be to make everything national
as far as possible. If we were dependent on the United States for
a currency and a medium of exchange, we would have a broader and
more prosperous nationality. The want of such nationality, I then
declared, was one of the great evils of the times; and it was that
principle of state rights, that bad sentiment that had elevated
state authority above the great national authority, that had been
the main instrument by which our government was sought to be
overthrown. Another important advantage the banks would derive
from this system, I urged, would be that their notes would be
guarded against all frauds and all alterations. There would be
but five or six kinds of notes in the United States, instead of
the great diversity there was then. In 1862 the number of banks
existing was 1,500, and the number whose notes were not counterfeited
was 253. The number of kinds of "imitations" was 1,861. The number
of kinds of "alterations" was 3,039. The number of kinds of
"spurious" was 1,685. This was the kind of currency that was
proposed to be superseded. Under the new system, the banks would
be relieved from all this difficulty.
Other advantages to the banks would be that they might become
depositaries of the public money, that their notes, being amply
secured, would be received in all payments due to or from the United
States, while the notes of state banks could not be so received,
as they were dishonored and disgraced from the beginning, being
refused by the national government.
This is an imperfect view of the question as it was then presented
to my mind. I knew the vote upon the passage of the bill would be
doubtful. The New England Senators, as a rule, voted for the bill,
but Senators Collamer and Foote had taken decided grounds against
it, and it was believed that Mr. Anthony and his colleague would
do likewise. I informed Secretary Chase of my doubt as to the
passage of the bill, and especially whether Mr. Anthony would vote
for it; without his vote I did not think it would pass. Mr. Chase
called at the Senate and had an interview with Mr. Anthony, in my
presence, in which he urged him strongly, on national grounds, to
vote for the bill, without regard to local interests in his own
state. His remarks made an impression upon Mr. Anthony who finally
exclaimed that he believed it to be his duty to vote for the bill,
although it would be the end of his political career. When the
|