Mr. BUNDY. Mr. Speaker, after the speeches which the House has just listened to, any remarks I may be able to make will seem as the subject about which I propose to talk a little will not be of much interest to the members of this House. I did not suppose that I should be able to get the floor during the present session for the purpose of saying anything touching any subject that has been before us for our action or that might be before us, or most certainly I would have made some prep aration with a view to the proper discussion of the subject. The subject upon which I propose to talk a few minutes, without, however, any expectation that anything I may say may influence the mind or the conduct of any gentleman present, is one, as I said before, that in its nature is not very interesting just at this time, because although it is a subject of great interest to a great many persons, it has and will be overslaughed by the great question of reconstruction, about which we have heard so much. I allude to the subject of finance, and I do not approach its discussion with any purpose on my part or with any idea that I shall be able to throw any light apon it, but simply in discharge of what I conceive to be a duty to myself and to those whom I represent upon this floor. I have a chronic dislike to making speeches. I think my time can be much better occupied, as a general thing, in doing something else. Like Baalam's long eared horse, I never speak anywhere until I am almost kicked into it. But, sir, in the great interest mani fested in the question called reconstruction, it seems to me that the financial interests of the country, if not entirely disregarded, have commanded a very small share of the consideration of this House. In other words, it seems to me that by the action which we have taken during the last session of Congress, and which I see we are to take during the present session, if we are to carry out the suggestions and recommendations of those gentlemen who have the charge of the subject here the whole subject being handed over to the keeping of the SecyTreasury, and with a rate of speed that I do not comprehend by any manner of means, the ComWays&Means of this House appear to adopt and carry out almost all his suggestions in regard to it and which, in my judgment, seriously threaten, to say nothing worse, the industrial interests of the country. I know the difficulties under which the man labors here if he disagrees with or if he attacks in any form whatever, even by his vote simply, the recommendations of that committee. I know the embarrassments under which he labors if he attempts to make a speech in opposition to its recommendations or suggestions, and I know the advantages that the members of that committee have over other members of this House with regard to any measure that it may propose here, and that may be discussed by the committee or by the different members thereof. Having said this much, I propose to spend a few moments in the consideration of a proposition which has been mooted, an assertion that has been made and parrot like repeated by almost every gentleman who has made a speech on this subject, in reference to the recommendations of the SecyTreasury; and that is in regard to this feature of those recommendations, to wit: that the “redundancy of the currency or circulating medium of the country enhances the prices of the products of the country, or, in other words, enhances the price of living for the non-producers.” Now, is that true? I know that that is the theory laid down in the books. I know very well that almost all writers on domestic or political economy assume that the quantity of the circulating medium of a country affects, either one way or the other, as it may be redundant or scarce, the prices of the productions of the labor of the country. I know that that proposition is laid down, I believe, in Adam Smith upon the Wealth of Nations. Now, why should we pay any regard to a theory of that sort when it is found that in our financial history the proposition had far better be laid down by “John Smith, ” of America, because the conditions by which we are surrounded are altogether different from those which suggested the theory as laid down by that eminent author upon the subject of political economy? Now, I take it that all such theories have been exploded by the facts, every time that the test has been made in the history of this country at any rate. How is it, why is it, that for the last 2 or 3 years the prices of the living of our people, the prices of their meat, their bread, and their apparel have been so extraordinarily high in compari son with the prices of other years? Is it because we have had such a redundant currency? I know that that is the assertion. Is it because that previous to the war, say in the year 1860, we had a circulating medium of about 300 million dollars in round numbers, including all descriptions of currency, while during the period of the last 3 years we have had 3 times that amount of a circulating medium? I say I know that is the theory; I know that is the assertion; I have heard the assertion made in this House by distinguished members of the ComWays&Means. But, in my judgment, a little reflection upon’ the facts will dispel that theory, as facts have dispelled all such theories in all times, I believe, in the financial history of our country. Why was it that the price of beef, if you please, has increased from 4 to 20 cents per pound? Was it because we had a redundant currency? I take it it was not for that reason. It was because by reason of the market made by the demands of the war; and this remark will apply to all articles. A million and a quarter of men were sent into the field, composing the Federal Army, more than one million of that number being producers. More than one million of that number of men were engaged before the war, before they entered the Army, in some dept of the industry of the country. We transferred that million of men from the ranks of the producers to those of the consumers, and the effects were not only felt in the immediate vicinity of the Army, but they were felt in all the remote districts of the country. I said that that remark applied to everything else; to the bread, to the meats of all descriptions, if you please. Did a redundant currency have anything to do with it? Why, sir, in my judgment it had but very little to do with it. Those men who had been engaged in supplying their wants by their own industry, being producers, had ceased to be such, and had become consumers. But, says the SecyTreasury, in order to bring back the state of things that we had prior to the war it is necessary to reduce the volume of the circulation. Why, sir, what I understand to be necessary to restore the state of things that we had before the war, in reference to the price of living, is to give the people of the country the time to repair the wastes of the war. Let these men go to producing again, as they did before the war; let the supply increase in proportion to the demand, and I have no doubt that we shall see, as we have seen heretofore, that when, so to speak, there is a proper equilibrium established in this regard, prices will recede. i have said that the remark applies to the prices of all descriptions.o.Take some of the items, if you please. I have spoken of beef. Take, if you please, mutton, which before the war always commanded a price as large or larger than beef. But during the war it has been, as it is now, almost as low in the market as it ever was. In Ohio today the raw materialis almost or quite as low as it ever was. Why? If this theory that a redundant currency enhances prices be true, why should not the of mutton correspond with the price of beef? Why should not the raw mate rial be upon the same plane? Simply because there is a very large supply of that raw mate rial, a very large number of sheep in the country. I might say the same with regard to corn. Why, sir, before the war, when we had $300,000,000 of currency in circulation, I have known the price of corn in our country, which is a very great corn growing region, to be one dollar per bushel, when all other articles beside were at nominal prices. Why was that? There was a scarcity of price currency. Why was not the governed by the volume of the circulating medium? Simply because Providence with held the earlier and the later rains, and there was a failure of the crop. That is the only explanation that can be given. Iow has it been, and how is it now, with regard to pork? The great demands of war, the and, the prevalence of the disease known as the “hog cholera, ” so far cut short the crop that the farmers in the country did not raise a supply for domestic o:very many of whom, were compelled to supply themselves from the great pork marts of the country. This was the oase especially for the seasons of n g hogs and their products command. such prices that even the class formerly.. toproduction were thrown upon ket and killed, hero al. uti. Wuhe means of j.". '. ". g 91 supply. But in 1865 the great prices stimulated an almost universal effort among producers to restore the supply, and in which they were partially successful, to the extent that the price of the hog crop declined nearly 1/2 the present season. What had a redundant currency to do with this? Nothing. The reason for the decline is to be found in the fact that nearly all the socalled “small farm ers' raised this year, not only their own supplies, but a surplus for the general market. To claim that a retiring currency or a declining gold market had very much to do with bringing the price of pork '. 11 cents per pound to 6 cents would be rank injustice alike to the procreating or recuperating capa bilities and powers of the swine and the enter prise, industry, and thrift of the farmer. No article in the market has shown or does show any palpable sympathy with the gold market, the increase or decline of the volume of the circulating medium, except such as are im: ported exclusively; and even the supply of the latter will more certainly and sensibly affect its price than anything else. how was it at the same time with regard to the article of wheat? There having been good wheat crops throughout the country, wheat was just as cheap in the market as corn. How is it now? Corn today with us is worth 40 cents per bushel. If a redundant currency causes high prices, why is not the price of that article one dollar or one dollar and 20 cents per bushel, as it has been sometimes? Why, because there is a large corn crop. That is the explanation, and the only explanation that can be given. And with regard to wheat there has been an almost entire failure of the crop; and therefore the price is higher than we have ever before known it to be. My constituents have to buy their wheat from the constituents of the Gentfrom Chicago. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to admit that there may be for some purposes such a thing as a redundant currency, and that it may have an effect upon prices; but that effect is only tem porary. It may induce men who have no means of their own to go into speculation. Because of the quantity of the currency or its accessi bility they may borrow and go into speculation. They may buy and hold a large amount of produce and temporarily affect prices. But when their bills payable become due and have to be met, possibly they may renew them once for a period of 90 days; but when those bills have to be met the produce must be sold and the mar ket comes down. Speculators may affect the prices of commodities temporarily; but when pay day comes, as come it, must, prices again come into harmony with the demand for the article. But, sir, is it true that, as compared with the period of 1859 and 1860, ye have a redundant currency? How was it then? Why, sir, they say that at that time we had $300,000,000 of currency afloat, and now that we have $600,000,000 or $700,000,000. I undertake to say, sir, that $600,000,000 or $700,000,000 is not so much in proportion to the demand and the uses for currency now as $300,000,000 was before the war. Before the war, for every dollar of circulation, for every dollar of bank paper or gold, or whatever entered into or made up the sum total of our currency, there was somebody's note out for ten or 15 dollars. No one then pretended to do business on a cash basis; no business was conducted any where for cash; no sales were made for cash. The wholesale merchant sold at 6 months' time, and the retail merchant did the same thing. Every man who had any commodity to sell never expected to get money for it; he always expected to get somebody's note, the usual credit being for 6 months. I undertake to.. during the period of 5 or 6 years prior to 1862, 15 16ths of all the commercial transactions of the country were car ried on upon the basis of credit; and therefore it is not true, taking our present position and what we are doing as compared with what we did then, that 7 or 800 millions of currency now are more than 300 millions then; for we are now attempting to do business. for money, to do away with the credit system. I have nothing to say against the credit system by itself; but, sir, it has been the parent of a great deal of our miseries as a people. It has been the occasion of bringing on a great many of our financial crises. But when, sir, the idea was conceived and brought forth that we were to have a paper currency, such as the actual wants of the country demanded, why the people gradually, very gradually, did away to some extent with the credit system among us, and they did business purely on a cash principle. While they are doing that, I undertake to say, such a thing as panic, or crisis could not possibly take place. What do the people care about a crisis if no one is in debt? It can never be, and never will take place. Therefore I say, sir, in point of fact it is not true that we io a redundant currency at this time. Beside, sir, we have a demand now for actual currency to pay internal Federal tax or revenue exceeding the o:volume of circulation before the war. The last report of the SecyTreasury shows that during the last fiscal year our people have paid into the Treasury of the U.S. more than $310,000,000 18 million dollars more than the total of the authorized circulation of the national banks; and nothing but currency (lawful money) will be received in payment of these dues. But, Mr. Speaker, acting on his theory, the SecyTreasury, 2nded by the ComFinances of both Houses of congress, is retiring as fast as possible, as fast as the law will permit, a portion of the currency we already have. How is it today, sir? We have about 1600 national banks, with a circulation of $292,000,000. We have in round numbers $400,000,000 of U.S. notes and in round numbers $159,000,000 of compound interest notes that have already been treated and regarded as money; and now what is attempted to be done? By the law of the last session the SecyTreasury was permitted and authorized by law to do what? Wi. sir, to convert the compound interest notes into long bonds; to retire the non-interest bearing notes; so that, since the passage of the law, $4,000,000 per month of U.S. money or non-interest bearing legal tenders have been retired, and the Government has put just that much more money on interest than we had before. Now, what is to be the effect of this thing? If it goes on, how is the country to be affected? How is the business of the country to be affected? If this thing is to continue, all the compound interest notes will be retired; the entire $400,000,000 will be retired, and then we will be remitted to a condition of things not so favorable to the business of the country as before the war, as we will not then have as much circulation as we had before the War.