The advocate and Topeka tribune. [volume], July 27, 1892, Page 2, Image 2

About The advocate and Topeka tribune. [volume] (Topeka, Kan.) 1892-1894

Image provided by: Kansas State Historical Society; Topeka, KS

                
FINANCE THE 8UPREME ISSUE.
Speech of Hon. J, B. Weaver la the House of
Representatives, May 9, 1879.
1 (Continued from last week.)
Now, I will give another reason for
opposing national banka. The act of
June 20, 1874, now on our statute book,
and the law of the land, provides that
any national bank may at pleasure re
duce ita circulation in whole or In part
. Thua thee Institutions are clothed with
the right to contract the currency at their
will. The act of January 14, 1875, known
as the resumption act, provides that they
may Increase the currency without re
gard to limit. Thus there is one act
which allows them to "bear" the market
whenever they please and another which
enables them to "bull" the market when
they please. They can contract the cur
rency when they see fit; and in this way
they can control the value of every day's
labor and of every product In this coun
try. Applause. I say it Is the climax
of Iniquity in legislation that a great gov
ernment like ours, of forty-seven million
people -soon to have a hundred million
should say that for all time we will
never Issue another dollar of legal-tender
paper nor remonetlze silver; that the na
tional banks for all time to come shall
have the absolute control of the volume
of the currency of this country, and
hence over the destiny of our people. I
call on the people everywhere to arise
and In their might and strength shake
off this Incubus. Applause.
The law has been slightly modified since
this speech was delivered. They can now
retire only $3,000,000 of their circulation
per month, of $30,000,000 per year. But the
right to go into liquidation and thus retire
their whole circulation' i. e., the whole cir
culation of any bank, or all the banks, still
exiata. Ed.
Suppose that this were a national con
vention assembled to frame a constitu
tion; that all the articles had been
framed, and It only remained to provide
who should Issue the currency of the
country and control its volume. And
suppose my friend from Michigan should
rise In his place and say: "We have
now our constitution all framed except
that which shall determine who is to Issue
the money. Now there are a few hun
dred men who let us have money when
we were In trouble ;we love them; I move
that we give It Into the hands of our
creditors and their successors, world
without end, amen, to say how much
money there shall be in this country and
when it shall be Issued to the people."
Now I would move an amendment that
the power to say what shall be the price
of all property In this country shall not
be conferred upon corporations, the cred
itors of the country, but that It shall be
left to the whole people, represented la
congress, to say through their represent
atives how much money we shall have
and what shall be the money of the coun
try. Applause.
I venture to say that even In this house,
with so many friends of the syndicate as
we have here to vote, there would not be
one man who would dare to vote "no" on
my amendment, the proposition is so
plain.
But, sir, it is contended that the na
tional bank system furnishes an elastlo
currency. My friend Thomas M. Nich
olls,the secretary of the "Honest Money
League," that represents to-day the hard
money element of both the old parties,
and whose circulars are sent all over the
country by members of congress, says
that the national bank system furnishes
an elastic system of currency; that if the
wants of trade require more money the
banks can get it by depositing bonds, and
. If the currency becomes redundant they
can surrender It. They will regulate it
solely for our good, of course. Thus it
is claimed that under the national bank
system the amount of currency can be
adjusted at the will of the banks In ac
cordance with the demands of trade. But,
sir, I maintain that the elasticity which
we get at the option of the banks consti
tutes one of the greatest objections to the
system. Such elasticity reminds me of
the first piece of India rubber I ever
saw. A great big fellow came U school,
when I was a little boy about ten years
old, holding in his hand a piece of India
rubber which he was stretching. lie
said to me, Jim, did you ever see any
thing like this?" 1 replied: "I never
had; what Is It?" "Why," said he, "they
call It India rubber. Take one end of It
between your teeth." I did so. "Now,"
' said he, "pull I" I pulled and he pulled.
While it was stretching out, while It was
expanding, it did not hurt me a bit; but
when he let loose the other end that was
contraction, and you may depend it was
not pleasant. Great laughter. Now,
the proposition Is to put the rubber to
the Hps of the American people and let
the national banks draw it out whenever
they please. Laughter.
I say that It Is one of the monster evils
of the age, and In defiance of all correct
systems of finance that we allow bylaw a
set of men who are not elected by the
people, who are not responsible to them
for the management of their banking In
stitutions, to regulate at will the volume
of the currency.' Such a system of finance
Is no better than a system of robbery;
and It has had that effect practically, as
a million ruined homes can testify.
Mr. Wilber I would like to ask the
gentleman whether the speculators who
are interested In the passage of the silver
bullion bill are under oath? Are they
not in this respect In the same situation
as the national banks?
Mr. Weaver My dear sir, I would like
to know when It was that the bondhold
lng Interest of this country became
averse to legislation In behalf of specu
lators? And I should like to know an
other thing. What right has the gentle
man to say, if I own a million of silver
bullion, and it is needed for use as
money, that I shall not have the profit
of its remonetlzatlon? I should like to
know what right the government has to
say, "I will take it from you, or I will
not allow It to be remonetized unless you
will give up the profit to accrue from Its
remonetlzatlon the profit which la to
accrue, because of your Industry in go
ing out upon the frontier and digging It
out of the earth where the Almighty had
hidden It away?" Shall this government
say it win not remonetize silver until
those who hold silver bullion, will give
up the profit which may accrue to them?
Everybody knows you cannot remone
tlze silver without someone making
something by IL
Some men may make large fortunes by
It. I grant that, but who lost the differ
ence between the price of silver now and
the value of silver when it was demone
tized? " Then It was worth 3 per cent,
more than gold, and now It Is only worth
eighty-four cents aa bullion. That de
preciation In the price of silver was
brought about, as the Eaglish financier,
Ernest Seyd, has told us, solely by de
monetization. The world lost by de
monetization, let me say regretfully, far
more than speculators will make by re
monetlzatlon. Had the United States
coined silver to the full capacity of the
mints, since 1873, we would now have
$400,000,000 of silver In circulation, and
our people would be prosperous. Be
side, sir, it comes with very bad grace
from men who have speculated upon our
blood and suffering during our interne
cine strife, who speculated upon that
war until they have become purse-proud
and void of love or respect for the poor,
as has been shown upon this floor by
members of congress it comes, I say,
with bad grace from those who have
speculated upon the misfortunes of the
people, and who are now speculating
upon the misfortunes of the people, to
say that if we give back to the country
Its stolen sliver somebody will make
something by It. It is the expedient of
men who are conscious of being In the
wrong, of men who have been guilty,
wittingly or unwittingly, of a great na
tional crime. The people will profit by
remonetlzatlon.
Now, Mr. Speaker, resumption was an
other step In the great scheme which In
cluded the demonetization of sliver. The
resumption act was one of the trinity of
infamies fastened upon the American
people by that diabolical plot. What
was the plea for that act? It was that
we should pay our honest debts, that we
should pay the debt created by the green
back. This was the plea of the Repub
lican party all over the country; that the
government ought to pay Its honest
debts. I wish to show right here and
now the hypocrisy of that declaration.
I say that the resumption act was not
passed for the purpose of paying our
honest debts, but for the purpose of In
creasing the bonded debt of the country.
You know, In the first place, there was
the promise of a slight Inflation, that the
greenbacks should be withdrawn down
to $300,000,000 under the resumption act,
and for every $80 of greenbacks with
drawn there should be an issue of $100
of bank notes, so that there would be a
little "elasticity" given to the currency,
a slight inflation; and yet everyone knows
that under the operation of the two acts,
of June 20, 1874, and the resumption act
of January 14, 1875, the currency haa
been greatly decreased, both national
bank and legal-tender, so that to-day we
have about $100,000,000 less than when
the resumption act was passed.
But let me show that the design was
not to pay our honest debts. Why did
the government sell its surplus gold
coin? From July 1, 1867, to September
30, 1876, the government sold $522,000,
000. After having met all ita coin obli
gations it sold in the markets of this
country and In Europe $522,000,000. That
was more than was necessary to pay off
every dollar of our greenbacks in gold
without issuing a bond. This is the rec
ord furnished by the secretary of the
treasury himself, that this government
sold between the 1st of June, 1867, and
the 30th of September, 1876, $522,000,000
in gold. The resumption act was ptssed
January 14, 1875, and yet this record
shows that after the passage of that act
there was sold at publio auction over
$40,000,000 of gold, and then the treas
ury Immediately turned around, and un
der the resumption act, sold bonds to
buy that gold back again. Laughter
and applause.
In whose interest was that, pray tell
me? Now, why did not the government
take that $522,000,000 and It accumu
lated as high aa $77,000,000 in one year,
in another, $76,000,000 why did not the
government take that coin and pay off
the greenbacks? When you had both
branches of congress and the executive,
why did you not pass a law saying that
the surplus coin in the treasury should
be used In the redemption of the green
backs, If you were so anxious to pay your
debts? That would have brought green
backs to par with gold at once, and with
out expense to the people. But that
would not have been In accord with your
scheme.
But some gentlemen may eay the gold
was sold to defray the necessary ex
penses of the government. The silver
commission, anticipating that objection,
have shown that statement not to be a
true one, for during that period, after
meeting the coin obligation and the cur
rency obligations, the government paid
over $ 100,000,000 of debt which was not
due. Every .dollar of that gold could
have been used to redeem the greenbacks
and In bringing them to par.
But we are told there Is objection to
hoarding, as the government loses the in
terest! I wish to know how much the
government is losing to-day upon the
gold In the sub-treasury of the United
States, which nobody wants, notwith
standing resumption, and which has been
lying idle there, a loss to civilization and
to humanity? Borrowing money to
hoard! What consummate folly, what a
stupendous crime!
There was no honest design In that re
sumption act. The design was, not to
pay the greenback debt unless the green
back couid be funded into an interest
bearing bond. That was It. And hence
the resumption scheme came In to auth
orize a new issue of bonds to pay off the
greenbacks. That was the scheme. And
I challenge any member here to ex
amine these figures on page 459 of the
report of the silver commission and show
where the fallacy exists. It was no hon
est design to pay a debt, I repeat, butja
design to increase the debt of this coun
try and make it perpetual.
But in spite of the opposition to silver
In this country remonetizatlon has been
partially accomplished. But It was re
monetized not only over the vote of the
monometalists here, but over the veto of
the executive himself. The tide of pub
lic sentiment in favor of sliver rose so
high that It swept through this house
like a hurricane and through the sedate
senate of the United States. The meas
ure went to the president and he vetoed '
it. But the tide kept on rising until'
congress passed It by a two-thirds vote
over the executive veto; and the people
breathed more freely. They said, "This
is a government by the people after all;
the syndicate and the executive In its In
terest have not the power to defeat the
people's will" And everybody supposed
silver was to be paid out to the bond
holders, because that was the point upon
which the conflict turned. The govern
ment had the right to pay off the debt
with silver beyond all question, and the
people thought they had gained a vic
tory. The Stanley Matthews resolutions,
passed at the second se.slon Forty-fifth
congress, expressly declared the right of
the government to pay the bonded debt
In standard silver dollars. But the exe
cution of the law went Into the hands of
an nnfriendly secretary of the treasury,
and a conspiracy was formed in New
York with the clearing house. Laugh
ter. I hear some gentleman laughing.
He who laughs last laughs best. It was
ordered that silver should not be re
ceived on deposit unless the depositors
were willing to receive it back in kind.
That was done after a certain distin
guished gentleman who la now traveling
abroad, and who ia to be met on the other
side of the continent with an escort, had
written a letter from Smyrna, an old bi
ble town of Asia Minor. There was a
letter written to Smyrna once, but ltia
a very different letter. It is one in the
Interest of the poor:
Unto the angel of the church in Smyrna
write: I know thy works,
and tribulations, and poverty, (but thou art
rich,) and I know the blasphemy of them
which they say they are Jews, and are not.
Laughter.
This letter, written from Smyrna, was