standard at home. Thus, by one move the German Govern
ment destroyed, so far as lay in its power, the then existing
value of silver as money, enhanced consequently the value of
gold, and then got into position to draw gold from us at the
moment of their need, which would also be the moment of our
own sorest distress. I do not say that the German Govern
ment, in these successive steps, did a single thing which it had
not a perfect right to do, but I do say that the subjects of that
Empire have no reason to complain of our Government for the
initial step which has impaired the value of one of our standard
coins. The German Government, by joining with us in the re-
monetization of silver, can place that standard coin in its old
position, and make it as easy for this Government to pay and
as profitable for their subjects to receive the one metal as the
other.
When we pledged the public creditor in 1870 that our obli
gations should be paid in the standard coin of that date, silver
bullion was worth in the London market a fraction over sixty
pence per ounce ; its average for the past eight months has
172 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS.
been about fifty-four pence ; the price reckoned in gold in both
cases. But the large difference is due in part to the rise of gold
as well as to the fall of silver. Allowing for both causes and
dividing the difference, it will be found, in the judgment of
many of the wisest men in this country, perfectly safe to issue
a dollar of 425 grains standard silver ; as one that, anticipating
the full and legitimate influence of remonetization, will equate
itself with the gold dollar, and effectually guard against the
drain of our gold during the time necessary for international
conference in regard to the general re-establishment of sil
ver as money. When that general re-establishment shall be
effected with a coinage of fewer grains, the dollar which I am
now advocating will not cause loss or embarrassment to any
one. The miner of the ore, the owner of the bullion, the
holder of the coin, and the Government that issues it, will all
in turn be benefited. It will yield a profit on recoinage and
will be advantageously employed in our commercial relations
with foreign countries. Meanwhile it will insure to our labor
ers at home a full dollar s pay for a dollar s worth of work.
I think we owe this to the American laborer. Ever since we
demonetized the old dollar we have been running our mints
at full speed, coining a new silver dollar for the use of the
Chinese cooly and the Indian pariah a dollar containing 420
grains of standard silver, with its superiority over our ancient
dollar ostentatiously engraved on its reverse side. To these
" outside barbarians " we send this superior dollar, bearing all
our national emblems, our patriotic devices, our pious inscrip
tions, our goddess of liberty, our defiant eagle, our federal
unity, our trust in God. This dollar contains 7 grains more
silver than the famous " dollar of the fathers," proposed to be
recoined by the pending bill, and more than four times as many
of these new dollars have already been coined as ever were
coined of all other silver dollars in the United States. In the
exceptional and abnormal condition of the silver market now
existing throughout the world we have felt compelled to in
crease the weight of the dollar with which we carry on trade
with the heathen nations of Asia. Shall we do less for the
American laborer at home? Nay, shall we not do a little
better and a little more for those of our own blood and our
REMONETIZATION OF SILVER. 173
own fireside ? If you remonetize the dollar of the fathers your
mints will be at once put to work on two different dollars,
different in weight, different in value, different in prestige, dif
ferent in their reputation and currency throughout the com
mercial world. It will -read strangely in history that the
weightier and more valuable of these dollars is made for an
ignorant class of heathen laborers in China and India, and that
the lighter and less valuable is made for the intelligent and
educated laboring-man who is a citizen of the United States.
Charity, the adage says, begins at home. Charity, the inde
pendent American laborer scorns to ask, but he has the right
to demand that justice should begin at home. In his name
and in the name of common sense and common honesty, I ask
that the American Congress will not force upon the American
laborer an inferior dollar which the naked and famishing labor
ers of India and China refuse to accept.
The bill which I now offer as a substitute for the House bill
contains three very simple provisions:
1. That the dollar shall contain four hundred and twenty-five
grains of standard silver, shall have unlimited coinage, and be
an unlimited le^al tender.
o
2. That all the profits of coinage shall go to the Government,
and not to the operator in silver bullion.
3. That silver dollars or silver bullion, assayed and mint-
stamped, may be deposited with the Assistant Treasurer at New
York, for which coin certificates may be issued, the same in
denomination as United States notes, not below ten dollars,
and that these shall be redeemable on demand in coin or bullion.
We shall thus secure a paper circulation based on an actual
deposit of precious metal, giving us notes as valuable as those
of the Bank of England and doing away at once with the
dreaded inconvenience of silver on account of bulk and
weight.
I do not fail, Mr. President, to recognize that the committals
and avowals of senators on this question preclude the hope of
my substitute being adopted. I do -not indeed fail to recognize
that on this question I am not in line with either extreme,
with those who believe in the single gold standard or with
those who by premature and unwise action, as I must regard it,
174 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS.
would force us to the single silver standard. Either will be
found, in my judgment, a great misfortune to our country.
We need both gold and silver, and we can have both only by
making each the equal of the other. It would not be difficult
to show that, in the nations where both have been fully recog
nized and most widely diffused, the steadiest and most continu
ous prosperity has been enjoyed, that true form of prosperity
which reaches all classes, but which begins with the day-laborer
whose toil lays the foundation of the whole superstructure of
wealth. The exclusively gold nation like England may show
the most massive fortunes in the ruling classes, but it shows
also the most helpless and hopeless poverty in the humbler
walks of life. The gold and silver nation like France can
exhibit no such individual fortunes as abound in a gold nation
like England, but it lias a peasantry whose silver savings can
pay a war indemnity that would have beggared the gold
bankers of London, and to which the peasantry of England
could not have contributed a pound sterling in gold or even
a shilling in silver.
The effect of paying the labor of this country in silver coin
of full value, as compared with irredeemable paper, or as
compared, even, with silver of inferior value, will make itself
felt in a single generation to the extent of tens of millions
perhaps hundreds of millions in the aggregate savings which
represent consolidated capital. It is the instinct of man from
the savage to the scholar developed in childhood and remain
ing with age to value the metals which in all lands are
counted " precious." Excessive paper money leads to extrava
gance, to waste, to want, as we painfully witness to-day.
With abounding proof of its demoralizing and destructive
effect, we hear it proclaimed in the Halls of Congress, that
" the people demand cheap money." I deny it. I declare such
a phrase to be a total misapprehension a total misinterpreta
tion of the popular wish. The people do not demand cheap
money. They demand an abundance of good money, which is
an entirely different thing. They do not want a single gold
standard that will exclude silver and benefit those already rich.
They do not want an inferior silver standard that will drive out
gold and not help those already poor. They want both metals,
REMOXETIZATIOX OF SILVER. 175
in full value, in equal honor, in whatever abundance the boun
tiful earth will yield them to the searching eye of science and
to the hard hand of labor.
The two metals have existed side by side in harmonious,
honorable companionship as money, ever since intelligent trade
was known among men. It is well-nigh forty centuries since
" Abraham weighed to Ephroii the silver, which he had named
in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of
silver, current money with the merchant." Since that time
nations have risen and fallen, races have disappeared, dialects
and languages have been forgotten, arts have been lost, treas
ures have perished, continents have been discovered, islands
have been sunk in the sea, and through all these ages and
through all these changes, silver and gold have reigned supreme
as the representatives of value as the media of exchange.
The dethronement of each has been attempted in turn, and
sometimes the dethronement of both ; but always in vain ! And
we are here to-day, deliberating anew over the problem which
comes down to us from Abraham s time the weight of the
silver that shall be u current money with the merchant."
176 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS.
THE HALIFAX AWARD.
[On the 20th of February, 1878, Mr. Elaine submitted the following resolu
tion for the consideration of the Senate :
Resolved, That the President of the United States be respectfully requested to
communicate to the Senate at the earliest practicable day, if not in his judgment
incompatible with the public interest, copies of all correspondence between our
Government and the Government of Her Britannic Majesty in regard to the selec
tion of M. Maurice Delfosse, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary
from Belgium, as the third commissioner under the twenty-third article of the
treaty of Washington on the question of the fisheries.
Objection was made and the resolution went over. On the llth of March
Mr. Elaine called up the resolution, and made the following speech: ]
MR. PRESIDENT, The resolution of inquiry, which I offered
a fortnight ago, was met with objection and was laid over. I
call it up now to explain my reasons for desiring its adoption.
For some time past there have been rumors of an unpleasant
character touching the mode in which M. Delfosse, the Bel
gian minister accredited to this country, was urged by the
British Government as the third commissioner under the treaty
of Washington on the question of the Fisheries. These rumors
come in a form that enforces attention, and while I do not
pretend to vouch for their entire accurac} 7 ", I think they are
sufficiently grave to call for authentication or denial.
It appears by these reports that during the conference of the
Joint High Commission in April, 1871, Lord Ripon, speaking
for the English Government, said in relation to the several
proposed arbitrations which were under discussion, that it would
not be a proper thing for England to offer Belgium or Portugal
as arbitrators ; and he especially spoke of Belgium as being
incapacitated for the function by reason of her peculiar rela
tions with England. This declaration was promptly assented
to by the American commissioners. With the understanding
THE HALIFAX AWARD. 177
thus volunteered by Lord Ripon, the Halifax commission of
three arbitrators on the fisheries was agreed to our Government
to name one, the British Government to name one, and the
two Governments conjointly to name the third. It was stipu
lated that if the two Governments could not agree on the third
commissioner within three months, the Austrian ambassador
at London should name him. As soon as the fishery clause
of the treaty went into effect in July, 1873, the Secretary of
State, Mr. Fish, formally invited the British minister, Sir
Edward Thornton, to confer with him in regard to the appoint
ment of the third commissioner. He found Sir Edward without
instructions from his Government, and after delaying for some
days Mr. Fish took the initiative and submitted a number of
names for his consideration. Among these, selected from a
large field, were Mariscal, minister from Mexico ; Offenberg,
minister from Russia ; Borges, from Brazil ; Polo, from Spain ;
the Count de Noailles, from France; Westenberg, from Hol
land, and others. Mr. Fish did not include M. Delfosse among
these, as he thought that his name had been fairly excluded by
the understanding of the Joint High Commission.
Sir Edward Thornton made no response for several weeks and
then answered Mr. Fish, declining to accept any of the names
submitted by him and proposing in turn the single name of M.
Delfosse. It was understood, I believe, that Sir Edward was
acting under the direct instructions of Lord Granville, British
Secretary of Foreign affairs. Mr. Fish peremptorily declined to
accept M. Delfosse and quoted Lord Ripon s remark in regard
to Belgium, and again urged Sir Edward to accept one of the
names proposed by him or else to propose some names himself.
In answer to this Sir Edward stated that Lord Dufferin, the
Governor-General of the Dominion of Canada, speaking for the
Canadians, objected to taking as the third commissioner any one
accredited to our Government. Immediately after this declara
tion Sir Edward appeared at the State Department with fresh
instructions from Lord Granville to insist on M. Delfosse,
though at that very moment M. Delfosse was accredited to our
Government. The only alternative presented by Sir Edward
was that his Government would accept some "Dutch gentle
man " that might be chosen at the Hague by the American and
178 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS.
British ministers. This mode of selection was at once rejected
by Mr. Fish as not being within the terms of the treaty. The
three months within which the two Governments were to act
conjointly having been thus exhausted, apparently by the design
of the British Government, the matter was by the treaty re
manded to the Austrian ambassador at London. A delay of
some years then ensued in consequence of the negotiations for
a reciprocity treaty which, if secured, would have precluded the
necessity of arbitrating the fishery question. The correspond
ence was not renewed until 1876.
The result of the whole was that in February, 1877, the
Austrian ambassador at London nominated M. Delfosse as the
third commissioner. It is now reported on the authority of an
interview recently published in the New -York Herald that Mr.
Fish finally assented to the appointment of M. Delfosse by the
Austrian ambassador. This may or may not be true, but it is not
material to the issue ; for the matter had lapsed absolutely into
the hands of the ambassador, and as he was resident in London,
in easy communication with the British ministry, they had
means of influencing the decision that were not within our
power. Mr. Fish may well have thought that as the appoint
ment of M. Delfosse was inevitable it was prudent and expedient
to submit to it gracefully and in such a way as not to incur
the personal ill-will of the third commissioner. I can well
see how a wise secretary, like Mr. Fish, might in the end
have been thus influenced after having exhausted every effort,
as he so ably and fearlessly did, to keep M. Delfosse off the
commission.
I do not intend in any remarks I am making to cast reflec
tions on M. Delfosse, who is known as an honorable representa
tive of his Government. I only mean to imply and to assert
that, if Lord Ripon is to be credited, M. Delfosse was not in a
position to be an impartial arbitrator; and that in my judgment
Great Britain never should have proposed him. Mr. Fish was
therefore justified in resisting his appointment as long as resist
ance promised to be effectual. Nor do I mean to impute to Sir
Edward Thornton any proceeding that was not strictly honor
able. The highly esteemed representative of the British Gov
ernment at this Capital, in all he did was simply following the
THE HALIFAX AWARD. 179
instructions of Lord Granville. But I do mean to say, if I am
correctly informed, that the correspondence for which my reso
lution calls will disclose a designed and persistent effort on the
part of the British Government to secure an advantage in the
selection of the third commissioner on the question of the fish
eries. It is but just to remark that the Dominion of Canada
had no more right to interpose in the matter than had the States
of Massachusetts and Maine ; and that the governors of those
States had the same right to speak for their people in regard to
selecting a third commissioner as had Lord Dufferin to speak
for the people of the Dominion. The negotiation was between
two great nations, and subordinate States and provinces had no
right to dictate, or even to suggest, unless called upon by the
two principals.
It may be somewhat premature to speak of the award made
by the Halifax commission, but as it is already discussed in the
press of both countries, a brief reference to it may not be out
of place. The extraordinary nature of that award can only be
appreciated when the surrounding facts are understood. In the
original discussion of the fishery question by the Joint High
Commission in 1871, the American commissioners could be in
duced to offer only $1,000,000 for all the fishing privileges sub
sequently embodied in the treaty. The British commissioners
declined this offer, and would enter into no negotiation that did
not include the admission of the products of the Canadian fish
eries into the American market free of duty. This conces
sion, highly advantageous to Canada and highly injurious to
our fisheries, was finally inserted in the treaty. It was further
agreed to decide by arbitration what amount of additional
compensation should be paid by us for the right to use the
inshore fisheries of Nova Scotia for twelve years. The Halifax
commission took the subject into consideration, and two com
missioners (both in effect selected by Great Britain) determined
that WQ should pay her five and a half millions of dollars in
gold coin, or at the rate of nearly half a million dollars per
annum. The duties on the products of Canadian fisheries im
ported into this country (all remitted by the treaty) would be
almost another half million dollars per annum ; so that under
this award we should be actually paying nearly a million of
180 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS.-
dollars per annum in gold coin for the privilege of inshore fish
ing on the coast of Nova Scotia, where the total catch by
American fishermen, beyond what we had the right to take
without this treaty, would not amount to much over 300,000
per annum. In other words, we are paying to Great Britain a
million of dollars per annum for the privilege of catching less
than four hundred thousand dollars worth of fish. Such is a
mere outline of the facts of the case, and the injustice of the
award is so palpable that it is difficult to treat it with the respect
due to all subjects involving international relations.
The question as to the binding force of the award is naturally
and necessarily one of the gravest interest, not only on account
of the large amount involved but on account of the very
peculiar circumstances under which the decision against us was
reached. The award was signed only by Sir Alexander Gait,
the British commissioner, and by M. Delfosse. The American
commissioner, Mr. Kellogg, refused to sign it, and affirmed his
dissent in writing ; declaring it to be his deliberate opinion that
" the advantages accruing to Great Britain under the treaty
were greater than those conferred on the United States ; " and
he further declared that he deemed it his duty to state that " it
is questionable whether it is competent for the board to make
an award under the treaty except with the unanimous consent
of all the arbitrators." Mr. Dwight Foster, the agent of our
Government, stated that he " had no instructions as to what he
should do under the circumstances, but he could not keep silent,
and give ground for the inference that our Government would
consider the award a valid one." I mention these facts to show
that objections to the validity of the award were not the result
of afterthought, but were incorporated as part of the proceed
ings before the arbitrators.
O
The ground on which Mr. Kellogg questioned the competency
of two of the arbitrators to make an award is that found in all
the legal authorities on arbitration. The articles in the treaty
of Washington creating the Halifax Board of Arbitration gave
no authority to a majority of the Board to make an award, nor
was the third commissioner empowered to act as umpire. Both
in the tribunal at Geneva and in the Claims Commission at
Washington, it was expressly stipulated that a majority of the
THE HALIFAX AWARD. 181
arbitrators should decide. In the Halifax commission no such
stipulation was made, and the inference therefore is strong, if
not irresistible, that their award should be made according to
the general law of arbitration. What that law is, upon English
authority, may be briefly stated.
Redman on " Arbitration and Awards," considered one of the
highest authorities in England, says :
" On a reference to several arbitrators with no provision that less than all
shall make an award, each must act ; and all must act together ; and every
stage of the proceedings must be in the presence of all ; and the award must
be signed by all at the same time."
Francis Russell, another English authority of eminence,
says :
" On a reference to several arbitrators together, when there is no clause
providing for an award made by less than all being valid, each of them must
act personally in performance of the duties of his office as if he were sole
arbitrator ; for as the office is joint, if one refuse or omit to act, the others
can make no valid award."
Stewart Kyd, an earlier but not less authoritative writer,
enforces the same doctrine. After alluding to the Roman law
and to its permission for the majority of arbitrators to decide,
Mr. Kyd makes the following statement :
" In this respect the law of England is somewhat different ; for unless it
be expressly provided in the submission that a less number than all the
arbitrators named may make the award, the concurrence of all is necessary."
If these eminent English authors are to be accepted, it is
quite apparent that the Halifax award has no binding effect in
law. .As to the equity of the case, I have already given the
undeniable facts that govern it.
I am not now discussing, much less presuming to define, the
action which our Government should ultimately take in regard
to the award. If we should follow what I believe would be the
inevitable course of Great Britain under similar circumstances
we should utterly refuse to pay a single penny, and ground our
refusal both on the law and the equity of the case. The treaty
as it stands is a mockery of justice, and will work the certain
destruction of a great American interest. It is in fact noth
ing else than asking us to pay a million dollars per annum to
182 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS.
Great Britain for destroying the entire fishing interest of
America and still further crippling and weakening us as a com
mercial power. For the utter abrogation of the treaty I should
be willing to pay the annual indemnity for the years we have
used the inshore fisheries, during which years the Canadians
have had free access to the markets of forty-five millions of
people ; or I should be willing to pay double the award to be
rid of the treaty. We might by this course anticipate by a
period of seven years a return to that policy which alone can
insure the prosperity or even save the life of a great and impor
tant trade, indissolubly associated with our commercial develop
ment and absolutely essential to our success and prestige as
a naval power. Paying thus even an unfair price for the
inshore fisheries as long as we shall have used them, we remove
all possible ground for imputation, even by the ignorant and
the hostile, upon the honor of our Government and the good
faith and fair dealing of our people.
When we were poor and weak as a nation, we so highly
esteemed the value of the fisheries that we encouraged their
development by rewards and bounties. These were abandoned
some years ago, but still we preserved to our fishermen a pref
erence in our own markets. Even that is given away by the