I previously posted about a proposal to re-introduce the Copper-Nickel ("CuNi") Three-Cent piece, but noted that its initial failure was not the end of its story. You can find the storye here:
What If? 1912 Three-Cent Piece.
As I indicated in that post, there is more to the story. Here is that "more."
The journey for the proposed three-cent piece began in the House of Representatives ("House") in December 1911, soon after the Second Session of the 62nd Congress began. Robert Johns Bulkley (D-OH) introduced the bill.
The bill called for a Three-Cent piece with "the standard weight of twenty-four Troy grains, and said coin shall be composed of ninety-five per centum aluminum and five per centum copper, with no greater deviation from than two grains each piece." An aluminum coin for circulation in the United States ("US")!
Upon its introduction, the bill was referred to the House Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures. Before Committee review began, however, Representative Buckley introduced a revised bill (see previous discussion post). and the original bill faded into memory. No US circulating aluminum coinage!
After learning of the Treasury Department/US Mint support for a Three-Cent piece - and re-introduction of the
Half Cent - Representative Buckley introduced a another version of his coin bill. The new bill continued the request for a Copper-Nickel ("CuNi") Three-Cent coin, but added a CuNi
Half Cent and proposed changing the One Cent coin to a CuNi composition.
The inclusion of a perforation provision for the Three-Cent coin to make it easily distinguishable continued in the new bill, though the Treasury/US Mint preferred the flexibility to explore other options, including scalloped edges.; it was believed that the additional surface area would enable more attractive coin designs.
A brief, lightly-attended Hearing was held on Buckley's new coin bill by the House Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures (it was a follow-up to the more extensive Subcommittee Hearing on Buckley's previous bill (see previous post); the Hearing was held at the start of May 1912.
The Committee heeded the Treasury/US Mint request and recommended removal of the bill's perforation language.
When the Hearing's discussion turned to the proposed new composition for the One-Cent coin (75% Copper, 25% Nickel), it quickly became clear that Buckley supported the belief held by some that the copper US Cent corroded easily and was thus a health hazard. He cited as examples, several cents returned to the Treasury for redemption, stating "Those coins very badly corroded, and there is no doubt that this is poisonous and dangerous to handle."
A few things spring to mind for me here: 1) Considering how many hundreds of millions of copper cents were in circulation at the time, a handful of returned coins would represent just a minuscule percent of those available. 2) What was the cause of the corrosion? Natural? Intentional mistreatment? 3) It's my understanding that handling corroded copper cents is not known to be severely poisonous - it may cause some slight skin irritation, but no life-threatening poisoning.
Nonetheless, Acting Committee Chairman William Albert Ashbrook (D-OH) voiced his support for the new composition, though his support appears to have been connected more to visual aesthetics: "I am very much in favor of the change in composition of the penny. The [copper-nickel] 5-cent piece is a better appearing coin in every way; it does not corrode and always presents a better appearance than the copper cent."
The Committee returned a favorable report with a recommendation for the bill to pass. As noted above, it did recommend an amendment that removed the language pertaining to the three-cent coin's perforation requirement.
Following the Committee Report, the bill was brought up for consideration in the House. (It was originally brought up under Unanimous Consent rules, but later switched to general consideration rules to allow the bill to be amended.)
James Robert Mann (R-IL) was the first to ask a question regarding the bill, he asked Representative Ashbrook about the Report's confusing language regarding the amendment(s) it recommended. Even after Ashbrook explained the technical error, Representative Mann pushed his challenge and went so far as to levy claims of "negligence or carelessness."
IMO, the Report was specific in the one amendment it recommended, and inadvertent references to two amendments should not have been such an issue - It almost seems as if Mann and Ashbrook had unfavorable "history" between them and weren't the closest of House colleagues - but to move things along, Asbrook stated "I plead guilty to having put the report in the basket without the erasure [of the second amendment] being made." This seems to have appeased Mann, as he dropped his questioning and discussions proceeded.
The next topic of discussion centered around the diameters of the proposed new coins. Eben Weaver Martin (R-SD) wanted to insert into the bill language that ensured that neither of the new coins would have a diameter that was the same as an existing US coin - he did not want to leave it to the Treasury/Mint to determine such things.
Though Ashbrook tried to convince Martin such new language was not needed, Martin was not quieted and his amendment moved forward and was approved.
Representative John Quillon Tilson (R-CT) then asked a diameter-related question regarding the cent's new composition, asking "whether the change of composition will necessarily mean a change of diameter?" Ashbrook assured him that the new coin would be the same diameter as the current One-Cent coin.
The coin counting and coin-operated machines industries were - and remain - prime considerations for any new US circulation coinage. Many of the questions raised as Bulkley's bill was being discussed/debated did (at least in part) take into consideration these industries.
The core questions for Representative Ashbrook concluded with those from Richard Wilson Austin (R-TN). Representative Austin challenged the need for a Half-Cent coin. Ashbrook reported that it was the US Treasury that recommended the denomination as it believed that it would put more money in the pockets of consumers vs. merchants as more accurate pricing and change would be achieved - a definite consumer benefit!
The House passed the bill, as amended, and sent it on to the Senate for its consideration. The Senate did not move forward on the bill, however, and the legislation died for lack of action. The US copper cent would continue in production for the next 70 years!
For other of my posts about commemorative coins and medals, including more What If? stories, see:
Commems CollectionOn a personal note, this is my 12,000th post. Who woulda thunk it?! (My typing fingers are tired!)
Posted 02/10/2026 06:52 am
