beyond the praise or the censure, the reward or the punishment of the House.

"His aged widow is now here asking for the payment of the sum of $136 which the Government owed her husband for services he had rendered. That is the question. This House can refuse to pay this claim. The claim is seized upon by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conger] as an occasion for delivering to this side of the House a lecture, and to vent what seems to be his inexhaustible spleen against the South and the cause of the South upon this side of the House, which has Southern Representatives. This claim is made the occasion of the long speech which he has delivered here-the claim of the old widow of an officer who reflected credit upon his country; the widow now coming here and asking the Government to pay the small debt that it owed to her dead husband.

"It does seem to me that there could not be a more meritorious claim presented to Congress than the claim of this old widow. I have nothing more to say about it."

Mr. S. S. Cox, of New York: "When, sir, are we to have peace? Just after the war, as we all know, General Grant reported that the Southern States were anxious for contentment and deserved confidence and amnesty. He was solicitous, willing to be at peace and amity with them, and they with the rest of the Union. They needed peace to give to their toil its reward, and our good-will to give them those interchanges which build up a common prosperity. Have fifteen years made no difference with you of the other side? Are you jealous because the South is growing in population and prosperity, in planting, manufacturing, and commerce; that her cattle, cotton, and corn are enriching her abundantly? Surely not. Why, then, this continual debate, as if their interests and ours were not one?

"What is the object of opposing this bill? The debt is not disputed. What can be the object in trying to cut down or deny this little claim of an old widow, a claim of $136.85? Is it only a pretext to display old animosities? Was there ever such monstrosity built on so small a foundation? Is it not time to have a better spirit in reference to the relations between North and South?

"When General Butler was in our midst on the other side, and we debated a bill to restore to men who had been in the rebel army the old swords which they had worn gallantly in the battle of New Orleans, he favored the measure with touching and patriotic eloquence. He had the spirit of true soldierly chivalry. He said, 'Give back to the old soldiers the swords they wore in the war of 1812'; and men on both sides applauded the patriotic sentiment. What would he say were he here today?"

Mr. Chittenden, of New York: "I know a little historic incident connected with the outbreak of the rebellion which has some perti

nency and a lesson for my friend from Michigan [Mr. Conger]. I knew a merchant in New York who sat by the side of an old commercial correspondent as the wires were about to tick that Virginia had seceded from the Union. The Virginian said, 'What shall I do if my State secedes?' The merchant said: 'If you have purchased your goods, take them and do the best you can; no man who knows you will refuse to deliver them even after Virginia has seceded.' Within half an hour the news came that Virginia had seceded. The Virginian then said to the merchant, You of course will not trust me now.' The merchant said to him: You purchased the goods fairly on yesterday. I will send them, and I will take all the risks. I have known you for ten years, and know that you will pay for them if you can; let the consequences be what they may, every dollar of the merchandise shall go if you want it.' It did go.

"Five years after the war was over, or perhaps three, this merchant of Richmond, Virginia, Breeden by name, a thorough rebel who gave his all for the success of the Confederate cause, returned to the merchant in New York and paid for the goods, every dollar, principal and interest.

"Now, it seems to me that if there be a widow asking for $136 honestly due her husband who was an officer of the United States Navy, a debt for services which preceded the rebellion-if this Congress refuses to pay the debt, they, in my judgment, do an act which appeals to the manhood outside of Congress to see that another Congress shall find a way to pay it with double interest." [APplause on the Democratic side.]

Mr. Bragg, of Wisconsin: "This is a question, Mr. Chairman, in my judgment, which is, as I have said, a question involving a principle. It is a bill which involves, it is true, a very trifling amount.

It was not the stamp-tax that brought on the Revolution. It is the principle involved and underlying this thing. Shall we wipe out all legislation which prevents men once in the service of the United States, and who abandoned their duties, from coming back again as claimants upon the public Treasury, because, forsooth, the leader of the claimants is a lady, old and gray, whose husband, in his youthful days, did serve his country with honor and distinction? If we do away with the principle here, where shall we end? If we pay this woman because she is old, if we pay her because she is needy, that is one thing. But if we pay her because she was the wife of an officer who resigned, and under whose resignation there comes up this bill and penalty which deprived him of his pay, he having placed himself in the position of suffering the penalty, that is another thing."

Mr. Davis, of North Carolina: "Was there any such law in existence at that time; any law that would deprive him of his pay?"

Mr. Bragg: "There was this law, and it is recognized everywhere, that he who deserts his country's flag in the hour of his country's peril is entitled to no respect from that country afterward, except such as she gives him by a mere generosity and as a gratuity."

Mr. Davis, of North Carolina: "If there was no such law, then there is a constitutional right."

Mr. Bragg: "Mr. Chairman, I am not here to discuss the Constitution. If I were, I should say that the gentlemen who broke the Constitution and fled from it are not the men to hold it before me and ask me to support it. [Applause on the Republican side.]

"If this bill pass, there is no man who was in the American service, whether civil, military, or naval, but will come back to the Treasury of the United States for something which may have been due him for some few days before he deserted his country.

"I am anxious, Mr. Chairman, as anxious as any man in this House, never to see again or hear of the subject of the Southern rebellion. It strikes me as deeply and keenly as any man upon the floor of this House, and I would fain wipe it out for ever from sight and memory. But I say to my friends from the South, that when you want to end this controversy, when you want to close up these memories, it is no proper way to do it by bringing forward claims here and presenting them for consideration which keep alive those memories by constantly stirring up something that involves the discussion of the rebellion and the troubles which have grown out of it."

Mr. Goode: "I move to recommit the bill to the committee. On that, I believe, I have a right to be heard.

"Now, Mr. Speaker, since the discussion of this bill on last Friday, I have received a letter from the widow of Captain Page, in which she instructs me peremptorily to withdraw her petition. If I felt at liberty to consult my own feelings or be guided by my own judgment in this matter, I would without hesitation press this bill to a final vote in this House, because I believe her claim to be a perfectly valid one, and the Government is bound to recognize it by every consideration of justice and fair dealing. But I feel constrained, as I have stated, to obey the instructions I have received from this petitioner. The House will readily understand and fully appreciate the motives which have impelled her to this step. Her feelings have been so wounded by the fierce assault made upon the memory of her dead husband that she is no longer willing to furnish any pretext for a renewal of that assault. Her petition would never have been presented here if she could possibly have foreseen the result. She had not the remotest idea that the simple presentation of a humble petition for payment of a just debt by this Government would be seized upon and made a pretext for a rude and violent attack upon the cherished memory of

the honored dead, or harsh and uncharitable cominents upon the character of the Southern people. She prefers to relinquish that claim for ever, and allow the Government to hold in its coffers money fairly and honorably earned by her husband, rather than afford any excuse for an attack upon his good name, which she holds more precious than money or even life itself.

"Now, sir, with the permission of the House, I want to make a single remark with reference to myself. Since the debate of last Friday it has been charged by Republican newspapers throughout the country, and it was intimated in that debate upon the floor of this House, that my object in presenting this petition was insidiously to establish a precedent for the payment of Southern war claims.

"I want to say to this House and the country that no charge could have been more unjust and more destitute of any foundation whatever. I presented that petition because it was my representative duty to do so after it had been sent to me for presentation. I presented it because I believed the country justly owed the amount of money named to the estate of Captain Page. I presented it because I believed section 3,480 of the Revised Statutes to be clearly unconstitutional and void, so far as claims of this character are concerned. I presented it because I utterly deny the power of the American Congress to pass any ex post facto law or bill of attainder. I presented it because I did not suppose that a single representative of the American people could be found who would be willing to withhold from this lady money honestly earned by her husband in the service of his country, especially as by that service he had illustrated American prowess, and shed additional luster on the American name."

Mr. Conger: "Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia if he says that he never has in this House presented or advocated the payment of war losses or war claims so called, with this statement that he excepts from that, because he does not consider them war claims, two cases he has advocated here, one of them the William and Mary College claim, which we all remember, which the country remembers, which was thundered through this land from North to South, exciting apprehension and fear in every hamlet in the North of the consequence of passing such a law, and exciting hope and expectation in the hearts of ten thousand men in the South who had war claims in which they were interested. I say I have nothing to say in reply to the remark of the gentleman from Virginia that he has never advocated war claims. Of course, we look upon the name of these war claims and war losses differently, and I give the gentleman the full credit for his avowal upon that subject according to his own construction.

"But, sir, when the gentleman stands there

as the representative and mouth-piece of all Southern representatives on the floor, when he assumes to rise in his place and claims to speak for all Southern men here and all through the South, and says that they do not now press, and they never have pressed, war claims properly so called-that they have not done so in every possible combination of language and words, by bills and memorials and petitions, that the human mind can conceive-the gentleman must allow me to question whether he does represent the people of the South, whether he does represent other representatives of the South on this floor, whether he does represent the millions of people of the South interested in the passage of war claims.

"I say that the time has come, if these statements are correct, and if the gentleman does speak for the whole South, that the wagons and the carts and the wheel-barrows should be brought here, and this accumulation of petitions, memorials, bills, and affidavits, and proofs that now fill the pigeonholes in the room of the Committee on War Claims should be taken away. Yes, sir, I would like to see the procession formed. I would like to see the representatives of the South who have presented petitions and memorials and bills favoring the passage of war claims and the payment of war losses take their bundles of papers and march with them away from that committee-room and away from the Capitol. And who would be left out of that grand and solemn procession? I can myself imagine the whole Democratic side of this House in marching order, carrying back to their constituents the petitions and the memorials and the bills and the proofs, marching off to Long Bridge to the music of Carry me back to old Virginia, to old Virginia shore.'" [Great laughter.]

Mr. Goode: "I move to lay the whole subject upon the table. I think that ought to be satisfactory."

The Speaker: "The question will be taken on the motion to lay on the table." The motion was agreed to.

In the Senate, on February 15th, the House bill to facilitate the refunding of the national debt was considered:

Mr. Bayard, of Delaware: "Mr. President, in little more than sixty days from this date a loan of the United States, bearing 5 per cent interest, and amounting to $469,651,050, will, at the option of the Government, become payable. On the 30th day of June next two other loans, each bearing 6 per cent, the first for $145,786,500, and the other $57,787,250, will also mature at the option of the Government. These facts are stated in the last report of the Secretary of the Treasury, and will be found on page 10 of his report of last December. He has informed us that the surplus revenue accruing prior to the 1st of July, 1881, will amount to about fifty million dollars, and can and will be

applied in part to the extinguishment of that debt. Bonds maturing on the 31st of December last were paid out of the accruing revenues. So that there will remain the sum of $637,350,600, to be provided for and funded at the option of the Government at such rate of interest as may be deemed advisable by Congress and can practicably be obtained.

"The sums that we are dealing with are enormous, affecting the welfare of every branch of our country's industry and of our entire people. The opportunity for reducing the rate of interest upon this enormous sum, and not only that, but of placing the national debt more under the control of the Government in regard to future payments, is now before us. The opportunity for doing this upon favorable terms should not be lost, and the only question before us as legislators is how we can best and most practically take advantage of the hour.

"Two propositions have been made, one by the House of Representatives and one from the executive branch of the Government. The Secretary of the Treasury, at page 12 of his report, has recommended the refunding of $400,000,000 of the national debt at a rate not exceeding 3-65 per cent.

"It is also recommended that authority be given to sell at par an amount not exceeding $400,000,000 of bonds of the character and description of the 4 per bearing a rate of interest not exceeding 3.65 per cent cent bonds of the United States now outstanding, but per annum, and redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after fifteen years, the proceeds to be applied to the payment of bonds redeemable on or before July 1, 18s1.

"The House of Representatives has proposed that we should fix the rate of interest at 3 per cent, and make the bonds payable in ten years, with the option to the Government to redeem them in five years. Upon careful deliberation, and considering all the arguments from every respectable source that we could obtain, the committee of the Senate have modified both the proposition of the Secretary and the proposition of the House. We have reported to the Senate the issue of the $400,000,000 of bonds recommended by the Secretary and the House, but we have fixed the interest at 3 per cent, being a shade lower than that proposed by the Secretary and a slight increase upon the rate proposed by the House, and we have fixed the time of payment at twenty years instead of ten, with the option of paying the debt at the end of five years. The term five-twenties would therefore continue to be applicable to this form of the national debt, and one as to which having had experience of a most favorable character, and to which the people of the country have become accustomed, it was thought that feature alone gave it weight and increased the probability of its success.

"There are various reasons for this. Opinions have differed, and always will differ, as to this matter. Intelligent and patriotic men believe that it is practicable to fund the whole of this debt at the rate of 3 per cent. Others

again, equal to them in experience, ability, and opportunities of judgment, have told us there would be risk in the attempt. Speaking for myself and for the majority of the committee, we believe that the weight of authority is in favor of running no risk, and that the rate of 3 per cent per annum is that which under all the circumstances it is wiser and better for the United States to adopt in order to obtain freely the desired loans from the public.

"Consider for a moment the experience of other nations in this regard. At the head of the commercial world is the Empire of Great Britain. Nowhere has government been more permanent or its institutions more stable, or the certainty of the repayment of loans and indebtedness secured by law more perfectly. The conditions, therefore, of low interest have been as perfect there as human institutions have ever been able to procure; and yet what is the result? When, in the last half century, the especial period of her progress and success, have the consols of Great Britain not paid more than 3 per cent to the investor? Yet those bonds have a feature which is denied to our own, and for my own part I can not regret it, and that is, the creation of a permanent debt. During the last fifty years the loans of Great Britain have touched par, I believe, but twice.

"It may be stated in regard to the rate of interest returned upon the investment of English consols that it has varied between 4 and 3 per cent. I am speaking now of the return upon the cost of the British consols to the investor. Sometimes it has paid more than 4, and sometimes even less than 3 per cent, but those have been the extremes of depression and exaltation of price. It may be said upon authority that the investor in British consols has during the last quarter of a century received on an average rather more than 3 per cent income.

"At page 5 of a pamphlet containing the report of an interview between the Secretary of the Treasury, the Comptroller of the Treasury, and the Treasurer, with the Committee on Finance, will be found a statement taken from the London Economist' of the 6th of November, 1880, to which I invite the attention of the Senate as corroborating the statement I have made.

"I have drawn the attention of the Senate to the fact that the consols of Great Britain offered to investors permanence and absolute security, not simply ultimate security, but that security which can be availed of at almost any day; and with these two elements so favorable to a low rate of interest they have not been able to maintain at par a loan at a rate of interest which it is proposed now to issue and maintain at par in this country. I shall ask the Senate to consider the difference of conditions in this country and Great Britain as affecting our bonded debt, and to show that we can not safely permit that fluctuation in prices

which to their government, under a system of permanent indebtedness, is a matter of absolute indifference. There are conditions in this country which render it imperative to maintain our bonds at par or over par. The Secretary of the Treasury has spoken of the traditions of the country and its policy to maintain our bonds at par. That statement has the authority of the country's history, but there is something more practical and practicable than mere tradition and policy. There is an absolute necessity for us to see to it that as we have tied our systems of banking and currency to the fate of our national bonds, they must stand or fall together. The currency of this country, upon which the main part of its business is conducted, and to which it has been made essential, is based upon the national credit. That currency is obtainable only by the deposit of national bonds, 90 per cent of currency being issued for 100 per cent of bonds upon their face value, and the sense of security so absolutely found in the excess of value of the pledge, the responsibility of the shareholder, and the reserve established by law, have made this credit money of the Government national-bank notes receivable with absolute and unshaken confidence. Senators, that confidence existing almost solely upon credit, must not be disturbed. We have today what is called a resumption of specie payments, but, to speak more accurately, we should call it a redemption of notes that are at once reissued at the will of the debtor. How is that resumption assured? It can not be said to be assured by the coin in the Treasury. We had at last accounts in gold coin and bullion $140,952,837, and of standard silver money $47,084,459; and that is to answer for $346,000,000 of demand notes, and ultimately for the $350,000,000 of notes issued by the Government through the national banks. What, then, is to-day our security that resumption can be maintained? Not the coin in the Treasury, surely; but the existence of the power secured by the act of January 14, 1875, that gives to the Secretary of the Treasury the right to sell Government bonds bearing 4, 4, or 5 per cent interest, to any amount necessary to buy gold and pay the United States notes whenever presented at the Treasury. It is, therefore, this potentiality standing in impressive and powerful reserve that overshadows any attempt to make what is called 'a run upon the Treasury' or endanger the permanence of resumption; and yet, bear in mind, those bonds, which under law are to be sold in order to supply the exigencies and meet the demand for gold, can not be sold at less than par. Therefore I say that we should permit nothing to go upon the statute-book, and take no step in the management of our finances, that even tends to send our bonds below par, because the par value of those bonds is essential to the absolute maintenance and security of specie resumption. It is the power to sell those bonds

under the act of 1875 that stands as the corps de reserve to enable the Government to pay specie for its notes on demand, and cause them thus to be an equivalent for specie. Under the free-banking system now in existence, the volume of our currency depends upon commercial demand and not upon political exigencies. Except for wise restriction as to the securities for loans and supervision as to reserve, the affairs of the banks styled 'national banks' are managed and controlled by the rules only of enlightened self-interest. They loan to whom, and as often, and as much as the directors elected by the private stockholders see fit-no more and not otherwise-and the Government has no voice or control in their affairs except in the manner that I have referred to; that is to say, supervision of the securities for loans and as to the reserve. In other words, to restrain them from conversion into trust and loan companies instead of banks, and unfitting themselves for the true functions of banking.

"I say, then, if nothing else must be looked to, the duty of placing resumption of specie payment beyond doubt would be worth ten times the amount of the difference between 3 and 3 per cent, and I hold that we have no right to run any risks on this point; and as I have said and believe, the weight of opinion is against our running such risks as we would do if we adopt the rate of 3 per cent. Why should we take a step in the dark when it may be taken so clearly in the light? Why should we create a ripple upon this placid stream of prosperity upon which the affairs of our country are now floating? There is neither wisdom nor economy in taking steps that tend to check in the minds of the American people confidence in their progress and prosperity. Let us only take such steps as we can to justify that confidence, and secure them against retrogression.

"Let us solidify our credit, and secure our bonds and our credit moneys against depression and possible fluctuation. Wise, moderate, and timely legislation can do this.

"The rate of interest is, after all, controlled by the average rate of profit derived from the einployment of capital. The profit of employing capital in industrious undertakings controls the rate of interest. A high rate of profit will always cause a high rate of interest. There is history for that. Where you have a low rate of profit, the interest for the employment of money necessarily will be less. The Dutch were the leaders of the commercial world in the seventeenth and the greater part of the eighteenth century; but they had resorted to a system of overtaxation, and, burdened by taxation, but little profit was left for the employment of money; and the result was that, as after all there is but a limited profit in production, and that profit must be shared by labor and capital, the rate of interest fell to an extraordinarily low rate; but where taxes were lighter, the employment of money was more

profitable, and the rate of interest increases in corresponding ratio with the profit on the use of capital.

"Under certainty of law for securing the prompt repayment of loans, interest is low; for it is not the ultimate security, but it is the punctual and reliable payment of money expected that makes the rate of interest low. Money will be cheap where confidence is established. The more absolute the security, the lower will be the rate of interest. I hold it that the demands for the employment of capital in legitimate enterprises all over the United States under this all-pervading sentiment of confidence that exists now, will make a Government loan at 3 per cent equitably low enough. Money in the United States securely invested will be worth on an average—I am speaking now of business investments-anywhere 5 per cent, and in some parts of this country from 6 to 7 per cent, and this last only in the newly-settled districts. The United States is a younger country than Europe; it is more progressive; newer enterprises in the development of the natural wealth of this country necessarily exist here than in longer-settled countries, and employment of capital will find fresh fields and pastures new,' and the profits of industry are greater in the United States than elsewhere. The superiority in profitable employment of capital, therefore, in this country justifies a rather higher rate of interest than it would in Europe.

"We are sometimes told, 'Look at the present advanced value of the 4 per cent bonds; take them as your standard; they are now worth 113 in the market; if a 4 per cent bond is worth that, surely a 3 per cent is worth par,' etc. Why, as a matter of fact, has not this agitation of the issuing a 3 per cent loan been diligently and clamorously used for the last year-I do not say improperly, but vigorously used-as a species of menace to enhance the price of the 4 per cents? If there should be a compulsory power exercised by this Government, which I deprecate, toward the stockholders of the national banks to force this loan upon them as the single and arbitrary condition of their continuing in business or going into ruinous liquidation; if that power does exist, necessarily men will value that which pays them one fourth more interest, and the price of the bond that secures it will be necessarily advanced. Therefore I am compelled to consider the present price one of those fluctuating advances, temporary in its nature and caused by the abnormal and unsettled condition of things, that has given the 4 per cent bond the advance from par, at which it was sold, to the great premium which it now enjoys. I do not think it is either sound judgment or reasonable common sense to take the present advanced price of the 4 per cent bonds as a basis for calculation for the sale and maintenance of the price of 3 per cent bonds.

"I would here note that section 5 of the