Mr. CONKLING. That is a very fair and very cogent criticism, because it goes to the question whether we are not violating the pub he faith in passing such a bill as this. The answer to it is this: the true intent and meaning of Congress was not to exempt money, but, on the contrary, to confine the exemption to the securities of the U.S. securities which were bought and held as investments not to extend it to circulating medium passed and used solely as currency. In most of the States, or at any rate in several, no claim has ever been set up that the exemption did extend to money, although it might be in the form of national currency or U.S. notes; on the contrary, the assessors have proceeded. nobody objecting, to assess money, if it was money, no matter in what form. But the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SPALDING] says that in his State such a construction is at upon the aets of that they are held) to mean, not only tChoant gpensis U.S. notes held as money, but notes of national banks are above and beyond State taxation. so that the tax payer has only to exchange his money or property into notes of the national banks or Federal money and all taxation is evaded. No such thing was meant; no such thing was believed or relied upon by anyone; no such idea was acted on by the commercial community; it is a mere accident; and the bill which we propose is simply to define and render certain what was, beyond allquestion, the original meaning and the whole of it. Let me remind the House what the object was in declaring in its acts the immunity from taxation of Federal securities originally. Whether an act of Congress making such a declaration or omitting it alters the case one way or the other is not. the question, so I say nothing about that. But whether the immunity inheres by virtue of the Constitution or is derived from the action of Congress, it is one of the incidents, one of the unfortunate consequences of raising money upon the obligations of the U.S. In order to float our bonds they must be favored; they must be free from burden by the States; thus they are rendered valuable and salable; thus buyers are attracted and induced to advance their money. This was and is the argument. Does this argument in law or reason apply to money, to currency which is only received in payment and uttered in payment? Does it app y to money more in the shape of lawful papermoney than of lawful metallic money? Why “ greenbacks” more than other money? Their exemption, their immunity, their special value consisted in the fact that they were made like gold and silver a legal tender in the discharge of every pecuniary obligation. it was this special quality and virtue and this alone, that characterized them an made them the petted creatures of the statute, and the idea of clothing them with the insidious facility of passing from hand to hand and carrying with them a cloak with which to cover up other property from the jurisdiction of the States never entered into the intention of congress as exressed