Chapter XXVIII: Section 18: prohibited all coins except those named, as follows

"Sec. 18. _And be it further enacted_, That no coins, either gold, silver, or minor coinage, shall hereafter be issued from the mint other than those of the denominations, standards, and weights herein set forth."

Special attention was called to the dropping out of the silver dollar, both by Secretary Boutwell and Mr. Knox, and the opinion of experts was invited and given on this special matter and communicated to Congress. These sections, in the three years that the bill was pending in Congress, were changed either in the House or Senate in only one or two unimportant particulars.

Accompanying the report of Mr. Knox were the statements of Robert Patterson, of Philadelphia, confessedly one of the ablest scientists and metallists in the United States, in favor of dropping from our coinage the silver dollar. Dr. Linderman, the director of the mint, made the same recommendation. In the report accompanying the introduction of the bill, under date of April 25, 1870, Comptroller Knox gives the history of the silver dollar and the reasons for its discontinuance as follows:

"The dollar unit, as money of account, was established by the act of Congress April 2, 1792, and the same act provides for the coinage of a silver dollar, 'of the value of a Spanish milled or pillar dollar, as the same is now current.' The silver dollar was first coined in 1794, weighing 416 grains, of which 371¼ grains were pure silver, the fineness being 892.4. The act of January 18, 1837, reduces the standard weight to 412½ grains, but increases the fineness to 900, the quantity of pure silver remaining 371¼ grains as before, and at these rates it is still coined in limited amounts."

He then says:

"The coinage of the silver dollar piece, the history of which is here given, is discontinued in the proposed bill. It is, by existing law, the dollar unit, and assuming the value of gold to be fifteen and one-half times that of silver, being about the mean ratio for the past six years, is worth in gold a premium of about three per cent. (its value being 103.12) and intrinsically more than seven per cent. premium in our other silver coin, its value thus being 107.42. The present laws consequently authorize both a gold dollar unit and a silver dollar unit, differing from each other in intrinsic value. The present gold dollar piece is made the dollar unit in the proposed bill, and the silver dollar piece is discontinued. If, however, such a coin is authorized, it should be issued only as a commercial dollar, not as a standard unit of account, and of the exact value of the Mexican dollar, which is the favorite for circulation in China and Japan and other oriental countries.

"Note.--Assuming the value of gold to be fifteen and one-half times that of silver, the French 5-franc piece is worth about 96½ cents (96.4784); the standard Mexican dollar 104.90, our silver dollar piece 103.12, and two of our half-dollar pieces 96 cents."

The finance committee carefully examined the bill. We were not in any hurry about it. It was sent to us in April, 1870, and was printed and sent, by order of the Senate, to everyone who desired to read it or look over it.

That committee was composed of Messrs. Sherman, Williams, Cattell, Morrill, Warner, Fenton and Bayard.

The bill was reported unanimously to the Senate December 19, 1870, after lying in the committee room for eight months.

The dollar was dropped from the coins in the bill framed in the treasury department. It was then an unknown coin. Although I was quite active in business which brought under my eye different forms of money, I do not remember at that time ever to have seen a silver dollar. Probably if it had been mentioned to the committee and discussed it would have been thought, as a matter of course, scarcely worthy of inquiry. If it was known at all, it was known as a coin for the foreign market.

No one proposed to reissue it. The Pacific coast had six intelligent, able, and competent Senators on the floor of the Senate. They would have carefully looked out for the interest of silver, if the bill affected them injuriously. The authority given in the bill as it finally passed for coining the so-called trade dollar, met all the demands of the silver producing states. But the silver dollar at that time was worth more than the gold dollar. California and Nevada were on the gold standard.

The bill was printed over and over again, finally reported, and brought before the Senate. It was debated there for three days. Every Senator from the Pacific coast spoke upon the measure. Representing the committee, I presented the questions as they occurred from time to time, until finally we differed quite seriously upon the question of a charge for the coinage of gold. The only yea and nay vote in the Senate on the passage of that bill, after two days debate, occurred on the 10th of January, 1871. Those who voted in favor of the bill were Messrs. Bayard, Boreman, Brownlow, Casserly, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Davis, Gilbert, Hamlin, Harlan, Jewett, Johnston, Kellogg, McCreary, Morton, Nye, Patterson, Pomeroy, Pool, Ramsey, Rice, Saulsbury, Spencer, Stewart, Stockton, Sumner, Thurman, Tipton, Trumbull, Vickers, Warner, Willey, Williams, Wilson and Yates--36.

Every one of the six members of the Pacific coast voted for the bill after full debate.

Against this bill were Messrs. Abbott, Ames, Anthony, Buckingham, Carpenter, Chandler, Fenton, Hamiliton, of Texas, Harris, Howell, Morrill, of Vermont, Pratt, Scott and Sherman--14.

So on the only yea and nay vote which was ever taken upon the bill I voted against it. It was not on account of demonetizing the silver dollar. I did not do it because of that, but I did it because gold was then only coined for the benefit of private depositors; we were not using gold except for limited purposes. Gold was the standard in California, and we thought the people of that state ought to continue to pay the old and reasonable rate for coinage of one-fifth of one cent to the dollar. No action was taken on the bill in the House of Representatives, and it failed to pass during that Congress. At the beginning of the next Congress the bill was introduced by Wm. D. Kelley, and reported by him favorably to the House of Representatives. It gave rise to considerable debate, especially the section defining the silver coins. No one proposed to restore the old silver dollar, but the House inserted a coin precisely the equivalent of five francs, or two half dollars of our subsidiary coin, and this franc dollar, as it was called, was made, like other subsidiary coins, a legal tender only for five dollars. On the 9th of April, 1872, Mr. Hooper, having charge of the bill, called especial attention to the dropping of the old dollar and the substitution of the French dollar. He said, on April 9, 1872:

"Section 16 re-enacts the provisions of existing laws defining the silver coins and their weights, respectively, except in relation to the silver dollar, which is reduced in weight from 412½ to 384 grains; thus making it a subsidiary coin in harmony with the silver coins of less denomination, to secure its concurrent circulation with them. The silver dollar of 412½ grains, by reason of its bullion and intrinsic value being greater than its nominal value, long since ceased to be a coin of circulation, and is melted by manufacturers of silverware. It does not circulate now in commercial transactions with any country, and the convenience of those manufacturers, in this respect, can better be met by supplying small stamped bars of the same standard, avoiding the useless expense of coining the dollar for that purpose. The coinage of the half dime is discontinued for the reason that its place is supplied by the copper nickel five-cent piece, of which a large issue has been made, and which, by the provisions of the act authorizing its issue, is redeemable in United States currency."

When the bill was sent to the Senate it, in compliance with the memorial of the legislature of the State of California, inserted in place of the French dollar, of 384 grains of standard silver, a dollar containing 420 grains of standard silver, called the "trade dollar." This was urged upon the ground that, as the Mexican dollar contained 416 grains, or 3½ grains more than the old silver dollar, it had an advantage in trade with China and Japan over our dollar, and that a coin containing a few grains more than the Mexican dollar would give our people the benefit of this use for silver. This dollar was, in conference, agreed to by the House, but was a legal tender for only five dollars. On final action on that bill, the conferees on the part of the Senate were Messrs. Sherman, Scott and Bayard. The amendment of the Senate adopting the trade dollar was agreed to by the House, and the bill passed in both Houses without a division.

There never was a bill proposed in the Congress of the United States which was so publicly and openly presented and agitated. I know of no bill in my experience which was printed, as this was, thirteen times, in order to invite attention to it. I know no bill which was freer than any immoral or wrong influence than this act of 1873.

During the pendency of this bill, the Senators and Representatives from the Pacific coast were in favor of the single standard of gold alone. This was repeatedly shown during the debates, but now they complain that the silver dollar was demonetized, and that, though present, taking the most active interest in the consideration of the bill, they did not observe that the silver dollar was dropped from the coinage. The public records are conclusive against this pretense. Mr. Stewart, Senator from Nevada, and all the Senators from the Pacific coast, who took an active part in the debate on the bill, must have known of the dropping of the silver dollar from the coinage. It appears from the "Congressional Record" that, on the 11th of February, 1874, Mr. Stewart said:

"I want the standard gold, and no paper money not redeemable in gold; no paper money the value of which is not ascertained; no paper money that will organize a gold board to speculate in it."

Again, only a few days after this, on the 20th of February, when he was speaking in favor of the resolution, instructing the committee on finance to report a bill providing for the convertibility of treasury notes into gold coin of five per cent. bonds, he said:

"By this process we shall come to a specie basis, and when the laboring man receives a dollar it will have the purchasing power of a dollar, and he will not be called upon to do what is impossible for him or the producing classes to do, figure upon the exchanges, figure upon the fluctuations, figure upon the gambling in New York; but he will know what his money is worth. Gold is the universal standard of the world. Everybody knows what a dollar in gold is worth."

To review the history of the act of 1873: It was framed in the treasury department after a thorough examination by experts, transmitted to both Houses of Congress, thoroughly examined and debated during four consecutive sessions, with information called for by the House of Representatives, printed thirteen times by order and broadly circulated, and many amendments were proposed, but no material changes were made in the coinage clause from the beginning to the end of the controversy. It added the French dollar for a time, but that was superseded by the trade dollar, and neither was made a legal tender but for five dollars. It passed the Senate on the 10th of January, 1871--36 yeas and 14 nays--every Senator from the Pacific coast voting for it.

It was introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Kelley, at the next session. It was debated, scrutinized, and passed unanimously, dropping the silver dollar, as directly stated by Mr. Hooper. It was reported, debated, amended, and passed by the Senate unanimously. In every stage of the bill, and every print, the dollar of 412½ grains was prohibited, and the single gold standard recognized, proclaimed, and understood. It was not until silver was a cheaper dollar that anyone demanded it, and then it was to take advantage of a creditor.

It has always been within the power of Congress to correct this error, if error was made; but Congress has refused over and over again to do it. When the controversy arose, in 1878, on the Bland bill, and the House of Representatives proposed the free coinage of silver, the Senate rejected it after a deliberate contest, and substituted in place of it what is called the Bland-Allison act, which required the purchase, by the government, of silver bullion at its market value, and its coinage to a limited amount. Every effort has been made, from that time to this, to have the Congress of the United States pass a free coinage act.

If this is done, it will be to secure a cheaper dollar of less purchasing power, with the view to enable debtors to pay debts, contracted on the basis of gold coin, with silver coins, worth, with free coinage, less than one-half of gold coins.

In reviewing, at this distance of time, the legislation of 1873, in respect to the coinage of silver, I am of the opinion that it was fortunate that the United States then dropped the coinage of the old silver dollar. No one then contemplated the enormous yield of silver from the mines, and the resulting fall in the market value of silver, but, acting upon the experience of the past, that a parity between silver and gold could not be maintained at any fixed value, Congress adopted gold as the standard of value, and coined silver as a subsidiary coin, to be received and maintained at a parity with gold, but only a legal tender for small sums. This was the principle adopted in the act of 1853, when silver was more valuable than gold at the legal ratio. Silver was not then coined into dollars, because it was then worth more as bullion than as coin. It was needed for change, and, under the law of 1853, it was furnished in abundance. Similar laws are now in force in all countries where gold is the sole standard. Under these laws, a larger amount of silver is employed as subsidiary coins than when the coinage of silver was free.

The same condition of coinage now exists in the United States. While silver is reduced in market value nearly one-half, silver coins are maintained at par with gold at the old ratio, by fiat of the government. It is true that the purchase of silver, under recent laws, involved a heavy loss to the government, but the free coinage of silver, under the ratio of sixteen to one, would exclude gold from our currency, detach the United States from the monetary standard of all the chief commercial nations of the world, and change all existing contracts between individuals and with the government. In view of these results, certain to come from the free coinage of silver, I am convinced that until some international arrangement can be made, the present system of coinage should continue in force. This has now became a political, or, rather a monetary question, to be decided sooner or later, by popular opinion, at the polls. This subject will be further discussed at a later period, when efforts were made to adopt the free coinage of silver at the old ratio.

Prior to the meeting of Congress in December, 1870, a controversy had arisen between Senator Sumner and Secretary Fish, which created serious embarrassment, and I think had a very injurious influence during that and succeeding sessions of Congress. Mr. Sumner had long been chairman of the committee on foreign relations, and no doubt exercised a domineering power in this branch of the public service. Mr. Fish and Mr. Sumner had differed widely in respect to the annexation of San Domingo and certain diplomatic appointments and former treaties, among them the highly important English negotiations for the settlement of claims growing out of the war. On these topics the President and Mr. Sumner could not agree. Mr. Sumner insisted that the hasty proclamation by Great Britain of neutrality between the United States and the Southern Confederacy was the gravamen of the Alabama claims. The President and Mr. Fish contended that this proclamation was an act of which we could not complain, except as an indication of an unfriendly spirit by Great Britain, and that the true basis of the Alabama claims was that Great Britain, after proclaiming neutrality, did not enforce it, but allowed her subjects to build cruisers, and man, arm and use them, under cover of the rebel flag, to the destruction of our commercial navy.

This difference of opinion between the President and Mr. Sumner led to the removal of John L. Motley, our minister to England, who sided with Sumner, and unquestionably intensified the feeling that had arisen from the San Domingo treaty.

As to that treaty it was a conceded fact that before the President had become publicly committed to it he had, waiving his official rank, sought the advice and counsel of Mr. Sumner, and was evidently misled as to Mr. Sumner's views on this subject. The subsequent debating, in both open and executive session, led to Mr. Sumner's taking the most extreme and active opposition to the treaty, in which he arraigned with great severity the conduct of the naval officers, the Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Fish and the President. This was aggravated by alleged public conversations with Mr. Sumner by "interviewers," in which the motives of the President and others were impugned.

In the meantime, social relations between the Secretary of State and Mr. Sumner had become impossible; and--considering human passion, prejudice and feeling--anything like frank and confidential communication between the President and Mr. Sumner was out of the question.

A majority of the Republican Senators sided with the President. We generally agreed that it was a false-pretended neutrality, and not a too hasty proclamation of neutrality, that gave us an unquestionable right to demand indemnity from Great Britain for the depredations of the Alabama and other English cruisers. And as for the San Domingo treaty, a large majority of Republican Senators had voted for it--though I did not; and nearly all of us had voted for the commission of inquiry of which Mr. Wade was the chief member.

When we met in March, it was known that both these important subjects would necessarily be referred to the committee on foreign relations, and that, aside from the hostile personal relations of Mr. Sumner and the Secretary of State, he did not, and could not, and would not, represent the views of a majority of his Republican colleagues in the Senate, and that a majority of his committee agreed with him. Committees are and ought to be organized to represent the body, giving a majority of the members to the prevailing opinion, but fairly representing the views of the minority. It has been the custom in the Senate to allow each party to choose its own representatives in each committee, and in proportion to its numbers.

In the Republican conference the first question that arose was as to Mr. Sumner. He was the oldest Senator in consecutive service. He was eminent not only as a faithful representative of Republican principles, but as especially qualified to be chairman of our foreign relations. He had long held that position, and it was not usual in the Senate to change the committees, but to follow the rule of seniority, placing Senators of the majority party in the order of their coming into the Senate and those of the minority at the foot of the list.

In deciding Mr. Sumner's case, in view of the facts I have stated, two plans were urged;

First--To place him at the head of the new and important committee of privileges and elections, leaving the rest of the committee on foreign relations to stand in the precise order it had been, with one vacancy to be filled in harmony with the majority.

Second--To leave Mr. Sumner to stand in his old place as chairman, and to make a change in the body of the committee by transferring one of its members to another committee, and fill the vacancy by a Senator in harmony with the majority.

My own opinion was that the latter course was the most polite and just; but the majority decided, after full consideration and debate, upon the first alternative.

Simon Cameron was next to Mr. Sumner on the list of Republican members of the committee, and, by uniform usage, became its chairman.

This affair created feeling in the Senate which it is difficult now to realize, but it was decided in a Republican caucus, in which there was an honest difference of opinion. We foresaw, whichever way it should be decided, that it would create--and it did create --bad feeling among Senators, which existed as long as Mr. Sumner lived. I think it proper to make this statement of my own views at the time, though by the happening of great events this incident has almost passed out of memory.

Mr. Sumner died in Washington, March 11, 1874. He was distinguished for his literary attainments, and his strong opposition to the institution of slavery and his severe arraignment of it. The brutal attack made upon him by Preston S. Brooks created profound sympathy for him.