Democratic Press, Volume 2, Number 95, Decatur, Adams County, 6 August 1896 — Page 9

■io PACES

■oLI'MI. 11.

XtZ/ /i Zr \\ I * * K i... Kinin Mi's BSSSI hun JJupb M II.S ] ft:. Sjihopr hn JUuu Uu fc in ■

THE DEMOCRATIC PRESS.

“Are We a Nation of Rascals?' A Rejoinder. IIY HON. JOSEPH OK EK. "If Atnvrii-t adopt* our ayalMa of Bnaneo h«-r Ikmisuml llbvrtlev will Ik- but a phantom."- Hitt. I «V7IHE leading article in Hitt March number of the Ameki i U CAN MAGAZINE OF ClVlcw hIM the alsive slaitllng caption. Although its autboi does not answer thia question positively, yet he stands on dangerous grot nd when he en (endeavors to win the companionship of honest men to the support of hia theory of “honest money.” Mr. Hume can meet no more sincere und candid Iteliever in i honest money than myself; and furthermore, that thia question shall not be answered in the affirmative by future generations, I will gladly aid him in “arousing the national conscience.” In the first place it is definitely stated that “if anything should lie hornet it is money.” Agreed. Furthermore, if] there lie “dishonest money,” I will a<l«i, dishonest men have made it. It may be the product of the counterfeiter, or it may be the product of a constitutional and sovereign power. Let us see. If in our investigation we meet with dishonest money, let us crush it as we would a viper. If “the moral side is by ] far the more important side,” let us not hestitate or equivo eate; let no preconceived opinion or political preferment cause our judgment to waver; but let us bring its author before the bar of human justice. Os all the money, both “honest” and “dishonest,” that has visited the world, man is its author. Nature hss nowhere and at no time decreed anything to t>e money. She has been perfectly indifferent, showing no discrimination, offering all metals for coinage, and unlike man is unmoved by the power ful influence of money. It is not of her children, and for centuries such a thing as money was unknown. With civilization it grew out of the necessities of trade ami commerce. While it is true that primitive man used “shells, stones, and iron” to express the relative value of other things, nevertheless these articles were merchandise and not money as we now understand it. The money of civilization is created by law; it is the decree of a sovereign power and differs from the money of barbarism as intellectual force differs from the physical. This is amply proven by the fact that money ceases to be money when taken out of the dominion of the power that created it, and becomes a commodity. While the words “fiat money” are so often used with disdain by those who aubseriiie themselves the disciples of honest money, yet it is true there can be no dollar witiukit the, “fiat” any more than there can be a legal or standard pound or yaid without the tint < f the people in their collective capacity. Toe demonetization and remonetization of gobi and silver at various times prove this. Our silver coin are as yet not wholly demonetized; they (still retain their legal tender qualftj ; but si’vcr bullion being denied fret coinage at the mints, as is accord) d gold, this m< tai has depreeiab <1 in value « ben measured by that metal that still enjoys free coinage. The complete demonetization of silver will be secured when the legal-tender quality of the silver coins is withdrawn by the power that gave it, or, in other words, when the government rescinds its “fiat” as it did the “trade dollar” then silver money with us will be a thing of the past. The standard silver dollar will depreciate as did the trade dollar, which simply demonstrates the magic influence the fiat of government has upon either paperor metal. As it is with silver, so is it with gold. In 1844 Great Britain passed the Peal Act, establishing the value, as expressed in pounds and shillings, of an ounce of gold, and this “fiat” of government has obtained with all nations using gold or having commercial intercourse with gold-using nations. Thus far I think we understand each other. That coining money ami regulating the value thereof is one of the prerogatives of government is admitted by all. It is a privilege and a duty proclaimed by the federal constitution, and for any person or combination of persons to usurp the right and duty subverts popular government and destroys the hope of the race. If Congress has the sole power to “coin money and regulate the value thereof’ and there be “cheap money” and money of a “high standard” in circulation; or if there be a “fluctuating currency,” Congress is responsible. That “every fluctuation brings loss to some one” is admitted, and the promiscuity of “cheap money” and money of a “high standard” is also an evil for which government is responsible if it exists. The history of the financial legislation of the United States from 1862 to the present time is without a parallel in all the annals of government. The Neros and Caligulas that wrapped the world in the clouds of imperial crimes are as amateurs compared with the systematic, scientific, and prodigious plunderers of modern times. The crudities of the past have yielded to the craft of the present. Evolution in slavery, evolution in crime, has become as distinct a manifestation in sociology as is found in the material world If ever a government should feel grateful, it is this republic toward those who responded to the repeated calls of Lincoln to repress the advance of its enemies, and sustain our national existence. The soldiers who enlisted in this struggle for the Union were promised by the government a stipulated snm of money per mouth. If ever there was a sacred obligation this was one. It was the pledge of the drowning man to his rescuer. It requires no argument to prove that, the faith of the government was as much pledged to the soldier who risked his life as to him who merely risked a portion of his wealth in a secured loan to the government. But the record shows that the pay of the former was reduced by vicious (legislation nearly sixty por cent, while the returns of the ! latter ae.-e doubled, trebled, anil quadrupled. The same i legislative enactment that reduced the value of the soldier’s

DECATUR, INDIANA, THURSDAY. AUGUST 6.18'M

pay iuei'“as<‘<l that of the creditor's bond, by providing that .the money of the soldier should be rapidly depreciated in value, by limiting Its function, while the interest upon (muds should lie payable in coin, ami then after the war was over the government to its own injury changed its contract with the bondholder by substituting another and more valuable bond, thus making it more difficult for the soldier ami citizen to pay. i’hiit the purpose of the lawmakers was delilierste was expose.! in a speech by Senator Sherman in the Senate July 14, 1868. He said: “It was, then, our policy during the war to n>.*RECIATK the value of United States notes, so that they would come into the treasury more freely for our bonds. Ingratitude is the blackest of crime. It is the amalgamated baseness of a pat rid heart and a pernicious bruin. The first act in this enormity was the “exception clause'' upon the greenback. Upon its face it was decreed money. I . u|N)u its back it was repudiated by the very power that I issued it. It was money for the soldier, and the government's I obligations to him were rendered with this kind of money; i but when he wished to pay his obligations to the government, it refused to honor its own production. Do you not call this i “discrediting its own paper”! Unlike the first issue of greenbacks that were legal tender for all debts, this hybrid currency could not perform all the functions of money and, as was anticipated, it depreciated. This abandonment of a currency having all the power of a legal tender for a bastard that had a promise on its tace and . repudiation on its back marks one of the most spirited contests in our history between the House and Senate. A i compromise grew out of this contest which gave the holder of these notes the privilege of converting them into United Slates interest bearing Isrnds. It was argued that this would assist io maintain ug the notes at par. But after 8450,000,06!) of these notes were issued and paid the soldier, this privilege was withdrawn, another pledge was followed by repudiation, and the soldier's money was fast turning to ashes in his hands. Again Mr. Sherman said, December 12, 1867: “The (Kinds could not lie negotiated, and it became necessary to depreciate the notes in order to make a market for the bonds.” Spaulding, in his “History of the Currency,” says: “It never seemed quite right to take away this important privilege while the notes were outstanding with this endorsement upon them.” 1 Ingenious ignominy. While the soldier was too busy fighting, and the citizi ns too van est in their support of the government, these defenders of the nation's credit and honor proceeded to a systematic depreciation of the currency by violations of pledges and dishonorable discrimination. If “the worst of all governments hrvp lieen these that corrupt and debase the money of the realm,” do not such deliberate acts answer your question in the affirmative! All the legislation on the subject of finance from 1862 to 1869 is in strict conformity to the plan outlined by Hazzard's 1 circular. Bonds must lie issued for a banking basis. All non-interest-bearing obligations of the government must be converted into interest-bearing bonds. This was carried out. The currency of the country being mercilessly depreciated and gold appreciated, enabling the gamblers that made merchandise of the n.isfortunates of the people to secure |2.85 in ' currency with one dollar in gold, and the® secure a bond with the depreciated currency, dollar for dollar, and the ioundation for the national banking system was complete. After the country was saved it was soon discovered that its redeemers (the bond holders) were suffering from the evils es a depreciated currency. The soldier was now the taxpayer, ami when he endeavored to discharge his obligation to the government with the same kind of money he received for his services, then the cry was raised for “honest money.” The in* ney sent to the trenches was not good enough to send to Wall Street. To pay the bond holder according to the con tract “nominated in the bond” would be a stain upon our national honor. Our “credit” wonld be impaired, notwithstanding the fact that credit is strengthened by fulfilling the contract. U. 8. Grant called our currency “rag baby,” Henry Ward Beecher called it “rotten money.” Influential newspapers, great bankers, and profound statesmen, politicians, and preachers, in one chorus cried out “dishonest money,” “fiat money.” Yet not one of these cried out against the national bank note, a banker’s debt that costs as a double usury, that came to displace the greenback, that cost us nothing. For a people to circulate their own debt for their own lienetit was 1 “dishonest”; but to circulate a banker’s debt for the banker's benefit was the best system ever devised. Accordingly, Congress responded in 1869, making the bonds 1 payable in coin. Another link was forged in the chain en circling a too confiding people. Rag money to the patriots ’ but coin to the plotters. This was a bold and hazardous 1 move and Congress did not act until after the elections. As the question was agitated somewhat warmly, both parties in the contest of 1868 refused to espouse the cause of 1 the bond-holder. Throughout the majority of the states the I" Republican platforms read similar to this plank from Indiana, ' viz: “The public debt made necessary by the Rebellion ’ should be honestly paid in legal tenders, commonly called 1 greenbacks, except whero by express terms they provide • otherwise.” The national Democratic platform for the same > year had the following plank: “Resolved, When the obliga--1 tions of the government do not expressly state upon their > face, or the law under which they were issued does not pro- ’ vide, that they shall be paid in coin, they ought in right to • be paid in the lawful money of the United States.” ’ The election being over, the plotters resumed their head--3 quarters at the nation’s capital. A bill was introduced 3 making the bonds payable in coin notwithstanding the i attitude of both political patties during the campaign. But

I the tiger ciiaug. 1 his stripes and the serpent sloughed his i akin. That justice w< uld not Im violated in paying the Ismda i in greenbacks s admitted by Jonti Khermnn in a letter dated March .30, 1868, saying: “I think the bond holder violah-a his promise when he refuses to lake the same kind of money he paid for the binds He is it repudiator and extortioner to demand money more valual le than he gave.” As Senator Kl eiman stands at the hVnd of the forces that have wrought such havoc to our tiimnees, I gladly point to such virtues and verities as he may emit. The bill bcram*a law. A government that would complacently thrust myriads of men into the jaws of Cold Harlsir and Gettysburg did not beatitete to vote millions into the coffers of the bond holders. Surely the “moral side” was overlooked here. Having forged another link in the chain, the next effort | was made to di droy half the coin by demonetizing silver, thereby enhancing the value of the remaining half. As i Ricardo says, and he voices the opinion of all economists worth naming. “By limiting the quantity of money it can lie raised to any com eivable value.” We have here the secret of increasing the purchasing power of the dollar, which has the same effect in measuring values as “lengthening the yardstick” would ha v e in measuring distance. While contracting the volume, the units increase in value, and with inflation of the volume the units contract. As there is a strong aversion to inflating the currency, and “silveritea” are often called “inflationists,” it is well to l»-ar in mind that an addition of gold will produce an inflation as well as silver or jiaper. To secure this next step it must be necessary to avoid dis- • cession. To agitate the matter would wreck their sinister designs. In 1873 the standard silver dollar was aurreptiously stricken f. un the list of coins to be issued by the , mint. It was a jomplished by the fraud und forgery of a . conference cornu Ittee. It was not generally known until 1876, when, duri. g a debate, Senator Conkling asked Senator Sherman, “Is it true that there is now by law no American , dollar!” Being answered in the affirmative the country , Ijecame aroused. From the foundation of the government the silver dollar was the unit of value, and at the time of its rejection by the mints in 1873 it commanded a premium of three per cent over gold. If “'he standard cannot lie too high for us,” surely Mr. Hume cannot claim that this changing of the standards at this time was in the interest of the “high standards”; nor were the methods employed a strict adherence to . the “moral side” of the question. We are informed that several counties ami commonwealths that are raising their voice for a rehabilitation of silver show no - disposition to pay their obligations. Yet it is very clear that the object and aim of the legislation of the federal govern- . ment have lieen to avoid the payment of its obligotious when due. After limiting the inetelic money, the money of , redemption, and Ps bonds payable in coin, its ability to pay , the maturing bonds was effected. In 1880 and 1881 bonds to [ the amount of 8782,000,000 became due. Gold had been , accumulating in ’ne treasury, and the people looked forward to the payment of a large portion of the debt. But they were [ doomed to disappointment. To avoid this payment the government sold 8522,000,000 at public auction in the markets , of this countrv aid Europe. After the Resumption Act was passed, January U, 1875,.th® record show that $40,00t),000 , was sold, and the i the treasury immediately turned around and under the R demption Act sold bonds to buy that gold : back again. H« re, surely, ia a precedent for Secretary r Carlisle. Had the government desired to bring its depreciated currency up to par, it would have done so by redeeming with its gold the greenbacks still outstanding. It refused to re- ' deem, and also pay its debts, and refni -ling followed. Under the adm nistration of the rascals at Washington t\e the country suffered the severest panic in our history. Ii a speech Col. R. G. Ingersoll said: “No man can imagine, all the languages of i he world cannot express, what the people of the United State v suffered from 1873 to 1879.” To make amends for the f-ast offenses Congress passed the Bland Bill. As the bonds wer ‘ payable in “coin” the question arose, what kind of coin? As the rulings of the secretary of the treasury were invariably against the people and in favor of the jobbers—and furthermore .here the law is uncertain there is no law—to settle this imp rtant question Stanley Matthews introduced in the Senate a jo nt resolution d< daring that all bonds of the United States, issued or authorized to be issued, by the j various acts of Congress, could be paid and were payable in i silver dollars containing 4124 grains standard silver, and that to restore the coinage cf such silver dollars us a legel tender i in payment of such bonds, principal and interest, is not in violation of the public faith, nor in derogation of the rights of j the public creditors. This resolution seemed an over whelmi ing majority and passed both Houses in 1878. The adoption of this resolution certainly brushes away all ( the ambiguity clinging to the word “coin.” Congress now f spoke to be understood. The duty of the executive was u>w . made plain. Th’ government enjoyed the e option of paying its obligations in cither gold or silver coin. There is now no I obligation of tin government that cannot be legally and I morally fulfilled with silver coin, i xcepting gold certificates. , Yet in spiteof 11 this we read that “the sentiment underP lying the attempted restoration of silver is sectional, selfish, and dishonest.” The silver dollar is stigmatized as a “fiftyr cent dollar,” a “dishonest” dollar. Right here let me ask. what is an “honest” dollar! It ih the dollar oe the 0 contract. We insist that our government shall pay its debts according 10 the letter and spirit of the laws under which they were created, and thus hold the scales of justice II even between debtor and creditor. e The claim that the silver dollar is worth but fifty cents can t be met Wiih the counter-claim that the gold dollar is worth

ONLY 1.50 PER YEAR

NUMBER !'-■>