Seventeen Talks on the Banking Question / Between Uncle Sam and Mr. Farmer, Mr. Banker, Mr. Lawyer, Mr. Laboringman, Mr. Merchant, Mr. Manufacturer

by Charles N. Fowler

Mr. Farmer: How do you think it could have been avoided? How do you think James Gallatin, Moses Taylor and George S. Coe would have provided the money for carrying on the war?

Mr. Banker: By selling the bonds of the Government upon the best terms possible, as to rates and interest and time, and by such a system of taxation, as would help produce the necessary means for prosecuting the war. These bankers had already furnished one hundred and fifty million dollars ($150,000,000), and stood ready to go on and finance the war as they certainly could have done, if they had been permitted to do so.

When they, in August, 1861, arranged to furnish the first $150,000,000, the banks of New York, Philadelphia and Boston held gold amounting to $63,200,000, and on December 7th, they held practically the same amount, or $58,100,000, although they had already furnished $100,000,000 of the $150,000,000 they had loaned. However, Chase was both ignorant and obstinate and the result was a crisis in our national affairs.

Mr. Lawyer: That is the fact, and as you said a moment ago even then there were those, and they were among the greatest of our public men, who were convinced that it was unwise, dangerous, unconstitutional and unnecessary to issue "legal tender money," or greenbacks, as they are called. Just hear what some of them said. Justin S. Morrell used this language in the House of Representatives: "If this paper money is a war measure, it is not waged against the enemy, but one that may well make him grin with delight. I would as soon provide Chinese wooden guns for the army, as paper money alone for the Treasury.

"What is it that we most need? Clearly we lack money, and wish to inspire our own people with that confidence that will induce them to lend the requisite amount. But the very first step we propose is one to destroy whatever of confidence yet remains among those who have a dollar to lend. We proclaim by an engraved advertisement—to be forced into the pockets of every man by the fiat of the Government—that we will hereafter liquidate all of our debts with paper only....

"I object to this bill on the ground of its utter impolicy. I admit that from the contracts entered into—many of which are now due—I regret have not been paid as promptly as they deserve to be, and from the heavy monthly disbursements to our armies, that the Government can flood the country with even $150,000,000 of paper dollars. But from that amount, you would vastly increase the cost of carrying on the war; prices would go up and the addition we should pile upon our national debt would prove that it might have been even wiser to have burned our paper dollars before they were issued; the inflation of the currency would be inevitable....

"It will be conceded that the power is no where contained in the letter of the Constitution, and that, in all our history since the adoption of the Constitution, it has never been exercised.... By making paper a legal tender, no more specie will be seen, except through offers of rewards to draw it from its hiding places, until we emerge from our present difficulties, and not for an indefinite period perhaps, thereafter. The $300,000,000 of specie said to be in the country, though I think there is not quite so much, will be hoarded and remain useless and idle for the rest of the war. I am for keeping this, the vital fluid of commerce, in healthy, active circulation."

Charles Sumner used this language in the United States Senate: "Is there not bad faith toward creditors who are compelled to receive what is due to them in a depreciated currency? Is there not bad faith toward all abroad who, putting trust in our integrity, national and personal, have sent their money to this country, in gold or its equivalent? And, surely, just in proportion as this is so, you cannot doubt that we shall suffer alike in character and resources; for what resource is greater to a nation, or to an individual, than a character for integrity?... Is it necessary to incur all the unquestionable evils of inconvertible paper, forced into circulation by an Act of Congress—to suffer the stain upon our national faith—to bear the stigma of a seeming repudiation—to lose for the present that credit which in itself is a treasury—and to teach debtors everywhere that contracts may be varied at the will of the stronger? Surely there is much in these inquiries which may make us pause. If our country were poor or feeble, without population, and without resources, if it were already drained by a long war, if the enemy had succeeded in depriving us of the means of livelihood, then we should not even pause. But our country is rich and powerful, with a numerous population, busy, honest and determined, and with unparalleled resources of all kinds, agricultural, mineral, industrial and commercial; it is yet undrained by the war in which we are engaged; nor has the enemy succeeded in depriving us of any of the means of livelihood. It is hard—very hard—to think that such a country, so powerful, so rich and so beloved, should be compelled to adopt the policy of even questionable propriety."

James A. Bayard, of Delaware, used this language: "The thing is to my mind so palpable a violation of the Federal Constitution, that I doubt whether in any Court of Justice in this country, having a decent regard for its respectability, you can possibly except that this bill, which you now pass, will not, whenever the question is presented judicially, receive its condemnation as unconstitutional, and void in this clause."

Roscoe Conklin used this language in the House: "I propose to assign my reasons briefly for voting against the attempt by legislation to make paper a legal tender. The proposition is a new one, no precedent can be found in its favor; no suggestion of the existence of such a power can be found in the legislative history of the country; and I submit to my colleague as a lawyer, the proposition that this amounts to affirmative authority of the highest kind against it. Had such a power lurked in the Constitution as construed by those who ordained and administered it, we should find it so recorded. The occasion for resorting to it, or at least referring to it, has, we know, repeatedly arisen, and had such a power existed, it would have been recognized and acted on. It is hardly too much to say, therefore, that the uniform and universal judgment of statesmen, jurists and lawyers has denied the constitutional right of Congress to make paper a legal tender for debts to any extent whatever....