MR. FARMER: Oh, yes, we must find out about that. You remember we investigated the cost of the greenbacks since the war, and that Mr. Banker then demonstrated to our entire satisfaction that the United States Government would have been better off by $339,984,222, if at the close of the war we had issued bonds, bearing 4 per cent, and taken up these United States Notes and paid them off. Now, it would be mighty interesting to know just how much the war cost because we issued these United States Notes, and went off the Gold Standard. MR. LAWYER: I have something here right on that point. Let me read it: In his work on Public Debts, Prof. H.C. Adams computes the extra cost of the war to the tax payers in consequence of the depreciated currency at $850,000,000. And Mr. Wesley Hill, in the "Journal of Political Economy," March, 1897, computes the net cost of the war, due to this cause at $528,000,000. Now to be fair and take the average of these two estimates or $689,000,000, and add the cost of meeting greenback redemption since the war, or $339,984,222, we have $1,028,984,222, or about one-third of the cost of the war which, as I told you a while ago, was three billion two hundred million dollars, proving everything that was said by those who were opposed to issuing the greenbacks. MR. MANUFACTURER: I beg your pardon, sir, except one thing, Mr. Lawyer. According to the decisions of the Supreme Court, up-to-date, and that is, that they are constitutional. You remember, of course, that the question of the constitutionality of the Legal Tender quality of the United States Notes has been before the United States Supreme Court three different times. This question came up in the case of Hepburn vs. Griswold, December, 1869, and was held by five judges against three, the Court then consisting of eight judges, the opinion of the Court being delivered by Salmon P. Chase, himself, who was then Chief Justice, "that the making of the Notes, or Bills of Credit, a legal tender in payment of pre-existing debts, is not a means appropriate, plainly adapted, or really calculated to carry into effect any power vested in Congress; is inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution, and is prohibited by the Constitution." MR. FARMER: Well, this man Chase, who was then Chief Justice, was Secretary of the Treasury, and favored the issuance of these same United States Notes, didn't he? MR. LAWYER: Yes, he is the same person. But you must remember that he was a politician in the one case, and a Chief Justice in the other. Possibly, I should have said a statesman in the first place, but Thomas B. Reed said that a statesman was a dead politician, and probably, you might say, according to his theory, that Chase is a statesman now.