Chamber to frighten us from duty. Naturally, all who are against the proposed system will be against the seeming sacrifice. But the people are too intelligent not to see what is demanded by the best interests of the national currency; and unless I greatly err, they will insist that what we do shall be so done as to make our work most effective and most triumphant, to the end that victory may be certain. It is on no narrow ground that I make my appeal. I speak for a national currency which shall be to the whole country like the horn of abundance; and I plead for it now, as essential not only to the general welfare, but also to the common defence.

Mr. Fessenden replied to Mr. Sumner with severity. On the other hand, Mr. Chandler, of Michigan, recognized as a business man, said: "The country owes the Senator from Massachusetts a debt of gratitude for his patriotism and statesmanship. He has risen above small matters, above local, petty interests, and has come up to the standard of the broadest statesmanship, in the argument he has just delivered, which is one of the ablest financial arguments ever delivered on this floor."

The

Mr. Sumner's amendment was lost, Yeas 11, Nays 24. amendment of the Committee was then agreed to, - Yeas 29, Nays 8.

BRANCH MINTS AND COINAGE.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE PROPOSITION TO CREATE A BRANCH MINT IN OREGON, APRIL 29, 1864.

THE Senate having under consideration a bill to establish Assay Offices at Carson City, in the Territory of Nevada, and Dalles City, in the State of Oregon, Mr. Nesmith, of Oregon, moved to strike out the section establishing an Assay Office at Dalles City, and insert several sections establishing a Branch Mint there, instead. This was contrary to the recommendation of the Finance Committee, and also to communications from Mr. Pollock, the Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, and Mr. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, sustained by Mr. Fessenden in the Senate.

April 29th, Mr. Sumner spoke.

MR.

R. PRESIDENT,- When this subject was under consideration before, I voted with the Committee, partly because it is my habit to vote with committees on matters within their special consideration, and partly because at the time I was under the impression that their report was justified by correct principles. Subsequent reflection has induced me to hesitate in this conclusion.

Much dependence has been placed upon the report of the Director of the mint at Philadelphia. Now, Sir, if he had contented himself with giving an opinion against establishing a mint in Oregon, without assigning reasons, I might have respected his opinion; but when he puts forward as his first great objection that the multi

plication of mints will tend to "national disintegration," I confess that I join with the Senator from Oregon [Mr. NESMITH] in distrusting his conclusion. What confidence can anybody have in anything founded on such premises, which experience, if not reason, shows to be false? Why, Sir, the author of this opinion forgets that in the country most centralized in the world, where all the agencies of Government converge in a single capital, -I mean France, there have been for a long time, even within its comparatively contracted borders, more than half a dozen different mints. Besides a magnificent central mint at Paris, there are, or were very recently, auxiliary mints at Lyons, Marseilles, Bordeaux, Lille, Rouen, and Strasbourg. I never heard that this multiplicity tended toward "national disintegration." France still continues one and indivisible; and I doubt if there would be any difference in this respect, even if there were a mint in every one of her eighty-six Departments. Really, the Director of the Philadelphia mint ought to have borne in mind the famous instructions of Lord Mansfield to the colonial magistrate, and contented. himself with an opinion without assigning reasons.

There is a different consideration, to which I confess that I am not insensible. It is the importance of a correct and finished coinage, which it seems natural to suppose best promoted by a single mint. On this point I am disposed to agree with the Director. But our Government has not acted on this principle.

If circumstances favored the consolidation of the national coinage at a single mint, I can conceive that there would be advantages of an unquestionable character. Indeed, if we repair to France, where the mints have been in times past so numerous, we find that these

advantages have not been denied. I suppose that the most authoritative testimony on this subject, whether we look at it in the light of theory or of practice, is found in that country; and if we seek special authorities, there is nothing so instructive or ample as the report of Dumas and De Colmont, made in 1839, under a commission from the French Minister of Finance. This document, with its minute disclosures on the operations. of mints, was for some time kept secret in France. I have understood that only twelve copies were printed for the use of the Commission, who were placed under a solemn obligation not to divulge it. But I believe it found its way to publicity at the time of the Parliamentary inquiry into the Mint in 1849, which resulted in a valuable blue-book.

The testimony of Dumas is for a single mint. He dwells especially on two considerations,-economy, and the perfection of the coinage; and these he places above local interests demanding multiplicity of mints. The figures by which he illustrates the superior economy are. very striking. These assume that the metal is already delivered at the mint, a point not to be forgotten on the present occasion. Beyond his own opinion on the question of perfection, Dumas quotes the testimony of Basterrèche, Regent of the Bank of France, who, after an examination of the subject as long ago as 1800, very positively declared that "the perfection of labor which ought to distinguish a great nation imperiously required a single mint, placed under the immediate superintendence of the Government." And he also quotes the testimony of Humann, Minister of Finance, who, in presenting his budget in 1835, declared that the Paris mint was adequate to do all the coinage required in

--

France, that the concentration of labor there would promote improvement in the processes of production, -that in this way the Government would be relieved from the expense of different establishments, that all the money from the same mint would be identical in character, and in proportion as it acquired perfection would be less exposed to counterfeiting, — and, in fine, that the superintendence of the Government would be a guaranty of security, which does not exist where the work is distributed in a large number of establishments. Such was the testimony of the minister, adopted by the illustrious authority in science, Dumas. Perhaps the case could not be stated stronger. Yet it did not prevail in 1800, when it was first given, nor in 1835, nor in 1839,- even in France, where the tendency to concentration is so active, where the facilities for it are so great, and the disposition to take counsel of science. is so confirmed. And surely there must be a reason why it did not prevail.

1

Dumas says, in rather contemptuous phrase, that "on one side is a petty local interest, in a great degree imaginary." But if this "petty local interest" were of sufficient importance to prevail for so long a time in France, against such influences, it must be because there was something of intrinsic strength in its character. I allude thus minutely to this testimony, because I would not keep anything out of the discussion calculated to shed light, and because it seems to me that the longcontinued practice of France, in spite of such testimony, must not be disregarded in our endeavors to arrive at a true policy.

Thus far our Government has followed the teachings

1 Rapport, p. 70.