When a complete remedy is in our power, why propose a partial remedy? When a just remedy is in our power, why propose an unjust remedy? There is another question. I would ask also, Why unnecessarily disturb existing and well-settled channels of trade?--for such must be the effect of a new apportionment, as proposed, under the census of this year. Why not at once provide another source from which to draw the new supplies under the new apportionment? I open this subject with these inquiries, which to my mind answer themselves. The proposition of the Committee is further embarrassed by the provision for the cancellation each month of the three per cent. certificates to an amount equal to the aggregate of new notes issued during the previous month. In order to judge the expediency of this measure we must understand the origin and character of these certificates. The Secretary of the Treasury, desiring to avoid the further issue of greenbacks, conceived the idea of a note which could be used in the payment of Government obligations, but in such form as not to enter into and inflate the currency. This resulted in an interest-bearing note payable three years after date, with six per cent. interest compounded every six months and payable at the maturity of the note in its redemption. This anomalous note was made legal-tender for its face value only.[214] It was not doubted that such notes, on the accumulation of interest, would be withdrawn as an investment. Being legal-tender, if they were allowed to be used by the banks as part of their reserves, they would become, contrary to the original purpose, part of the national circulation, while the Government would be paying interest on bank reserves, which no bank could demand. But the _ipse dixit_ of the Secretary could not prevent their use by the banks as part of the reserves. The intervention of Congress was required, which, by the second section of the Loan Act of June 30, 1864, provided as follows:-- “Nor shall any Treasury note bearing interest, issued under this Act, be a legal tender in payment or redemption of any notes issued by any bank, banking association, or banker, calculated or intended to circulate as money.”[215] From this statement it seems clear that neither the Secretary originating these compound-interest legal-tender notes, nor the Act of Congress authorizing them, nor the banks receiving them, contemplated their employment as part of the bank reserves. How they reached this condition remains to be told.