s fall."

--Mr. Wallace of Pennsylvania charged that the opponents of the bill,
were "taking a course for the abasement, depreciation and disuse of
silver. The supporters of the bill favor both gold and silver."

--Mr. Dawes dwelt on the uncertain commercial value of silver and on
the harm to the public credit threatened by the impending measure,
insisting that the cheapest money would be our only money.

--Mr. Beck of Kentucky submitted a proposition to direct the coinage
of "not less than $3,000,000 per month, or as much more as can be
coined at the mints of the United States."

--Mr. Morgan of Alabama said the law did not deal with commercial
values. It promised coin to the bondholder--coin of silver or coin of
gold.

--Mr. Thurman of Ohio thought that the contract provided for the
payment of public debts in coin of the standard of 1870, when the
dollar of 412-1/2 grains was full legal-tender, and that such dollar
would approximate to gold in value.

--Mr. Kernan of New York said: "This bill does not proceed upon the
basis that we are to make a silver dollar equivalent to a gold dollar,"
and thought that the cheaper coin would inevitably drive out the gold
coin.

--Mr. Blaine submitted an argument "that gold and silver are the money
of the Constitution, the money in existence when the Constitution was
formed, and Congress had the right to regulate their relations." He
favored the coinage of "such a silver dollar as will not only do
justice among our citizens at home, but prove an absolute barricade
against the gold monometallists." He did not believe that "412-1/2
grains of silver would make such a dollar."

--Mr. Davis of West Virginia favored the utilization of silver,
"because it is one of our chief products, will make the money known to
the Constitution more abundant, will relive distress, and lead back
to prosperity."

--Mr. McDonald of Indiana thought that "if no change had been made in
our coinage laws, no proposition would be made to change them now.
The Act of 1873 demonetizing the silver dollar made the pending
measure necessary."

--Mr. McPherson said that he was "charged by a large majority of the
people of New Jersey to remonstrate against the measure, which they
believe will retard prosperity, and throw a blot upon our National
integrity."

--Mr. Sargent of California, representing a mining State, opposed the
bill, "as against good faith, and against the interests of the
Government a