"In other words, the suspension of this convertibility clause was passed with a view to promote conversion; to encourage conversion; to induce conversion; and, if possible, to induce a conversion into a five per cent. gold bond instead of into a six per cent. bond. When the Secretary of the Treasury presented this view to Congress he was at once met with the pledge of the public faith; with the promise printed upon the back of the greenbacks that they could be converted into six per cent. bonds at the pleasure of the holder; and that we could not take away that right. This difficulty was met by the ingenuity of the then Senator from Vermont (Mr. Collamer). He said that no man ever exercised a right which could not properly be barred by a statute of limitations; and if this right was injurious to the people of the United States, and prevented the conversion of these notes into bonds, we might require the holder of these notes to convert them within a given time; that we could give them a reasonable time within which they could convert them into six per cent. bonds, and after that take away the right.
"The act of March 3, 1863, was amended by inserting this clause:
'And the holders of United States notes, issued under or by virtue of said acts, shall present the same for the purpose of exchanging the same for bonds, as therein provided, on or before the 1st day of July, 1863; and thereafter the right so to exchange the same shall cease and determine.'
* * * * *
"Now, Mr. president, I have shown you that the greenbacks were based upon coin bonds; that they had the right to be converted into coin bonds; that that right was taken away as to the 5-20 bonds; but that, in practice and in effect, the greenback was convertible into an interest-bearing bond of the United States up to 1866, and until the passage of the law to which I will now refer.
* * * * *
"If this act had contained a simple provision restoring to the holder of the greenback the right to convert his note into bonds there would have been no trouble. Why should it not have been done? Simply because the then Secretary of the Treasury believed that the only way to advance the greenbacks was by reducing the amount of them; that the only way to get back to specie payments was by the system of contraction. If the legal tender notes could have been wedded to any form of gold bond by being made convertible into it, they would have been lifted, by the gradual advance of our public credit, to par in gold, leaving the question of contraction to depend upon the amount of notes needed for currency. Sir, it was the separation of our greenbacks from the funding system that created the difficulty we have upon our hands to-day; and I say now that, in my judgment, the only true way to approach specie payments is to restore this principle, and give to the holder of the greenback, who is your creditor, the same right that you give to any other creditor. If he has a note which you promised to pay and cannot, and he desires interest on that note by surrendering it, why should you not give it to him? No man can answer that. It is just as much a debt as any other portion of the debt of the United States."
Finally, after more than three months study and debate, a majority of the committee agreed upon a measure and directed me to report it to the Senate. It fixed the maximum limit of the United States notes at $382,000,000. It provided for a gradual payment of these notes in coin or in five per cent. bonds, at the option of the Secretary of the Treasury, from the 1st of January, 1876. It was entitled "An act to provide for the redemption and reissue of United States notes and for free banking."
In obedience to the instructions of the committee, on the 23rd of
March, 1874, I reported the bill as an original measure, and said:
"It is due to the members of the committee on finance that I should say that the bill which I have just reported, as it appears on its face, is in the nature of a compromise measure, which is more or less acceptable all around, but at the same time there are certain features of the bill which members of the committee on finance will feel at liberty to express their opposition to, and also to propose amendments to. It is due to them that I should make this statement. The bill itself, as appears on its face, is the result of great labor, long consideration, and the consequence of compromise. In many cases we were not able, however, to reconcile conflicting opinions; and on those points, of course, members of the committee will feel themselves at liberty to oppose certain features of the bill."