ught the floor to say that he
concurred "in every word" Mr. Lovejoy had spoken. Mr. Conkling
said the debate had been allowed to close "without pretext of solid
argument by any member in favor of the constitutionality of the
one feature of the bill."

The essential difference between the plan of the minority and that
of the committee had reference to the legal-tender clause. In fact
the other details of the Loan Bill could have been agreed upon in
a single day's discussion, and the delay was occasioned solely by
the one feature of legal-tender. On substituting the measure of
the minority the vote was 55 yeas to 95 nays. The bill was then
passed by a vote of 93 to 59. The yeas were all Republican. Among
the nays--principally Democrats--were found some of the ablest and
most influential members of the Republican party. Valentine B.
Horton of Ohio, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont, Roscoe Conkling, F.
A. Conkling, and Theodore M. Pomeroy of New York, Albert G. Porter
of Indiana, Owen Lovejoy of Illinois, William H. Wadsworth of
Kentucky, Benjamin F. Thomas of Massachusetts, and Edward H. Rollins
of New Hampshire, were conspicuous for their hostility to the legal-
tender clause.

The Senate received the bill on the next day, and on the 10th it
was reported from the Finance Committee for immediate action. Mr.
Fessenden explained the amendments which the committee had embodied
in the House Bill. In the first section they provided that the
interest on the national debt should be paid in coin. Upon this
point Mr. Fessenden considered that the public credit, in large
degree, depended. As to the legal-tender feature of the notes, he
could not make up his mind to support it. "Will your legal-tender
clause," he inquired, "make your notes any better? Do you imagine
that because you force people to take these notes they are to be
worth the money, and that no injury is to follow? What is the
consequence? Does not property rise? You say you are injuring
the soldier if you compel him to take a note without its being a
legal-tender; but will not the sutler put as much more on his goods?
And if the soldier sends the notes to his wife to be passed at a
country store for necessaries for his family, what will be the
result? The goods that are sold are purchased in New York; the
price is put on in New York; a profit is added in the country; and
thus the soldier loses just as much. You are not saving any thing
for any body."