But it does point out a way by which the twenty absent Senators, and the fifty absent Representatives can get back to these halls, and there is no other way by which they can justly do it.

That is the view I take of this amended bill; and taking that view of it I see no reason in the world why we should not all vote for it.

At the same time, the financial question, embracing the currency, the public debt and the national revenue were of the highest importance and demanded immediate consideration.

I believed then, and now know, that the passage of this law was a great misfortune.

It enabled the Secretary of the Treasury to retire at a rapid rate United States notes and to largely increase the bonded indebtedness of the United States.

It would no doubt have brought us abruptly to the specie standard and made us dependent for circulating notes upon the issues of national banks.

This effort to contract the currency was firmly resisted by several Senators, myself among them.

The Supreme Court decided that Congress had full power to make these notes a legal tender.

After the war was over, the general desire of all was to advance these notes nearer to par with coin, but not to withdraw them.

The rising credit and financial strength of the United States would, it was believed, bring them to par without injustice to the debtor, but the rapid withdrawal of the notes would add to the burden of debts and cripple all forms of…

When this bill came before the committee on finance, I found myself alone in opposition to it.

I could not impress my colleagues of the committee with the grave importance of the measure, and its wide-reaching influence upon our currency, debt and credit.

If Senators will read this bill they will find that it confers on the Secretary of the Treasury greater powers than have ever been conferred, since the foundation of this government, upon any Secretary of the Treasury.

He may undertake, under the provisions of this bill, to fund the whole debt of the United States.

The power conferred on the Secretary of the Treasury is absolute.

There is, therefore, no immediate necessity for these vast powers.

The question then naturally occurs, why grant them?

I have carefully considered this question, and I do not think there is now any immediate necessity for granting these powers.

No debt is maturing that is likely to give the government any trouble; and yet we are now about to confer upon the Secretary of the Treasury, powers that we cannot, in the nature of things, recall.

It is true we may repeal this law next year, but we know very well that when these large powers are granted they are very seldom recalled; they are made the precedents of further grants of powers and are very rarely recalled.

It seems to me that the whole object of the passage of this bill is to place it within the power of the Secretary of the Treasury to contract the currency of the country, and thus, as I think, to produce an unnecessary strain upon the…

This power I do not think ought to be given to him.

What is the object of accumulating these vast balances in the treasury?

It ought to be regulated by law, and the law ought to be so fixed and so defined that every business man may transact his business with full knowledge of the amount of the currency, with all its limits and qualifications.

I ask you, sir, how any prudent or judicious man can now engage in any important business, in which he is compelled to go into debt, with this large power hanging over him.