that the case might be brought before Judge Thomas McKean, whose daughter Yrujo was soon to marry. When the trial took place McKean made a most excellent charge to the jury, but, forgetting his position as judge, he allowed his bias to carry him to excess. He became an advocate, and in his harangue uttered a libel against the prisoner at the bar as vile as that of which the prisoner himself had been accused. The jury therefore returned the bill without convicting.*

The bitterness of party politics had by no means diminished when the second session of Congress convened on November 22, 1797. In addition to the fact that no word had been received from the envoys to France, Congress was discouraged also by the general condition of the country, for mercantile disaster had followed hard upon the pestilence at Philadelphia. The people were beginning to reap the legitimate fruit of speculation, overtrading and foolish ventures, which, together with French and English spoliations and the commercial distress of England, combined to overthrow some American capitalists hitherto considered impregnable. Robert Morris had been one of the greatest speculators in land the country had seen, he owning vast tracts in six different States and in the District of Columbia. This land was

* McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 350-353; Hildreth, History of the United States, vol. v., pp. 164173; Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 378380.

VOL. IV - 23

343

wholly unproductive, and the taxes sapped his declining resources so rapidly that ultimately he was sent to a debtor's prison. His ruin hastened the collapse of other houses. Credit sank, business suffered a relapse, prices fell, failures became frequent, labor and house-rent underwent great reduction, and many formerly opulent citizens were reduced to poverty. On January 18, 1798, therefore, in a special message,* Adams called the attention of Congress to the defects in the law of May 28, 1796, for the relief of persons imprisoned for debt; and to relieve the distress of the mercantile community, Congress took the subject of a bankrupt bill under consideration, but without taking any definite action.†

Meanwhile, on December 13, 1797, another matter was reported to the House which caused a long debate. This was concerned with the coinage. The coinage act of February 9, 1793, provided that three years after the first gold and silver coins had been struck at the mint, foreign coins, with the exception of the Spanish milled dollar and parts thereof, should cease to be legal tender and should not be taken in payment of taxes and customs duties. The coinage of silver at the mint began on October 15, 1794,‡ and

* Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., p. 261. Schouler, United States, vol. i., p. 381.

The first silver bullion received at the mint was deposited July 18, 1794, by the Bank of Maryland and consisted of coins of France amounting to $80,715.731⁄2. The first deposit of gold

344

66

the coinage of gold on July 31, 1795.* Accordingly on July 22, 1797, President Adams issued a proclamation† stating that on October 15 of that year all foreign silver coins, except Spanish milled dollars and parts thereof, would cease to pass current as money within the United States and to be legal tender for the payment of any debts or demands," and that the same would apply to all foreign gold coins after July 31, 1798. Millions of dollars in silver coins were thus no longer legal tender, and the gold coins were to meet a similar fate in a few months. The price of Spanish silver dollars and American silver now rose so high that general ruin seemed imminent, and, in order to prevent this, Secretary of the Treasury Wolcott ordered the custom-house officers to take French crowns at the same value as did the Bank. As this was illegal, the matter was taken up by the House, and the committee to which it was referred rendered a report approving the Secretary's action. It

was made by Moses Brown, of Boston, on February 12, 1795, ingots worth $2,276.72 being then deposited.--Watson, History of American Coinage, p. 66; Evans, History of the Mint, p. 14. The gross and standard weights of gold and silver bullion deposited at the mint up to December 21, 1796, will be found in American State Papers, Finance, vol. i., pp. 476-477.

The silver dollar weighed 416 grains, 1,485 parts pure to 179 parts alloy; thus its pure contents were 317.25 grains. The gold eagle weighed 270 grains, eleven-twelfths fine, so that one dollar contained 24.75 grains of pure gold.― Sumner, History of American Currency, p. 60.

249.

Richardson, Messages and Papers vol. i., p.

Bolles, Financial History, pp. 169-170.

said also that, if the law of 1793 were enforced, a large amount of coin which the mint could not replace would be thrown out of circulation. This would result in private distress and industrial and commercial stagnation, and the committee recommended that for two years silver coins of every kind be accepted by the government and that so much of the act of 1793 as affected gold be suspended. After a long discussion, an amendment was offered suspending, for a limited time, so much of the act of 1793 as related to silver coin and so much as prohibited the circulation of foreign coin. This amendment was passed, and late in December, 1797, the bill was ordered to a third reading.*

By the act of February 1, 1798,† the limitation was extended to May 3, 1802. But legislation on this subject was singularly defective. The legal effect of this was that for three years after 1802 no foreign coins whatever were legal tender, and from May 3, 1805, only Spanish milled dollars and parts thereof could be thus employed. Spanish milled dollars were exported in such large quantities, and so many of the remaining foreign coins were kept by the banks that Congress determined once again to sanction the use of foreign coins. A law was passed fixing the rates at which foreign gold and silver coins should pass current as money within

McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 360-363. 5th Congress, 2d session, chap. xi.

the United States.* That the actual standard value of coins might be known, they were to be assayed yearly; and, from the information thus obtained, Congress could act intelligently in altering the rates. This act was to continue in force until April 10, 1809.†

Meanwhile the mint had proved to be a very expensive institution, due chiefly to the principles on which it was founded. The original cost of the works, the salaries of the officers, the expense of workmanship and the alloy, mintage and contingent losses, had to be borne by the public. Besides, no charge could be made to depositors in the beginning for the process of melting and refining, which was an additional expense to the government. Moreover, a considerable expense was caused by the lack of capital with which to purchase the precious metals in bullion, to anticipate payments due to depositors, or to coin for the public. As the mint depended wholly on depositors for the precious metals, it became necessary to coin every deposit as soon as possible after receipt, to prevent its remaining unproductive to the depositor. Often the clippings and grains would have to be melted and coined three or four times for a single deposit, and thus the melting, refining, and coining of 200 ounces of silver or 20 ounces of gold would cost as much

*Act of April 10, 1806, 9th Congress, 1st session, chap. xxii.

† Bolles, Financial History, p. 170 et seq.

345

as 1,000 ounces of either. Had it been possible to purchase the bullion at market price and to keep it in the vault until a large quantity had been collected for a single coinage, or had sufficient funds been furnished to the mint to anticipate payments to depositors without resorting to a coinage on every occasion, a very great saving would have been effected in wastage, expenditure for materials, and labor used in the process. Such a practice would have tended also to fix the price of bullion and indemnify the public for a part of the expense of the operation. Accordingly, in 1797, a sum was appropriated for the purchase of bullion, thus effecting great economy both to the government and to bullion depositors.‡

*

In 1795 the director of the mint was ordered to retain two cents per ounce for every ounce of silver bullion below refining standard and four cents per ounce for gold, unless it required a test, in which case he was to retain six cents. Nor was he obliged to take from anyone less than 200 ounces of silver bullion below standard or less than 20 ounces of gold; he might even give preference to gold and silver bullion that conformed to the government standard. The next year

Bolles, Financial History, pp. 163-164. See Pickering's report of December 20, 1796, American State Papers, Finance, vol. i., pp. 473477.

Haven's report of February 13, 1797.

Act of March 3, 1795, 3d Congress, 2d session,

chap. xlvii.

346

*

the law was changed so that the director subtracted from every deposit below standard enough to pay the cost of refining. By the close of the century less than $2,000,000 had been coined - $696,530 in gold, $1,216,158.75 in silver and $50,111.42 in copper, at an expense of $213,336, not including $48,041.42 reimbursed to the Treasury by the payments of cents and half cents. The expense was so disproportionate to the benefits derived that a committee of Congress recommended that the Mint

be

closed.‡ The expediency of so doing continued to grow in the public mind. It was proposed even to have the cents coined by contract, which could be done, Boudinot declared, with great safety to the government and without expense, provided the government would accept this coins so made.|| On January 29, 1802, Giles proposed that the act under which it had been established be repealed, believing that none but self-supporting establishments should exist. The House accepting his view, a repealing bill was introduced. On April 26, after a short de

*Acts of May 27, 1796, 4th Congress, 1st session, chap. xxxiii.; April 24, 1800, 6th Congress, 1st session, chap. xxxiv., sec. ii.

Reports of Benjamin Rush, January 1, 1800, Joseph Nourse, February 20, and of Hillhouse, March 14, American State Papers, Finance, vol. i., pp. 616, 632-633; Bolles, Financial History, p. 166; Annals of Congress, 6th Congress, App., pp. 1256-1261.

Hillhouse's report of March 14, 1800, American State Papers, Finance, vol. i., p. 632. See also pp. 635-642.

See Gallatin's communication relating to the mint, April 2, 1802.

bate, it was passed without division, but was rejected by the Senate without discussion or even a call for yeas and nays. But as the institution grew older its efficiency increased, and there was no difficulty to procure a sufficient quantity of precious metals for coinage. Accordingly Congress determined to give it another trial; during the second session of the Seventh Congress (1802-3) its life was extended for five years and $20,000 voted for its support. Up to the close of 1809 the expense of the Mint had been $387,414.29, but, as there had been a profit in the copper coinage of $37,331.52, the net expenses were only $350,082.77. Up to that time the total value of the coinage had been $8,346,146.21.‡

On January 30, 1798, the House was the scene of a disgraceful fracas between Matthew Lyon, of Vermont, and Roger Griswold, of Connecticut. During the impeachment trial of Senator Blount feeling ran high, and Lyon made the remark that the Con

necticut members necticut members were acting in opposition to the will of their constituents; that they cared nothing for the public welfare and only wanted office. He said that if he could go into Connecticut with a printing press, he would revolutionize