but you have not done so. You have
treated it as a political trick, an evasion, a disgrace to Congress.
You complained that it was passed without debate and that its
inception and passage were shameful. But as you say in your last
number 'that it is well to examine it hopefully, to find _what good
may have been done, if any_, although from a _bad motive_,' I take
the liberty to correct errors even in your 'hopeful' view of the
law, so that you may be more hopeful still. You assume that the
Secretary of the Treasury is not authorized to issue five per cent.
gold bonds to prepare for and to maintain resumption, because the
amount of five per cent. bonds authorized in the act of 1870 is
nearly exhausted. This is an error. The secretary can issue either
four and a half or five per cent. gold bonds to an amount sufficient
to execute the law. The act of 1870 is only referred to for the
'description' of the bonds to be issued, and the only limit to
their amount is the sum necessary, and the only limit to their sale
is that they must not be sold at less than par in coin.

"You say that _one trick_ of the bill is 'that there is no provision
for carrying on the withdrawal of legal tenders after their maximum
reaches $300,000,000.' Now this 'trick' was advocated by you one
year ago; it was voted for by every specie paying Member of Congress
at the last session, and nearly every writer on the subject has
contended that if the legal tenders were reduced to $300,000,000,
and the treasury was supported by a reasonable reserve, specie
payments could be resumed and maintained. Besides, no one believes
that $100,000,000 of bank notes will be issued under this act, and
this provision only relieves some people from an idle fear of an
improbable event. You must have noticed that when banks retire
their notes, as they have done and will do rapidly, this is a
reduction of the currency, while every issue of notes to new or
old banks involves a retirement of a ratable amount of United States
notes. What you say about playing with a movable 'reserve' is
equally wrong. Neither the fractional currency nor the 'eighty-
two million' redeemed can be reissued, and I stated so when the
bill was pending under debate, and no lawyer could put a different
construction upon the bill. As to United States notes, a part of
the $300,000,000 redeemed after resumption of specie payments, we
did refuse to provide whether they could be reissued or not,