Unconditional Repeal
William Jennings Bryan
(1860—1925)
Delivered in Congress on Nov. 1, 1893, when it was certain that the purchasing
clause of the Sherman act would be repealed. The speech calls attention
to the similarity between the bill then before Congress and the bill introduced
by Senator Sherman the year before.
MR. SPEAKER: Nothing that can be said at this time will affect the fate
of this bill, but those gentlemen who vote for it should do so with a full
and clear understanding of what they are doing. We have been told, sir,
that the Democratic platform adopted in 1892 demanded the unconditional
repeal of the Sherman law. No person has brought into this House a single
platform utterance which will bear out that assertion. The platform does
not even demand repeal, not to speak of unconditional repeal. It says:
“We denounce the Republican legislation known as the Sherman act of 1890
as a cowardly makeshift fraught with possibilities of danger in the future,
which should make all of its supporters, as well as its author, anxious
for its speedy repeal.” Its author does seem to be “anxious for its speedy
repeal,” and in this desire many of its supporters join with him; but why
should a Democratic Congress secure that repeal without first restoring,
at least, the law which the Sherman law repealed? Then, too, the denunciation
contained in the platform is directed against the whole law, not simply
against the purchase clause. Yet we are urged to support this bill for
the unconditional repeal of the purchase clause only as a Democratic measure. What is the history of this bill? It is identical in purpose and almost identical in language with a bill introduced by Senator SHERMAN July 14, 1892.
To show the similarity between the bill introduced then by Senator SHERMAN
and the bill introduced since by Mr. WILSON, I place the two bills in parallel
columns, and indicate by italics the words which appear in both bills:
Fifty-second Congress, first session. S. 3423, introduced in the Senate July 14, 1892, by Mr. SHERMAN.
A bill for the repeal of certain parts of the act directing the purchase
of silver bullion and the issue of Treasury notes thereon, and for other
purposes, approved July 14, 1890.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That so much of the act entitled
“An act directing the purchase of silver bullion and the issue of Treasury
notes thereon, and for other purposes,” approved July 14, 1890, as directs
the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase, from time to time, silver bullion
to the aggregate amount of 4,500,000 ounces, or so much thereof as may
be offered in each month, at the market price thereof, and to issue in
payment for such purchases of silver bullion Treasury notes of the United States is hereby repealed, to take effect on the 1st day of January, 1893; Provided, That this act shall not in any way affect or impair or change the legal qualities, redemption or use of the Treasury notes issued under said act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Fifty-third Congress, first session. H. R. 1, introduced in the House August
11, 1893, by Mr. WILSON.
A bill to repeal a part of an act, approved July 14, 1890, entitled “An act directing the purchase of silver bullion and the issue of Treasury notes thereon, and for other purposes.”
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That so much of the act approved
July 14, 1890, entitled “An act directing the purchase of silver bullion
and issue of Treasury notes thereon, and for other purposes,” as directs
the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase, from time to time, silver bullion
to the aggregate amount of 4,500,000 ounces, or so much thereof as may
be offered in each month, at the market price thereof, not exceeding $1 for 371.25 grains of pure silver, and to issue in payment for such purchases Treasury notes of the United
States, be, and the same is hereby repealed; but this repeal shall not impair or in any manner affect the legal-tender quality of the standard silver dollars heretofore coined; and the faith and credit of the United States are hereby pledged to maintain the parity of the standard gold and silver coins of the United States at the present legal ratio, or such other ratio as may be established by law.
|
Does the Senator from Ohio originate Democratic measures?
The gentlemen who favor this bill may follow the leadership of Senator
SHERMAN and call it Democratic; but until he is converted to true principles
of finance I shall not follow him, nor will I apply to his financial policy
the name of Democracy or honesty. The Wilson bill passed the House, but
a majority of the Democrats voted in favor of substituting the Bland law
in the place of the Sherman law before they voted for unconditional repeal,
showing that they were not for unconditional repeal until Republican votes
had deprived them of that which they preferred to unconditional repeal,
namely, the Bland law. When the bill in its present form was reported to
the Senate, four of the Democratic members of the Finance Committee opposed
the bill and only two Democrats favored it. When the bill passed the Senate,
twenty-two Democrats were recorded in favor of the bill and twenty-two
against it, and that, too, in spite of the fact that every possible influence
was brought to bear to secure Democratic support for the measure. Before
a vote was reached thirty-seven Democratic Senators agreed to a compromise,
so that this bill does not come to us expressing the free and voluntary
desire of the Democratic party.
Not only does unconditional repeal fail to carry out the pledge made in
the last national platform, but it disregards the most important part of
the financial plank, in not redeeming the promise to maintain “the coinage
of both gold and silver, without discrimination against either metal or
charge for mintage.” That promise meant something. It was a square declaration
in favor of bimetalism. The tail to this bill, added in the Senate as an
amendment, pretends to promise a future fulfillment of platform pledges.
We are not here to promise, but to fulfill. We are not here to renew platform
pledges, but to carry them out. But even if it were our duty to postpone
bimetalism and record another promise, the Senate amendment eliminates
from the platform the important declaration in favor of “the coinage of
both gold and silver without discrimination against either metal or charge
for mintage.” To show the important difference between the Senate amendment
and that part of our platform, I arrange them in parallel columns and designate
the discarded words by italics.
DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM.
We hold to the use of both gold and silver as the standard money of the country, and to the coinage of both gold and silver without discrimination against either metal or charge for mintage, but the dollar unit of coinage of both metals must be of equal intrinsic and exchangeable value or be adjusted through international agreement, or by such safeguards of legislation as shall insure the maintenance of the parity of the two metals and the equal power of every dollar at all times in the markets and in the payment of all debts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
THE SENATE AMENDMENT.
And it is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to continue the use of both gold and silver as standard money, and to coin both gold and silver into money of equal intrinsic and exchangeable value, such equality to be secured through international agreement, or by such safeguards of legislation as will insure the maintenance of the parity in value of the coins of the two metals and the equal power of every dollar at all times in the markets and in the payment of debts. And it is hereby further declared that the efforts of the Government should be steadily directed to the establishment of such safe system of bimetalism as will maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar coined or issued by the United States, in the markets and in the payment of debts.
|
Were those important words stricken out by intention or was it simply an
oversight? No, Mr. Speaker, those words were purposely left out because
those who are behind the bill never intended to carry out the Democratic
platform; and if we can judge their purpose by their acts those who prepared
the platform never intended when it was written that it should be fulfilled
after it had secured the suffrage of the American people.
When they had a strike at Homestead some time ago they used force to remedy
what they considered their grievances. We said then that the ballot, not
the bullet, was the means by which the American people redressed their
grievances. What shall we say now when people elected upon a platform and
pledged to a principle disregard those pledges when they come to the legislative
halls? It is a blow at representative government which we cannot afford
to give. We are not sent here because we know more than others and can
think for them. We are sent here to carry out the wishes, to represent
the interests, and to protect the rights of those who sent us. What defense
can we make if this bill is passed? It is not demanded by the people; the
farmers and laborers who constitute the great bulk of our people have never
asked for it; those who speak for their organizations have never prayed
for it.
So far as the laborer has been heard from, he has denounced unconditional
repeal; so far as the farmer has been heard from, he has denounced unconditional
repeal. Who gave the Eastern capitalists the right to speak for these men.
It is a contest between the producers of wealth and those who exchange
or absorb it. We have heard a great deal about business interests and business
men demanding repeal. Who are the business men? Are not those entitled
to that name who are engaged in the production of the necessaries of life?
Is the farmer less a business man than the broker, because the former spends
three hundred and sixty-five days in producing a crop which will not bring
him over a dollar a day for his labor, while the latter can make ten times
the farmer’s annual income in one successful bet on the future price of
the farmer’s product? I protest, Mr. Speaker, against the use of the name
business men in such a way as to exclude the largest and most valuable
class of business men in the country. Unconditional repeal stops the issue
of money. With this law gone, no more silver certificates can be issued,
and no more silver bought. There is no law to provide for the issue of
greenbacks. We must rely for our additional currency upon our share of
the limited supply of gold, and the bank notes which national banks may
find it profitable to issue.
Does anybody deny that our currency must increase as our population increases
and as our need for money increases? Does any one believe that our need
for money can be supplied without affirmative legislation? Is it any more
wise to destroy the present means for increasing our currency before a
new plan is adopted than it would be to repeal the McKinley tariff act
without putting some other revenue measure in its place? Our platform says:
“We denounce the McKinley tariff law enacted by the Fifty-first Congress
as the culminating atrocity of class legislation,” and “we promise its
repeal as one of the beneficent results that will follow the action of
the people in entrusting power to the Democratic party.” We also demanded
a tariff for revenue only. Is there any more reason for separating the
repeal of the Sherman law from the enactment of bimetalic legislation than
there is for separating the repeal of the McKinley bill from the enactment
of a “tariff for revenue only” measure? Having harmonized with Mr. SHERMAN,
shall we proceed to harmonize with Mr. McKinley? There are many Republicans
who tell us now that the prospect of tariff reduction has destroyed confidence
to a greater extent than the Sherman law has.
In order to avoid another manufacturer’s panic will it be necessary to
abandon another tenet of the Democratic faith and give up all hope of tariff
reduction? Unconditional repeal will make it more difficult to restore
free bimetalic coinage. It can not aid bimetalism without disappointing
the dearest hopes of those gentlemen who are most active in its support.
If it were not so serious a matter it would be interesting to note the
mortification which must come either to the gold supporters or to the silver
supporters of unconditional repeal. They are working in perfect harmony
to secure exactly opposite results by means of this bill. Who will be deceived?
This is only the first step. It will be followed by an effort to secure
an issue of bonds to maintain gold payments. Senator SHERMAN, the new prophet
of Democracy, has already stated that bonds must be issued, and we know
that last spring the whole pressure of the moneyed interest was brought
to bear to secure an issue of bonds then. Do you say that Congress would
not dare to authorize the increase of the public debt in time of peace?
What is there that this Congress may not dare to do after it has given
its approval to the iniquitous measure now before us?
It has also been suggested that the silver dollars now on hand be limited in their legal-tender qualities. We need not be surprised if this suggestion assumes real form in attempted legislation. It has already been proposed to increase the circulation of national banks and thus approve of a policy which our party has always denounced. But we need be surprised at nothing now. The party can never undergo a more complete transformation upon any question than it has upon the silver question, if the representatives reflect the sentiments of those who sent them here. We have been told of the great blessings which are to follow unconditional repeal. Every rise in stocks has been paraded as a forerunner of coming prosperity. I have taken occasion to examine the quotations on one of the staple products of the farm, and in order to secure a basis for calculation, I have taken wheat for December delivery.
I give below the New York quotations on December wheat, taken from the New York Prices Current. The quotations are for the first day of the months of June, July, August, September, October and October 30, or as near those dates as could be gathered from the Prices Current, which is published about twice a week:
June 1, December wheat, 83-3/4.
(Special session called June 30, to meet August 7.)
July 1, December wheat, 81-1/8.
August 1, December wheat, 75.
(Congress convened August 7.)
September 1, December wheat, 74-1/2.
(Senate debate continuing.)
October 1, December wheat, 74-5/8.
(Compromise abandoned and repeal assured about October 23.)
October 30, December wheat, 71-1/2.
(Unconditional repeal passed Senate evening of October 30.)
October 31, December wheat (Post-marked report), 69-1/2.
The following is an extract from the market report touching the general situation in New York and the grain market in Chicago. The report appears in the morning issue of the Washington Post, November 1.
BIG SCRAMBLE TO SELL—THE CHANGE OF SENTIMENT WAS A SURPRISE TO THE STREET—LONDON
BEGAN THE RAID—THOSE WHO BELIEVED THE PASSAGE OF THE REPEAL BILL WOULD
LEAD TO HEAVY BUYING ORDERS, AND HAD PURCHASED FOR A RISE, ALSO TURNED
SELLERS AND SACRIFICED THEIR HOLDINGS—RALLIED A LITTLE AS THE MARKET CLOSED—THE
BUSINESS ON ’CHANGE.
NEW YORK,
October 31.
Yesterday’s vote by the Senate repealing the Sherman silver law did not
have the effect on the stock market that the bulls expected. In the first
place London cabled orders to sell various stocks, much to the disappointment
of local operators, who were confident that the action of the Senate would
result in a flood of buying orders. The liquidations for foreign account
induced selling by operators who had added to their lines on the belief
that the repeal of the silver purchase act would instantaneously bring
about a boom.
When it was seen that instead of buying the outside public was disposed to sell the weak-kneed bulls tried to get out.
CHICAGO, October 31.
Wheat was very weak throughout the entire session today. The opening was
about 1 per cent. per bushel lower than the closing figures of Saturday,
became weak, and after some minor fluctuations prices further declined
1-7/8 to 2, then held steady, and the closing was 2-1/2 to 2-5/8 lower
than the last prices of Saturday. There was some surprise at the course
of the market, which became consternation, and at one time amounted almost
to a panic, when little or no reaction appeared and the price continued
to sink. The fact of the matter was that traders were loaded with wheat
and were merely waiting for the opportunity to sell. The bulge toward the
end of last week gave them this chance and they were quick to take advantage
of it. The silver repeal bill having been discounted for several days had
little or no effect in the matter of sustaining prices. New York stocks
were weak and much lower and this speculative feeling was communicated
to wheat. New Yorkers who have been the big bulls for so long were selling
today, and it was said that there were numerous orders from abroad on that
side of the market.
Corn was dull, the range being within three-eighths of a cent limit. The
tone was steady and at times an undertone of firmness was noticeable, although
prices did not show any essential changes. The accumulations of cash corn
during the past three days were the cause of a somewhat liberal offerings
of futures early, but after a time they became light and the market dull.
The opening was at a decline of 1/4 to 3/8, but on a good demand an advance
of 3/8 was made, receding 1/4 to 3/8 later, and closing 1/4 to 3/8 under
the final figures of Saturday.
Oats were featureless, but the feeling was steady. There was very little
trading and price changes were within 1/4 cent limit, the closing being
1/8 below Saturday.
From the statement given it will appear that wheat has fallen more than
14 cents a bushel since the beginning of the month in which President Cleveland
issued his call for the extra session. The wheat crop for 1892 was about
500,000,000 bushels. A fall of 1 cent in price means a loss of $5,000,000
on the crop if those figures can be taken for this year’s crop. Calculated
upon December wheat the loss since June 1 has been over $70,000,000, or
one-sixth of its value at the beginning of the decline. The fall of 2 cents
on yesterday alone, after the repeal bill passed the Senate and its immediate
passage in the House was assured, amounted to $10,000,000. The fall yesterday
in wheat, corn, and oats calculated upon a year’s crop amounted to more
than $17,000,000. Are these the first fruits of repeal? Wall street was
terribly agitated at the prospect of a slight reduction in the gold reserve.
Will they take no notice of this tremendous reduction in the farmer’s reserve?
The market report quoted above says:
“Yesterday’s vote by the Senate repealing the Sherman silver law did not have the effect on the stock market that the bulls expected. In the first place London cabled orders to sell various stocks, much to the disappointment of local operators, who were confident that the action of the Senate would result in a flood of buying orders.”
Is it possible that instead of money flowing to us, it is going to flow
away in spite of repeal? The argument most persistently made by the advocates
of repeal was that money would at once flow to this country from Europe
and relieve us of our stringency in the money market. The business centers
became impatient because the Senate insisted upon a thorough discussion.
Some of the papers even suggested that the Senate ought to be abolished
because it stood in the way of the restoration of confidence. Finally the
opposition was worn out, the bill was passed, just as the metropolitan
press demanded, and behold it was greeted in the market by a general decline.
We may now expect to hear that the vague, indefinite, and valueless tail
added in the Senate as an amendment has prevented returning confidence,
and that it is our highest duty to repeal the caudal appendage of the Wilson
bill, just as the repeal of the purchase clause of the Sherman law was
demanded. For twenty years we have denounced the demonetization act of
1873, and yet we are now prepared with our eyes open, fully conscious of
what we are doing, to perpetrate the same crime. We leave silver just where
it was left then, except that there was provision then for trade dollars
which this bill does not contain. You may assume the responsibility. I
shall not.
The line of battle is laid down. The President’s letter to Governor Northen
expresses his opposition to the free and unlimited coinage of silver by
this country alone. Upon that issue the next Congressional contest will
be fought. Are we dependent or independent as a nation? Shall we legislate
for ourselves or shall we beg some foreign nation to help us provide for
the financial wants of our own people?
We need not fear the result of such a contest.
The patriotism of the American people is not yet gone, and we can confidently
await their decision.
|