Two things must be done for the national banks: first, the bonds deposited by them with the Government must be reduced in interest; and, secondly, the system must be extended, so as to supply much-needed facilities, especially at the West…
Charles Sumner
The Public Record
Charles Sumner was an American lawyer and statesman who represented Massachusetts in the United States Senate from 1851 until his death in 1874. Before and during the American Civil War, he was a leading American advocate for the abolition of slavery, and after the war he was a key figure in the Reconstruction era, during which he and other Radical Republicans successfully fought to end slavery and ensure basic rights for Black Americans. He continued advocating for racial equality until his death, lobbying in his final days for a civil rights bill that served as a model for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Historians credit Sumner with coining the phrase "equality before the law," which he first used as part of an early attempt to integrate Boston's public school system.
Here it must be observed, that the whole system of national banks is founded upon the bonds of the nation; so that, at the rate of liquidation now adopted for the national debt, the system will be without support in the lapse of twelve or…
The stability of the banks, which is so vital alike to the national currency and to the pecuniary interests involved in the business, can be assured only by an issue of bonds for a longer term.
To reduce the interest arbitrarily on the existing short bonds of the banks, without offering compensation in some form, would be positively unjust, besides being an infringement of the guaranties surrounding such bonds, and therefore a…
The extension of bank-notes from three to five hundred millions, which I propose, will extend the banking system where it is now needed.
In presenting this series of measures, I am penetrated by the conviction, that, if adopted, they cannot fail to bring all the national obligations to a par with coin, and then specie payments will be resumed without effort.
With diminished taxation and resources increasing immeasurably, the national debt will cease to be a burden,--becoming “fine by degrees and beautifully less” until it gradually ceases to exist.
I never have doubted, I cannot doubt, the ease with which the transition to specie payments may be accomplished, especially as compared with the ominous fears which this simple proposition seems to excite in certain quarters.
Like every measure of essential justice, it will at once harmonize with the life of the community, and people will be astonished at the long postponement of an act so truly beneficent in all its influences, so important to the national…
I venture to add, that the remedy would be worse than the disease.
The Senator from Kentucky said aptly, that, if we wait until all are ready, we shall never resume.
If the Senator from Indiana is right in saying that prices have already settled down in the expectation of an early resumption, then to my mind the battle is half won and we have only to proceed always in the right direction.
A simple redistribution of the existing currency cannot be made without serious consequences to the business of the country, while it will do nothing to correct the evils of our present financial condition.
Nor is it easy to see how any redistribution can be made, which, however just to-day, may not be unjust to-morrow.
This is right, and it removes to a certain extent objections successfully urged at the last session of Congress against a measure for the redistribution of currency.
But, plainly and obviously, the measure of relief proposed is not sufficient to meet the just demands of the South and West; nor is it sufficient to prevent taking from the North and East a portion of the currency now enjoyed by them.
Therefore in one part of the country it will be inadequate, while in another it is unjust.
When a complete remedy is in our power, why propose a partial remedy?
When a just remedy is in our power, why propose an unjust remedy?
I would ask also, Why unnecessarily disturb existing and well-settled channels of trade?--for such must be the effect of a new apportionment, as proposed, under the census of this year.
Why not at once provide another source from which to draw the new supplies under the new apportionment?
Besides its partiality, this provision operates like a gratuity to the banks having these notes.
Obviously these three per cent. certificates ought to be withdrawn; but I do not like to see their withdrawal conditioned on the extension of banking facilities.
A fundamental principle of Public Law is the perfect equality and entire independence of all distinct states.
But, Sir, in the face of this uncertainty, this bill steps in and declares positively that “a new apportionment shall be made as soon as practicable, based upon the census of 1870.” What will be the effect of such a new apportionment?





