U. S. Senate Speeches and Remarks of Carl Schurz
The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 617) to provide for the redemption and reissue of United States notes, and for free banking.
Mr. SCHURZ. I rise to offer an amendment to the first section of the pending bill. I move to amend by striking out in the fourth line of the first section "382," and inserting "356;" so that the section will read:
That the maximum limit of United States notes is hereby fixed at $356,000,000 at which amount it shall remain until reduced as hereinafter provided.
Mr. BOGY. Before my colleague proceeds, I wish to ask the Chair whether it is in order to move an amendment to the amendment of my colleague?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is.
Mr. BOGY. I move, then, to insert $400,000,000 in lieu of $356,000,000.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment proposed by the Senator from Missouri is, the Chair understands, an amendment to the bill itself, and not to the amendment of his colleague; and therefore it will not be in order until the amendment of his colleague is disposed of.
Mr. BOGY. My object is to bring the Senate to a vote on the limit of $400,000,000 instead of $356,000,000.
Mr. SHERMAN. I suggest to the Senator from Missouri that we take the vote first on the $356,000,000, and then the Senator can offer his amendment for $400,000,000.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will state to the Senator from Missouri that he can effect his purpose by moving to amend the amendment of his colleague and not the bill.
Mr. BOGY. That is my motion; to amend the amendment of my colleague by striking out "$356,000,000" and inserting "$400,000,000."
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be stated.
The Chief Clerk. The first amendment proposed is to strike out $382,000,000 and insert $356,000,000; and it is now proposed to amend the amendment by striking out $356,000,000 and inserting $400,000,000.
Mr. WRIGHT. I suppose that an amendment to the amendment of the Senator from Missouri farthest from me [Mr. Bogy] would not now be in order?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It would not.
Mr. WRIGHT. But I give notice now that I propose to offer this amendment as a substitute for the first section, and I submit to my friend from Missouri whether he will not accept it in the place of the amendment that he has just offered, and thereby have it become the pending question. My proposition is to strike out all the section and insert:
That the amount of United States notes for circulation is hereby fixed at $400,000,000.
Mr. SCHURZ. I think it will be just as well to offer all these amendments after I am through.
Mr. BOGY. If the Senator from Iowa will explain the effect of his amendment, and wherein it differs from mine, I may accept it.
Mr. SCHURZ. I suggest that I be permitted to get through with my remarks, which will occupy only a few minutes; and then the arrangement between the two Senators may be settled. It is not at all in unkindness to my colleague that I make this suggestion, but I think it will promote progress of business.
Mr. BOGY. I am willing to accept the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri withdraws his amendment to the amendment, and accepts that offered by the Senator from Iowa, which will now be reported.
Mr. HAMLIN. That is a process which cannot be got through with here without the consent of the Senator from Missouri on my right, [Mr. Schurz,] who proposes to perfect, as it is called, the first section of the bill. You cannot move to strike out the section until the motion is first put on the amendment which he has offered to perfect it.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The point of order is well taken. The motion is not in order at the present time.
Mr. SCHURZ. Mr. President, I desire to make a very few remarks, merely to state the opinion which I entertain.
The first section of the bill as reported from the Committee on Finance can stand, if at all, only upon two grounds:
First, that the issue of United States notes beyond the limit of $356,000,000 was legal; in other words, that the $44,000,000 United States notes retired and canceled under the act of 1866 did form a reserve to be uncanceled and to be reissued again by the Secretary of the Treasury at his own sovereign discretion. It is my deliberate opinion that the Secretary of the Treasury had no such legal discretion, and that the reissue of any of the United States notes retired and canceled under the act of 1866 was not warranted by law. I wish to have it distinctly understood that I do not intend to make this a personal matter at all. I do not mean to wage war upon any public officer. I am willing to admit that the secretary of the Treasury, in reissuing part of the $44,000,000 reserve, acted in perfect good faith according to his own understanding of the law; and I am also willing to accept any possible excuse which, in that respect, can be made for him. But that does not alter my opinion of the law itself.
The act of 1866 provided —
That of the United States notes not more than $10,000,000 may be retired and canceled within six months from the passage of this act, and thereafter not more than $4,000,000 in any one month.
And, in accordance with that act, the Secretary of the Treasury continued to reduce the amount in circulation until $44,000,000 had been retired and canceled.
Then, in 1868, by the act of the 4th of February, Congress provided that —
From and after the passage of this act the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to make any reduction of the currency by retiring or canceling United States notes shall be, and is hereby, suspended; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the cancellation and destruction of mutilated United States notes and the replacing of the same with notes of the same character and amount.
It is perfectly clear to my mind that the reduction and cancellation of the $44,000,000 which were retired by Secretary McCulloch was considered final, and that the last clause of the act of 1868, providing for the replacement of mutilated United States notes which had been canceled and destroyed by new notes of the same character and amount, excludes the idea that the forty-four millions retired and canceled might also be so replaced. If it had been intended that the $44,000,000 then retired and canceled might be uncanceled again and reissued, by virtue of the act of 1868, I have not the remotest doubt in the world that the act would have so stated in explicit language. And this conviction which I have arrived at is only strengthened by my reading of the debate which preceded the passage of the act. I know that doubt was expressed by some Senators as to whether the language of the act was sufficiently explicit and clear to leave no room at all for the interpretation that the $44,000,000 might be issued again; but it is also certain, and I think no man can read the debate preceding the passage of that act without coming to the same conclusion, that amendments designed to prevent such a misconstruction, to render such a misinterpretation impossible, were voted down by a considerable majority, expressly upon the ground that such amendments were absolutely unnecessary, the language of the act itself being so clear that there could be no two opinions about it. I quoted the other day from the words employed by the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. Morton,] who said he was opposed to such amendments because he was firmly convinced that the language of the act itself did not admit of any other interpretation, but that the retirement of the $44,000,000 was conclusive and final, and that a reissue was inadmissible under the law. While there was a difference of opinion as to the safety of the wording of the act, there was a perfectly unanimous understanding as to the intendment and purpose which the act was to subserve, namely, that the $44,000,000 were to be finally destroyed, never to be reissued. Such was the universal understanding at the time, and that understanding was by no means dissented from by those who offered amendments to the act of 1868, in order to "make assurance double sure."
The first section of this bill, therefore, can in my opinion not stand upon the ground that the reissue of any part of the $44,000,000 retired and canceled under the act of 1866 was legal. It is my conviction that it was not.
It might be put upon a second ground, namely, that by subsequent legislation the issue of the $44,000,000, or any part thereof, might be legalized, if it was not warranted by law before. Now, sir, let us see what that would imply. It would be equivalent to a new issue of Government paper money. Such action could be based only on the principle that the Government of the United States in times of profound peace, with no public danger urging upon it extreme necessities and forcing it to resort to exceptional measures, may at any time issue any amount of irredeemable paper money it pleases — a power which would put at the mercy of that Government the private fortunes of all the citizens of the United States.
Mr. President, in my opinion that power does not constitutionally belong to the Government of the United States, and I, for my part, shall never contribute my vote to sanction it. Those who vote for any proposition to put the legal limit to the issue of United States notes up to a figure over and above three hundred and fifty-six millions, the maximum limit at which it stood when the law of 1868 was passed, must therefore either recognize that in spite of the language of the law, and in spite of the general understanding as to the intendment of the law, the forty-four millions legally retired and canceled could be legally uncanceled again and reissued, or they must admit that the Government of the United States in times of profound peace, not acting under any pressure of great public danger and necessity, may issue whatever amount of irredeemable paper money it pleases, and thus virtually dispose of all private fortunes.
Mr. President, my conscientious conviction, my sense of duty, tells me that I can assent to neither of these two propositions; and for this reason I propose my amendment. I repeat, sir, that I do not mean to make any attack upon the Secretary of the Treasury, and am willing to admit the most favorable construction of his acts; but I would submit to the Senate that here something more is at stake than the mere question of issuing more or less paper money. Here is a question of law, of constitutional power, which involves the best interests and fortunes of the American people.