Coining cents at San Francisco for 1865 ? 0

[RWB]

Mint of the United States

Philadelphia

December 14, 1864

Hon. William P. Fessenden

Secretary of the Treasury

Sir:

Your letter of the 2nd inst. enclosing letter from D.W. Cheeseman, Esq., Assistant Treasurer, U.S. at San Francisco, of September 20, 1864, suggesting the propriety of authorizing the coinage of the cent piece at that Branch Mint, and asking my views in relation to the matter, has been received.

The policy of the Government from the establishment of the Mint of the U.S. has been to confine the copper coinage to the present institution. All the Branch Mints have been limited to gold, or gold and silver, and upon no one of them has been conferred the authority to coin cents. The Act of March 3, 1853, establishing a Branch Mint in California, expressly limits the coins at that institution to gold and silver, and there is consequently no power outside of Congressional legislation, to authorize the coinage of the cent piece at that place.

The rule of the copper or bronze coinage, deducible from the law authorizing it, and the practice of more than half a century, requires the value of the product to equal at least the cost of production, and the expense incident to packing, distribution, etc. With the facilities peculiar to the Mint, this result has, not only been secured, but the receipts have and so exceed the expenditures. The cost of production would be much greater in California. The material for the bronze coinage, for the present at least, would have to be purchased here and shipped to that place. This increase of cost, with the higher price of acid, labor, etc., would in all probability make the actual expenditures exceed the value of the bronze coinage. These considerations, in connection with the want of room and other facilities in that Branch Mint, would seem to justify our adherence to the past and present policy.

The capacity of the present Mint is sufficient to supply any ordinary and reasonable demand. The cent coinage can readily be distributed to such public depositories as may be designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, under the general regulations proposed by the Director of the Mint, and approved by the Secretary (Sec.4th Sec. of Act of April 22, 1864 relating to coinage of cents, L&B, 1863-64, page 55). The cost of transportation [to San Francisco –ed.], if not too great, on lines of general communication, can be paid out of the profits of the coinage, as authorized by law. The cost of transportation to San Francisco by Well, Fargo & Cos. Express would be $6 per hundred pounds, slow freight, payment in coin at New York or San Francisco. This would-be about 10% on the value in currency; but not much greater than the cost of transporting the raw material. If there the Assistant Treasurer at San Francisco will deposit with the Treasurer of the Mint at Philadelphia, or draw his check payable to him for the amount he may require, say $5,000 or $10,000, the cents ordered can be forwarded by express; and like orders could be filled monthly, or as rapidly as practicable. This would furnish all the bronze coinage that might be desired, and be more economical that coining the cents at San Francisco, and conform to the general policy of the Government, which is no doubt the true one. I have not heard from the Superintendent of the Branch Mint at San Francisco on this subject. He certainly would best understand the capacity of the Mint in all matters relating to coinage, and his suggestions on this subject would deserve careful consideration. I will request his views and communicate them, when received, to you.

I delayed this communication for the purpose of ascertaining from Wells, Fargo & Co., and other parties, the cost of transportation to San Francisco. That information reached me yesterday afternoon.

Very respectfully,

Your obedient servant

James Pollock, Director

[RG104 entry 217 box 1]

The bottom line: It was cheaper to ship cents to San Francisco than to make them there. But, notice the avoidance of SF cost of copper, zinc and tin. Anyway, enabling legislation for SF Mint limited production to gold and silver coins. This was the same argument used against the New Orleans Mint when it was proposed they strike 5-cent CuNi coins there.

Edited November 1, 2023 by RWB

[Mike Meenderink]

On 11/1/2023 at 10:23 AM, RWB said:

The cost of production would be much greater in California.

This part of the story still carries on today...trust me I know everything here is $$$. 

[RWB]

In 19th century California and Oregon, two metals were "cheap" -- gold and mercury. Silver was also in excess of need most of the time since it was derived from refining native gold. Platinum, Iridium and osmium were also inexpensive byproducts, but there was little demand except osmium for pen points.

Edited November 3, 2023 by RWB

[VKurtB]

On 11/2/2023 at 8:30 AM, RWB said:

In 19th century California and Oregon, two metals were "cheap" -- gold and mercury. Silver was also in excess of need most of the time since it was derived from refining native gold. Platinum, Iridium and osmium were also inexpensive byproducts, but there was little demand except osmium for pen points.

I think I have a Mont Blanc pen with an osmium point. Too bad my handwriting went away when I had my cerebral hemorrhage.

Edited November 6, 2023 by VKurtB