Mr. GARFIELD.v I have stated the facts in answer to the gentleman. I am not responsible for his inability to understand them. I call attention, because the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Steven] has referred to it, to the remarks le example in British history on this subject. I have never seen a more perfeet illustration of the truth that history repeats itself than this debate as compared with the debate in the British Parliament during their great struggle for a return to specie payments, after the war against Na oleon. ‘rom 1797 to 1819 the British people had only a aper cir culation, and, as is always the case, the poorer currenc drove out the better. As respectable people cave that portion of a city in whrich disreputable people settle, so gold retires before an irredeemable paper currency. If our cus toms and the interest on our public debt had not been’made payable in coin, gold would have disappeared from the country. In England, when they had no gold in circulation, when prices had risen, when rents had risen, after stocks had fallen, Englishmen did as we have been doing here. In 1810, a committee of the most able finan ciers and statesmen were ordered to report the cause of high prices and the premium 11 on gold, and after a laborious investiation, ur in which the most distinguishe men were ca led in as witnesses, that most able aper, the Bullion Report, was submitted to arlia ment. In that report the principle was enun ciated that the only true test of the redundancy of currency was its comparison in value with gold; that whenever a paper dollar is not exchangeable for a gold dollar, it is proof that there are too many paper dollars; and there can be no surer test. In the report of that committee it was laid down as a undamental proposition that nothing but the supreme test of gold applied to paper will certainl determine the question of the redundancy. That report was debated for many weeks, and every lea in banker, broker, importer, and manufacturer 0 England opposed the bullion committee and their proposed return to cash payments. The measure was defeated. Gold and prices immediately rose. From 1811till 1819there was a steady rise in prices and stocks, and in the year 1819 another committee of the House of Commons was appointed to examine and report. an the financial situation of the kingdom. 3 of the members of the bullion committee of1810 were also on the committee of 1819. After a most searching investigation, they reported in favor of resumption, and indorsed the doctrine of the Bullion Report. Then itwas that Sir Robert Peel distinguished himself as the great statesman and financier of England by declaring in the House of commons his conversion to the doctrines of the Bul lion Report which he had so strenuously opposed 8 years before. I have before me the records of the great debate in which that illustrious man lamented that the distinguished author of the Bullion Report of 1811 was not then alive to aid him in that struggle and witness the triumph of those principles so clearly set forth in 1811. 8 years of terrible experience had dem“ onstrated the truth of the Bullion Report. Sir, " said be, “we shall never have finan v cial security in this count until we adopt the principles of that report;" and after a parlia mentary struggle, the report ofwhich fills nearly 500 pages of fiausard's Debates, the report was adopted and its principles have ever since been the acnowledged creed of GreatBritain and of all other countries whbse people have carefully studied the subject. I refer to this, sir, as a matter of history, and I further assert that there is no respectable authority on the subject of finance on the other side of the water or here that denies the doctrine that the only true test of redundancy of currency is its convertibility into gold. You may bring your figuresto prove that we have no more currency than our trade requires, but I tell you that so long as your paper dollar cannot be converted into gold there is too much currency and the moment it can be converted into gold for its face it has reached a stable and safe basis. Now, if an gentleman here has the temerity to deny this (foctrine I shall be pleased to hear his reasons for it. To make his denial good he must prove that the immutable laws of value have conoverthrown. He cannot lead that the necessities of trade alone contro the value of currency. Double the amount of currency, and the money market will be a parently more stringent, triple the amount, an money will be more stringent still. Why do you need 4 times as much money now to move the prod ucts of the country as was needed 5 years ago? Simply because the inflation of the currency has quadrupled prices, and deranged values. But the worst feature in the case is the stim ulus which this inflation gives to dishonesty everywhere, and the consequent discouragement of productive industry. I will not now question the policy of the act of 1862, by which paper money was made a legal tender. It was perhaps a necessity of the war that could not have been avoided. But no one will deny that it unsettled the basis of all values in this country. It was a declaration by law that a promise to pay a dollar might be discharged by paying a sum less than a dollar. There was a time within the last 2 years when an obligation to pay $100 could be legally canceled by the payment of 38 dollars. The manifold evils resulting from such a state of values cannot be computed. To fulfill in January the contract of July may ruin the creditor, because the meaning of the most important word in the contract has been change by the changing market. The dollar of uly may have represented 40 cents, while the dollar of January may represent double that sum. Will rudent men embark in solid business and risli all they possess to such uncertain chances? There hilleft open the alluring temptation to speculate on the rise and fall of go (1 stocks and) commodities, a pursuit in which all that is gained by one is lost by another, and no addition is made to the public wealth. And this is the history of 1000s of our business men. They have trusted their capital to the desperate chances of Wall street. They have embarked on the sea of aper money, and they ask us to keep the 800 using that they may float. Every da adds stimulus to this insane gambling, and epresses legitimate business and honest labor. The tide must be checked, and the fury of the flood restrained. We must bring values back to the solid standard of gold. Let that be done and the fabric of business is founded, not on the sand, but on the firm rock of public faith. The fury of the storm tore us from our moorings, and left us to the mercy of the waves. Let us pilot the good shi again into port, so that we may once more fee the solid earth beneath our feet. How perfectly rices have kept pace with the currency let the history of the last 5 years show. Name anyone year in which the currency has been more inflated than in the preceding. with no prospect of contraction, and on will find prices proportionately advanced. Ihold in my hand the price list of the last four years, as ublished in the Merchants’ Magazine. Ta 1:, for example, the average price of flour. In January, 1861, it was $5 35 perbarrel;' in 1862 it was $5 50; in 1863, $6 05; in 1864 it was $7; in 1865, $10 perbarrel. These prices kept in exact proportion to the volume of the currency. Now, in January, 1866, after the President, the SecyTreasury, and Congress had madea decided movement toward specie payment, and indicated our purpose to restore the old standard of value as soon as prac ticable, the price of flour dropped to $8 76 perbarrel, as the average for the month. Take anyone of the 63 articles on this market list, and it will exhibit the same truth, that an expanded currency will produce high prices. British and French history, as well as our own, give the same testimony on this subject. I do not, of course, suppose that resumption will bring us down to 0 prices. Hea taxes and the increase of gold wrll hold prices higher than they were before the war. Resumption is not so difficult a work as many suppose. It did not take so long in England as t to Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEvsxs] stated itdid in his speech this afternoon. In July, 1819, Parliament decreed that after February 1, 1820, the bank should be n to redeem in small quantities, and shou d increase the amount at stated periods until May, 1823, when full specie payment should be made. The bank contracted its circulation, reduced the price of gold, and fully resumed payments May 1, 1821, only 15 months after the law went into operation. I should be sorry to see a sudden contraction of our currency and a rapid decline in gold. It would be too great a shock to business. If the Secretary is armed with the requisite power he can make the movement so steadily and graduallyns not to disturb, to any dangerous degree, the course of business and trade. The chief objection to the pending bill is that it conferstoo much power more than ought to be intrusted to any man. Now, sir, tre mendous power was given to GenlGrant, when the lives of 100s of 1,000s of men were placed absolutely at his disposal. Sher man was intrusted with vast power when he started with his great army on is march to the sea. But it was necessary to trust some one with that power. Congresscould noteommand armies and plan campaigns. So, also, in the present emergency some one must be trusted with power. Congress cannotuegotiate a loan, cannot regulate the details of the currency, or fund the debt. It must delegate the power. will not eulogize the present SecyTreasury; he needs no eulogy from me. It is the SecyTreasury, not Hugh Mc Culloch who needs this power. I vote to give it to the incumbent of that high Office, whoever he may be, and hold him responsible for the use he may‘make of it. I repeat it, sir, if gentlemen do not approve this bill they should oTTersome plan that will accomlish the desired result. Ical attention for a moment to the proposi tIifon of my friendfrom Maine, [Mia PIKE] a stranger had told me before I came into this Hall this morning that the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. PIKE] would introduce a proposition to authorize States to tax the bonds of the U.S., I, as his friend, would have denied it. Does the gentleman hold that a State can constitutions ly tax the bonds of the U.S.? Has he read the decisions of the courts? There is not a lawyer in this House who will aflirm that the States can levy such a tax. That question has been decided again and again by the SCOTUS, and the decision has always been one way. It was decided by Chief Justice Marshall, in 1819, in the case of McCulloch vs. The State of Maryland, (4 Wheaten, 316.) It was decided/again by that same distinguished jurist in the case of Weston on. The City of Charles ton, (2 Peters, 449. It was decided in the case of Osborn vs. he U.S. Bank, (9 Wheaten, 739,) in 1824, when Henry Clay, as counsel, argued other features of the cause before that court, but declined to offer any argument on the question of the power of the State to tax the ban, and alleged as a reason that the point was so well settled that argument was unuecessa. It was decided again in 1862, in the case of iiie Bank of Commerce vs. NewYork, (‘2 IBflack, 620.) the bonds of the U.S. can be taxed by State action, then the arsenals, the forts, the st offices, the mails of the U.S., can e taxed in the same manner.