|
This page may contain links that result in small commissions to keep this free site up and running.

Welcome Guest! Registering and/or logging in will remove the anchor (bottom) ads and the security checks. It's Free!
To participate in the forum you must log in or register. | Author |
Replies: 10 / Views: 967 |
|
|
CCF Master Historian of Commemorative Coins
 United States
12604 Posts |
With World War II nearly at an end and the prospects of life in the United States slowly returning to "normal," Karl Miles Le Compte (R-IA) introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that called for "the coinage of 50-cent pieces in commemoration of the one-hundredth anniversary of the admission of Iowa into the Union as a State." (The bill was introduced on February 27, 1945.) The bill was referred to the House Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures. The Committee, chaired by Compton Ignasius White (D-ID), sent copies of the bill to the Treasury Department to get its views on the proposed coinage. Not surprisingly, the Treasury was not in favor of additional commemorative coinage. In its letter to the Committee, Daniel Wafena Bell, Acting Secretary (Undersecretary) of the Treasury, wrote: "The Treasury Department has long been on record as opposed to the issuance of commemorative coins."He continued, "The mints are working 24 hours a day to fill unprecedently heavy orders for coins for regular issues, to produce medals and awards for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard and to manufacture coins for many friendly foreign countries having no minting facilities of their own. The mints can ill afford to spare machinery and personnel for the additional task of handling the technical problems and the work entailed in the issuance of a commemorative coin of a new design as provided in the bill under consideration."With such a view from the Treasury, the Committee had little choice. So, on July 12, 1946, it reported the bill favorably without amendment and recommended that it pass.  Following the Committee Report, Representative Le Compte brought the bill up for consideration. "Mr. Speaker, this bill...provides for the coinage of a special half dollar to commemorate the centennial of statehood of Iowa, which occurred 100 years ago this year. The bill will not cost the Federal Government a cent since it provides specifically that the cost of the dies and other preparations are not to be paid by the Government but by the party interested. Under the terms of the bill, 100,000 coins will be minted which will be legal tender at face value. They will be purchased by the State of Iowa and resold at par or at a premium.
"Many times the Federal Government has put out special memorial coins. In view of the important place our State holds in the Nation, this bill has been given unanimous approval by the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures, and we have had valuable assistance from the chairman of the committee, and I trust will have approval of the House." · The bill was approved without debate and sent to the Senate for its consideration and approval. The Senate also approved the bill without debate and notified the House of such. The bill was then examined and signed in each chamber, presented to the President and signed into law by US President Harry S. Truman on August 7, 1946. With the approval, the US Mint was back in the commemorative coin business after a multi-year absence (it last struck a new commemorative coin - the 1937 Battle of Antietam 75th Anniversary Half Dollar in August 1937; the 1938-dated New Rochelle 250th Anniversary of Settlement Half Dollar was struck in April 1937. Coins for the ongoing Oregon Trail Memorial and Arkansas Statehood Centennial programs were struck for 1939). Note: The Booker T. Washington Birthplace Memorial Half Dollar was approved by President Truman the same day.1946 Iowa Statehood Centennial Half Dollar  For more of my stories about commemorative coins and medals, including other Iowa half dollar stories, see: Commems Collection. Collecting history one coin or medal at a time! (c) commems. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Hadn't realized the gap was that long.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
196880 Posts |
Very interesting and thank you for sharing. 
|
|
Moderator
 United States
15974 Posts |
In my view the Treasury's negative response to this commemorative proposal was well reasoned and a compelling argument to not proceed.
Congress, of course, had the final say.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1328 Posts |
I have a hard time understanding why they asked the mint in the first place . The mint gave a very valid reason not to do it but they ignored there advice and passed the bill anyhow.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1328 Posts |
On a side note (commems) that is one heck of a nice looking coin.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
196880 Posts |
Quote: I have a hard time understanding why they asked the mint in the first place . The mint gave a very valid reason not to do it but they ignored there advice and passed the bill anyhow. The illusion of choice. 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
3842 Posts |
Very interesting, thanks!
|
|
CCF Master Historian of Commemorative Coins
  United States
12604 Posts |
Quote: I have a hard time understanding why they asked the mint in the first place . The mint gave a very valid reason not to do it but they ignored there [sic] advice and passed the bill anyhow. It was pretty much standard procedure to get the Treasury Department's / US Mint's views on proposed commemorative coins during the classic era - the Mint was, after all, going to be responsible for striking the coins. In many cases, the Congress acceded to the Treasury's position. In the case of the Iowa coin, however, the House Committee had its own views. It was well aware of the Treasury's position and understood its objection to the proposed coin; In its report for the bill it stated: "The committee, in making this report, are fully cognizant of and in general accord with the attitude of the Treasury Department regarding the too promiscuous issuance of commemorative coins in commemoration of events of local or minor importance and the resultant abuses possible or attendant thereto. Therefore, they feel that every bill of this nature should be carefully considered and judged solely on its individual merits.
"The committee are convinced that an event of such outstanding importance as the one-hundredth anniversary of the admission of Iowa into the Union as a State--a span of years longer than most governments of the earth have survived--fully justifies this legislation, and have unanimously reported the bill favorably with the recommendation that the bill do pass."To paraphrase Emily Dickenson, "The Congress wants what the Congress wants!" 
Collecting history one coin or medal at a time! (c) commems. All rights reserved.
|
|
CCF Master Historian of Commemorative Coins
  United States
12604 Posts |
@All: Thank you much for the kind feedback!
Collecting history one coin or medal at a time! (c) commems. All rights reserved.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
196880 Posts |
Thank you for clearing that up for us!  Quote:To paraphrase Emily Dickenson, "The Congress wants what the Congress wants!"  Indeed. Would be nice if they wanted what we the people wanted, but this is not the venue. 
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 967 |
|
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.

- 1975 D Lincoln Cent 2 Lincoln's Reverse Memorial And Obverse
- 1974 San Marino 20 Lire, PCGS MS-67, San Marino, Lobster
- 1795 Liberty Cap Large Cent, PCGS AU-58+, S-76 Struck Over 1794 S-71, Jeff Garrett Discovery
- 2026 Declaration Of Independence Quarter With July 4th Privy Mark, PCGS MS-66
- 1978 Mexico - 10 Centavos W/Straight Clip
- 2019 P Nickel: WDDR-005
- 1994-P Nickel Overpolished Die?
- 2022 10c Double Clipping Error
- 1871 Victoria Sovereign, London
- Possibly Merovingian 8th Century
- Specie Payments Suspension And Gold Coin Circulation After 1861 In The Usa?
- Looking For Nic-A-Date Pro's And Con's
- 2021-P Nickel With Feeder Finger Damage.
- 2025 P Nickel With DDR.
- 2021 - P Lincoln Shield Cent With Uncentered Broadstrike, Stiff Collar, And Ffd (Coin #3 Of 3)
- 2005 - D Lincoln Memorial Center With Broadstrike (Coin #2 Of 3)
- 2000 - P Lincoln Memorial Cent Wide AM Gift
- 1999 - P Lincoln Memorial Cent With Broadstrike (Coin #1 Of 3)
- 1872-H Off-Centre Double Struck 25 Cent
- 2026 Trump Dollar Coin - Strikethrough Or Ding?
- 2026 W Enduring Liberty 09-11-01 Always Remember Privy Coins Possible Variety.
- How Far Back Can We Go? Ninth Edition!
- Definitive Test For Black Beauty Nickels
- How Many Countries Do You Have Coins From?
- 20 Questions! (Forum Game) 11/04/24
- 1975 D Lincoln Cent 2 Lincoln's Reverse Memorial And Obverse
- 1974 San Marino 20 Lire, PCGS MS-67, San Marino, Lobster
- Guess The Price - Season 96 - Round 4
- Coinstar Finds! (Including Bank Counters And Other Machines)
- How To Spike Interest In The Comic Art Series
- Explore Rare And Collectible Coins From Specialist Dealers On Ma-Shops.
- 1795 Liberty Cap Large Cent, PCGS AU-58+, S-76 Struck Over 1794 S-71, Jeff Garrett Discovery
- 2026 Declaration Of Independence Quarter With July 4th Privy Mark, PCGS MS-66
- Post Your United Kingdom (Great Britain) Coin Acquisitions.
- Purchased A Small Celtic Hoard
- Post Your Coins With Coats Of Arms, Shields, Crests, Crowns, Etc.
- Around The World With Coins - A Coin Geography Game
- Specie Payments Suspension And Gold Coin Circulation After 1861 In The Usa?
- New Coin Purchases, Slerk
- 1623 2 Thalers, Germany, Constance, D-5175, PCGS XF45
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us | Advertise Here | Privacy Policy / Terms of Use
|
| Coin Community Forum |
© 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Forums |
| It took 0.44 seconds to rattle this change. |
 |
|
| |
| |