass inspection; it is bound to break down. The same inac- 
 curacy which I find in this citation from Pliny goes through the entire 
 argument of the extreme silver men. 
 
 T"ake, for example, the minority report on the bill (II. R. 5690) now 
 before the House, signed by Mr. Bland, Mr. Lanham, and Mr. By- 
 num. I find on page 10 a statement about the various countries of the 
 world and their money. Here is a list of gold standard countries 
 countries where this metal is the standard money, where any owner of 
 gold bullion can take it o the mint and get it turned into money at 
 par. 
 
 Below is a list of silver standard countries where silver has a like 
 position. Then comes a list of double-standard countries, where one 
 would suppose that gold and silver were the standard, and where the 
 owner of gold or silver bullion could get it coined into money at par. 
 Among others the United States of America is down as being a double- 
 standard country. How is this ? Can any owner of silver bullion take 
 it to our mints and get it coined at all, or, in fact could he go to any of 
 the important countries in that list with his silver and get it coined into 
 money at par? No; of course not; so here is a false statement, as I 
 look at it. Can any one maintain that that statement is not meant to 
 mislead ? But where did that statement originate ? It comes from the 
 report of the Silver Commission of 1876, printed the following year, 
 before the enactment of the Bland law in 1878, and when gold was the 
 standard of value and sole full metallic money. The statement is mis- 
 leading to-day; it was more misleading in 1877. 
 
 France is in the list as being a double standard country; Belgium, 
 Italy, Switzerland, the Latin Union, which stopped the coinage of sil- 
 ver on private account in 1874 and stopped it on government account 
 in 1878. France a double-standard country, when it is ten years since 
 she has coined silver ! Holland has coined none since 1875. It is char- 
 itable to suppose that the men who prepared that statement in 1876 
 were asleep, and that they thought every one else was asleep. Such 
 misrepresentation of facts as these are all made in one interest. The 
 report of 1877 was made in that same interest. The very basis of the 
 argument of this interest is full of fallacies. 
 
 Why, gentlemen, if this table gave a true picture of the monetary 
 condition of the commercial nations we should not be arguing this 
 question in this House at this time, for we should not have any " silver 
 question" on our hands. The standard dollar would be worth a dol- 
 lar and three cents, instead of eighty; in fact, it is a question whether 
 the trade-dollars and the standard dollars would not go to the melting 
 pot to be sold as bullion to be exported to the double- standard coun- 
 tries, where it could be converted into money at the ratio of 15^ to 1. 
 
 If the Latin Union and Holland were true double-standard countries, 
 as the table represents that is, if silver could be taken to their mints 
 and coined into money at the ratio of 15 to 1 we should practically 
 be in the condition we were in before the war, a double-standard 
 country, but with gold alone flowing to our mints for free coinage. You 
 can see why it was worth while for an attorney of the silver interest to 
 
 Erepare such a table ; it is misleading and calculated to deceive, whether 
 itentionally or through error I leave to you to decide. Whoever places 
 any reliance upon it gets a distorted view of the situation. It ignores 
 
14 
 
 the main facts that every one should know who has to deal with the 
 silver question. 
 
 I appeal to my friends on the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and 
 Measures, who signed the minority report, to expunge that table from 
 said report. I suggest to those gentlemen who have published it in 
 their speeches to add a postscript, or to follow them, as they have been 
 sent out, with a circular letter to this effect: " Error corrected. In- 
 stead of double-standard countries, as published in my speech, please 
 read countries which were once double-standard countries but which 
 are no longer such as they coin only gold." 
 
 Then follows the list of countries; after which add, "These countries 
 hold more silver than the United States holds of gold and silver to- 
 gether, and if Mr. Bland's bill should become a law these countries 
 may be expected to send silver sufficient to buy up all of our gold and 
 leave us with the silver standard. In any case, this measure would ruin 
 the prospects of international bimetallism." 
 
 For ten years the agitators for immoderate coinage here have held 
 out this prospect to the gold men of Europe, and so have helped to pre- 
 vent the success of bimetallism. These agitators for immoderate coin- 
 age are the men who have done most to keep down the price of the pro- 
 ducts of the West and South. Here is something which my friends 
 Bland, Lanham, McCreary, Laffoon, and Clements, of the House, 
 and Mr. Jones, of the Senate should have pasted upon their speeches 
 and reports. If they do not do it themselves some one must do it for 
 them. 
 
 Gentlemen, this line of tactics is not confined to this House, but it 
 has invaded the Senate, spreading itself upon eight columns of the Rec- 
 ord; I allude to the memorial of an association which is called the 
 National Bimetallic Coinage Association. The true object of this as- 
 sociation is the immediate sale of silver through inducing the repre- 
 tatives of the West and South to sacrifice their real interests to the im- 
 agined interests of silver States. Senator Jones, of Nevada, intro- 
 duced this memorial on March 11. We find in it the same erroneous 
 statement. 
 
 I read from the Congressional Record of the 11th instant: 
 
 THE FALLACY, * 4 DUMPING-GROUND FOB SILVER." 
 
 With the re-establishment of the free coinage of silver in this country we 
 have been told that the United States will become the dumping-ground for 
 foreign silver. This assertion manifestly rests on error, and a review of the 
 rates of coinage of the several leading nations in this world will soon dispel 
 all just grounds for such apprehension. On the contrary, with the free coinage 
 of silver re-established in this and other silver-using countries in Europe we 
 shall be confronted with a drain upon us for our silver dollars. Our coinages 
 and that of Mexico are as 1 to 16, which means we gives 16 pounds of silver for 
 every pound of gold. The Latin Union, on the contrary, coins at the rate of 1 
 to 1534 ; Great Britain in respect to subsidiary coinage as 1 to 14.28. The Ger- 
 man Empire as well as all the other nai ions of South and Central America coin 
 as 1 to 15/3 , hence the loss on their coins would alone prohibit the exportation 
 of their silver to this country. So far as Mexico with her standard of 1 to 16, 
 equal to our own, is concerned, we have no reason to apprehend any injurious 
 importation of her silver. 
 
 Please observe, gentlemen, that the Latin Union coins and that the 
 German Empire coins. Gentleman, as I have already shown, the 
 German Empire ceased coining silver in 1871, Holland in 1875, France 
 and her allies in 1876; hence, they are no longer double- stand- 
 ard countries; therefore this statement is misleading, it is incor- 
 rect. Those countries are no longer double-standard countries. # No 
 one can take silver to the mints of those countries and have it coined 
 
15 
 
 as they can gold, they are single- standard countries. And the memo- 
 rial contains other equally fallacious statements. 
 
 I ask all candid men if I am not warranted in finding evidence of a 
 conspiracy of silver men to deceive the people and to mislead their 
 representatives in Congress. The Silver Commission of 1876 and 1877, 
 minority report of the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures 
 of this Congress, and the memorial just alluded to all pervert facts 
 upon the silver question. What does it mean ? It means a good many 
 things, but among others, and an important one to the silver mine 
 owners, it means a market for their production. They want to sell 
 their silver; they claim protection from the Government; in fact, 
 it has occurred to me that it would be cheaper for the people if the 
 Government did protect them by paying a subsidy to the mine owners 
 rather than by pursuing the present unfortunate policy. 
 
 In my judgment the silver mine owners have gone too far; they 
 have overestimated themselves. If they had been more modest in their 
 claims they would have realized more than they have done. It was 
 their fortune to have their private interests tied fast to one of the great 
 interests of mankind, and they were so elated that they began to think 
 they could control the monetary interests of the country, The silver 
 men are trying to run the silver question, and the most they have done 
 is to do harm to the cause of silver. Alas, for silver, if it only had 
 such friends as. these. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, let us take another long look at the principal facts 
 that concern the past, the present and the future of silver. These facts 
 are, that down to a few years ago a combination of the chief nations 
 coined all the silver that was offered at the mints at a fixed ratio to 
 gold, which combination was broken up in the manner I have ex- 
 plained This Government started a movement to get the nations to 
 combine in restoring silver. That work is now in progress. It is in 
 the hands of its friends in Europe who are working their way toward 
 success. They ask our help; they ask us not to weaken them by con- 
 tinuing our coinage at the ratio of 1G to 1. 
 
 And now comes the same old cry for free and unlimited silver coin- 
 age, which from the beginning has encouraged the gold men of Eu- 
 rope to hold firm in the position they have taken. Gentlemen, I ap- 
 peal to the sober second thought of this House to stifle this cry, which 
 is really, though its authors may not know it, treason to the true in- 
 terests of the country. 
 
 Gentlemen, this country is for bi-metallism; it is for the restoration 
 of silver to its former rights side by side with gold, rights which it 
 had and which were guaranteed by international concert, and which 
 shall be given and guaranteed by international concert again. The 
 country, I say, is for an international ratio. This country is not in 
 favor of a local ratio. 
 
 Let me tell my colleague on the committee [Mr. Bland] that we 
 are neither red Indians nor Chinese; that this ratio of 16, or more cor- 
 rectly 15,988, on which the piesent dollar is coined is not a " totem" 
 nor " medicine " nor a little " joss " to our people. What they wan^ 
 is to see silver as good as gold, and no local ratio can accomplish that 
 result. The ratio of 16 to 1, and free coinage, means the silver stand- 
 ard. I congratulate the three members of the minority who signed 
 the minority report that they have been frank in saying that they "see 
 no harm in coming to a single silver standard." 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, this country does not want the single silver 
 standard. The people will not have it . The only reason why they toler- 
 ate the existing coinage of silver is because they have not fully under- 
 
16 
 
 stood the question . Error has been spread abroad throughout the land, 
 and the Government Printing Office is being further used for its dis- 
 semination. It is time to call a halt, and I appeal to all men who care 
 for the best interest of the people to unite in an effort to suspend com- 
 pulsory coinage and for the accomplishment of international bi-metal- 
 Jlsm. [Great applause.] 
 
ADDITIONAL REMARKS 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. DARWIN R. JAMES, 
 
 OF NEW YORK, 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 2, 1886. 
 
 Mr. Speaker. I desire to add to my remarks of March 20, 1880. 
 
 The following lines are a part of the platform of the Republican 
 Convention of the State of New York, adopted at Saratoga, Septem- 
 ber 23, 1885: 
 
 " The restoration of silver to its former position through equality 
 with gold before the law in a majority of commercial nations must 
 remain, until accomplished, the chief aim of our monetary policy.'' 
 
 The platform adopted by the Democratic Convention at Saratoga* 
 September 25, contains recognition of the same idea: 
 
 "But we will welcome any practical measure of agreement with 
 other nations by which the ratio of value between gold and silver may 
 be made less fluctuating." 
 
 From. Annual Report op the Secretary op the Treasury (Mr. 
 Sherman) on the state op the finances por the year 1879. 
 The^ Secretary cannot too strongly urge the importance of adjusting 
 the coinage ratio of the two metals by treaties with commercial na- 
 tions, and, until this can be done, of limiting the coinage of the silver 
 dollar to such a sum as, in the opinion of Congress, would enable the 
 Department to readily maintain the standard dollars of gold andsilver 
 at par with each other. 
 
 From Annual Report of the Secretary op the Treasury (Mr. 
 
 Sherman) on the state op the finances for the year 1880. 
 
 It may be better for Congress at the present time to confine its action 
 to the suspension of the coinage of the silver dollar, and to await ne- 
 gotiations with foreign powers for the adoption of an international 
 ratio. *##*###** 
 
 From Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. 
 
 FOLGER) ON THE STATE OF THE FINANCES FOR THE YEAR 1881. 
 
 The most potential means of bringing about any concert of action 
 among different nations would appear to be for the United States to 
 suspend, for the present, the further coinage of silver dollars. This is 
 the decided opinion in both France and America, of the highest au- 
 thorities on bi metallism, and of those who wish to bring silver into 
 general use and raise its value ; and it is believed that a cessation of 
 coinage would, at a very early day, bring about a satisfactory consid- 
 eration of the whole subject among the chief commercial nation*. 
 
 (The recommendations of the Secretary were repeated by reference 
 in his report* for 1882 and for 1888.) 
 
18 
 
 From annual report of thb Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. 
 
 mccullocn) on the state of the finances for the year 1884. 
 
 The United States is one of the most powerful nations its credit 
 is high, resources limitless; but it cannot prevent a depreciation of 
 silver unless its efforts are aided by leading nations in Europe. If the 
 coinage of silver is continued in despite of the action of Germany in 
 demonetizing it and the limitation of its coinage by what are known as 
 the Latin nations, there can be but one result; silver will practically 
 become the standard of value. ****#* 
 
 The European nations which hold large amounts of silver must 
 sooner or later come to its rescue, and the suspension of coinage in 
 the United States would do much to bring about, on their part, ac- 
 tion in its favor. 
 
 From annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. 
 Manning) on the state of the finances for the year 1885. 
 
 The choice before Congress is not between silver monometallism 
 and gold monometallism. Both are inadmissible. The choice be- 
 fore Congress is not between bimetallism and either gold or silver 
 monometallism. The latter are not admissible, and bimetallism is 
 only possible with the co-operation of other nations, which is not now 
 to be had. For, although France holds the same friendly attitude, 
 and would be followed by some of her associates of the Latin Union, 
 England now, as in 1878 and 1881, is willing to depart from her mint- 
 age of gold alone into coins of unlimited legal tender, and Germany 
 now, as in 1881, regards the concurrence of England in an interna- 
 tional bimetallic union as a sine qua non. * * * * 
 
 The only choice before Congress, therefore, is the choice between 
 one metallism and two-metal lism. The silver dollar cannot be kept 
 in equivalence with the gold dollar if the coinage of silver continues. 
 The gold dollar cannot be kept in full domestic circulation if the silver 
 dollar is suffered to fall. Coining more necessitates its fall. Doubt- 
 less some may hope that more silver dollars can be coined, and yet 
 their equivalence with the monetary unit not be lost. It is respect- 
 fully submitted that there is no compensation for that risk, and that a 
 judgment so accordant of the great business classes who carry on the 
 exchanges of the country must be accepted as a final estimate of that 
 risk. 
 
 Nor should it be forgotten that every silver dollar coined hereafter 
 at our present ratio would be, as the coining of every silver dollar 
 since 1878 has been, a direct hindrance to the international bimetallic 
 union then avowed as the object of our legislative policy. 
 
 Extract from House Ex. Doc. No. 100. 49th Congress, 1st Ses- 
 sion. Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury to the 
 Speaker of the House of Representatives in response to a 
 resolution of the House, etc., March 2d, 1886. 
 
 It is now become plain, to all who take comprehensive and practical 
 views of public policy, that the United States can do no better than 
 return at the earliest possible date to a bimetallic unit of value. By 
 this I mean 
 
 1. The monetary unit embodied in coins, both of silver and of gold. 
 
 2. The monetary unit of value embodied in the silver coin to be 
 made and kept in that successive and simultaneous equivalence with 
 the present and prior unit of value which has been our honorable dis- 
 tinction ever since the Constitution was framed. 
 
 8. Open mints for the free coinage of gold and silver at a fixed ratio, 
 to every citizen of the United States bringing either metal, and the 
 
19 
 
 right to have his coins received in every sale and payment a* full legal 
 tender dollars. 
 
 Nothing less than this is bimetallism. It is not bimetallism that we 
 are having now. All out silver coinage is but excessive subsidiary 
 coinage of Treasury purchases of silver for a fictitious Treasury profit. 
 We lack an indispensable part of bimetallism. We lack the free coin- 
 age of everybody's silver, to an amount unlimited by Government, into 
 coins of full legal tender. We only maintain a free coinage for every- 
 body's gold, to an amount unlimited by Government, into coins of full 
 legal tender. 
 
 It is the facts of our present situation, I would respectfully reassert, 
 that constrain us toward bimetallism as our goal. 
 
 Our $550,000,000 coined gold, our $220,000,000 coined silver, now 
 make any policy save ultimate bimetallism for the United States, prac- 
 tically and politically a Utopian policy. 
 
 Stopping the coinage of Treasury purchases of silver is not policy 
 in which we can rest and be thankful. It is merely the first and 
 indispensable step to ultimate bimetallism. It is also the only step to 
 ultimate bimetallism. No intelligent expert on either side the At- 
 lantic has proposed or attempted to defend any other step to ultimate 
 bin etallism. 
 
 It is a wise step in the interest of industries jeoparded by doubt, to 
 end the increasing risk of expelling our gold. But it is a step neces 
 sary in the interest of silver owners, because continued silver-dollar 
 coinage, after long trial, neither betters the price of silver nor narrows 
 its fluctuations, and tends to prevent rather than promote that inter- 
 national concert which, by restoring open mints for silver in three or 
 more great commercial nations, can alone restore its price. No mint 
 in the world which gives free coinage to gold now gives free coinage 
 to silver. Except our own, no mint in the world which give free coin- 
 age to gold now coins full legal tender silver. We alone heap up the 
 load. The sure outcome is silver monometallism for us. Meanwhile 
 what good has eight years of it done the silver owners ? Not a dollar 
 of their coin or bullion crosses the sea and there brings its former 
 price. But silver monometallism in the United States will not restore 
 silver to its old price any mor< than the sileer monometallism of India, 
 China, and Mexico do. It will not even tend to restore silver to its 
 old price, and so is condemned as an incapat le, unprofitable monetary 
 policy. In that respect, it is worse than our present limited coinage 
 of Treasury purchases, prior to the day of their outcome in silver 
 monometallism. It is even worse for the ultimate price of silver 
 than if we stopped such coinage and held on so, indefiniteL . The 
 reason is plain. Silver monometallism in the United States, in due 
 time, and finally, will release to Europe the bulk of our $550,000,000 
 gold, and assist every once bimetallic nation there to follow Great 
 Britain and the Scandinavian States in becoming and remaining a 
 gold monometallic nation, with but token silver for small change. 
 
 Silver monometallism in the United States, in due time and finally, 
 will release the depreciated full legal-tender silver of European bi- 
 metallic nations to compete with the product of our own mines for a 
 passage through our mints. Assume that we could exclude it by 
 stringent laws though it is a strange assumption foreign silver 
 would distance ours in the race for the Orient, with which we trade 
 mostly through Europe now, and with which we have so little trade, 
 but Europe so much. 
 
 The transfer and exchange of a part of Europe's silver stock for 
 the bulk of the United States gold stock might be indirect in p*rt, 
 
20 
 
 but it would be unavoidable. The open mint for silver in Franco 
 was all that Germany used or needed to effect the substitution of her 
 silver for the gold or Prance. That is what silver monometallism in 
 the United States would at last come to, undeniably the exchange of 
 European silver against American gold ; and that could not raise 
 the ratio of silver to its old level, but would fasten it down finally. 
 
 Even were this indirect but ultimate exchange of our gold for Eu- 
 ropean silver hindered by any present tendency of coin balances to 
 continue in our favor, it is still but an affair of time. There are other 
 arguments, too complex to be met incidentally ; but whatever their 
 force, the disuse of gold by the United States would be compensated 
 by its increased use in Europe, and thus prevent its loss of purchasing 
 power. So our increased use of silver, tending to enhance its purchas- 
 ing power, would be countervailed without benefit to the United States, 
 by its diminished use in European nations, thus preventing its gain of 
 purchasing power, whether their legal-tender silver stocks were 
 drained off to the West or East. The bimetallic theory of an ever* 
 balancing approximation of the two metals to a fixed ratio, whatever 
 the variations in the natural increase from mines of either metal, has 
 no application to the case of substitution here supposed, any more than 
 it had to the substitution which Germany effected at the expense of 
 Prance. The emigration of our gold to Europe would not restore the 
 price of silver. 
 
 There is one way, and only one, by which silver can be restored to 
 its old ratio and value, namely an international concert upon a com- 
 mon ratio with open mints to both metals at that ratio. 
 
 A concert of European powers without the concurrence of the 
 United States is impossible, for this reason. The ratio of gold at 
 which most of the European silver stocks have coined is 15.5:1. Our 
 ratio is 16:1. A merely European concert of nations would make 
 profitable the export of all our silver, and we should be drained of the 
 metal as we were, by the same difference of ratios, from 1834 onward, 
 when our loss induced in 1853 our first subsidiaiy coinage of fractional 
 silver. 
 
 A concert of the European powers together with the United States, 
 until we stop coining silver, is impossible for the same and another 
 reason. It is impossible while ratios differ, and while we persist in 
 that which is not only different, but which would both drain us of all 
 except fractional silver, and inundate them with our coined $220,000,- 
 000 and whole future annual product. But moreover the step is one 
 which no European nation, now loaded with a depreciated but full 
 tender silver coinage, will consent to take while the direct or indirect 
 substitution of European silver for the United States gold seems a pos- 
 sibility, even a remote one. It is perceived to be a near possibility 
 under the continuing operation of our present laws, by those who con- 
 trol, with firm hand, the monetary policy of foreign powers. 
 
 So long as we do not stop, and stop unconditionally, our coinage of 
 full legal-tender silver, we cannot destroy foreign hopes of enlarging 
 their stock of gold at our expense. But I am equally well assured, 
 that when we do stop, and stop unconditionally, and destroy such 
 hopes, such an international concert as I have described will then be- 
 come possible. The situation of bimetallic European nations will then 
 be no better than ours, and, for the first time since the fall in value of 
 their full legal-tender silver, will offer no other remedy or outcome 
 than an agreement, with suitable precautions, upon open mints at a 
 fixed and common ratio, to which the assent of the United States would 
 be indisoensable. 
 
Ji