Commems Collection Classic: Question & Answer #17 - Roots Of US Treasury Objections

This is one of those questions that has more than one answer, as the US Treasury Department went through levels of objection to commemorative coins - it took some experience with the various programs to transition from "no objection" to "vocal objection."

The Treasury did not appear to have issues with commemorative coins through those for the Panama-Pacific International Exposition; it was a cooperative partner that reviewed pending bills and offered suggestions/recommendations for improvements. The continuing experience of having to take back and melt unsold coins from each program, however, began to change the Treasury's perspective.

The sponsors of every US commemorative coin program authorized between (and including) the 1892-93 World's Columbian Exposition and the 1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition returned a portion of the coins struck for them - on a percentage basis, the "melt rate" of 28% for the Lafayette Dollar was the lowest among the first six silver and gold programs.

The first indication that "trouble was brewing" at the Treasury can be found in the Hearing for the 1918 Illinois Statehood Centennial Half Dollar. Representative Loren Edgar Wheeler (R-IL) recounted a meeting he had had about the Illinois coin with the Secretary of the Treasury (William G. McAdoo) and the Director of the Mint (Raymond Thomas Baker). Though no objections were raised, Secretary McAdoo did comment "that the trouble heretofore with these coins was that so many had been turned back into the Treasury."

In a letter presented at the 1920 Hearing for the Alabama Statehood Centennial Half Dollar and the 300th Anniversary of the Landing of the Pilgrims Half Dollar, David F Houston, Secretary of the Treasury, indicated no opposition to either coin but added:

"In regard to the bill under review I would like to again state that on the proposed legislation the department looks with disfavor and anxiety upon the issuance of an indefinite number of special coins, principally for the reason that such a policy makes the detection of counterfeiting less difficult (based on context, I think he meant to write "more" vs. "less") and the protection of the integrity of our coinage a much more difficult matter."

No objection was raised for the Missouri Statehood Centennial, U S Grant Centenary, Monroe Doctrine or Huguenot-Walloon Tercentenary coins, but things took a decided turn in January 1925 at the Hearing for the Battle of Bennington - Vermont Independence Half Dollar. Andrew Mellon, the Secretary o f the Treasury at the time submitted a letter that stated:

"In my judgement the coinage should not be utilized for profit to finance any product or commemorate any other events than those of great national importance to all of the people. The policy of issuing special coins opens the way to counterfeiting and makes the protection of the integrity of our coinage most difficult. The issue of special coins is not in the interest of the general public and usually satisfies a very limited demand. The practice introduces confusion into our system of coinage, is an unnecessary expense, and as actual results have shown special coins are not liked by the public. They are seldom absorbed for circulation. There are known instances of special coins having been refused in trade for the reason that the public is not familiar with them. "

Secretary Mellon also raised the issue of how the frequent issue of so many special coins defeated the protections put in place via the Act of September 26, 1890 that specified that "...no change in the design or die of any such coin shall be made oftener than one in 25 years..."

The above list of objections. in some form or another, would become the standard objections offered by the US Treasury and/or US Mint for just about every commemorative coin proposal that followed. Mostly, its objections were overlooked, but the Treasury did have certain successes when it could convince the then-current US President of the potential negatives associated with the coins. Several vetoes were handed down when the Treasury and President presented a united front.

So, the rumblings of opposition at the Treasury can be traced to the 1916-1918 period, it simmered in the early 1920s and reached a boil in 1925 in the midst of an increased number of commemorative coin proposals. From that point on, Treasury/Mint opposition to commemorative coin proposals was a given and led to presidential vetoes of some coin bills, coin proposal failures in Congress and the occasional sponsor withdrawal of a coin bill. My list of roughly 200 failed commemorative coin bills (my What If? series) helps support the case for the Treasury Department's influence.


For other of my posts about commemorative coins and medals, including more Q&A discussions,see: Commems Collection.