Readings in Money and Banking: Selected and AdaptedPhillips, Chester Arthur
General
Readings in Money and Banking: Selected and Adapted
Phillips, Chester Arthur
Banks and banking; Banks and banking -- United States; Money
As a matter of fact, even the restricted powers of note retirement
granted under the law of March, 1866, were revoked within two years.
Little or no progress had meantime been made towards resumption of
specie payments. The Secretary himself had officially pointed out that
two commercial influences must be removed before resumption would be
possible; the excessively high prices in the United States and the heavy
balance of foreign trade against us. But prices continued above the
European level, and, as a consequence, export of merchandise was checked
and imports greatly stimulated. The entire gold product of each year in
the United States was sent abroad.
Contraction of the inflated currency, even if pursued under the
limitations of the Act of 1866, would in time have brought about
conditions under which resumption might have been planned. But events
outside of the United States now moved in such a way as to turn the
entire financial community against the Secretary's policy. Hardly two
months after the vote of March came a wholly unexpected crisis in the
foreign money markets. The London collapse, precipitated by the
Overend-Gurney failure of May, 1866, was in some respects as complete as
any in the history of England. It affected every nation with which Great
Britain had commercial dealings; not least of all the United States, of
whose securities it was estimated that European investors even then held
$600,000,000. During three months the Bank of England kept its minimum
discount rate at the panic figure of 10 per cent.; the consequent sudden
recall of foreign capital put a heavy strain on the American markets.
With the familiar disposition of the trade community to lay the blame
for disordered markets on some move of public policy, the Treasury's
operations to reduce outstanding notes were made the scapegoat.
Politicians with an eye to popularity were quick to catch this drift of
public sentiment. Some of them honestly believed that McCulloch's action
in the currency was the cause of the trade distress; others, better
informed but equally politic, avoided personal declaration of opinion,
but characteristically announced that whether the theory was correct or
not, the public believed it, and that in deference to the public,
currency contraction ought to cease. The usual result ensued. Under the
previous question, and without debate, a measure revoking absolutely the
Secretary's power of contraction passed the House of Representatives in
December, 1867, by a vote of 127 to 32. In the Senate there was an able
show of opposition, but it was plainly put on the defensive, and on
January 22, 1868, the resolution passed both chambers in its original
and final shape.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account