Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 11, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 April 1892 — FREE SILVER DEBATE. [ARTICLE]

FREE SILVER DEBATE.

CHAIRMAN BLAND OPENS THE DISCUSSION. Mr. Williams, of Massnchnsetts, Opens for the Minority— Col. Abner Taylor Compares the Speaker’s Killing with That of Mr. Heed. Discussing Silver. Chairman Bland opened the debate on the silver question in the House. The galleries were filled and the number of members on the floor of the House was unusually large. Mr. Bland at the outset told the Farmers’ Alliance members that they could not bo treated as a separate party in sharing the time for debate because there was no party in tho silver question. Mr. Bland was at his best and he brought out the points of tho silver men with unusual force. George Fred Williams led the speech for the opposition inside tho Democratic party. In its economic discussion it was an able presentation of the subject. Messrs. Harter, Rayner, and other Democratic opponents of silver also got their inning. Col. Abnor Taylor (Rep.), who is a member of the Coinage committee, made a Vigorous speech, contrasting the way the rights of the minority had been overridden in the present House in the interest of free silver with the consideration which had been shown its supporters in the last Congress, when they were in the minority, by Speaker Reed. Col. Taylor said the measure was the most vicious one ever presented in the House. It has made tho nomination of the idol of Democracy Impossible and had forced every other Democratic candidate astride the fence, yet it must be passed to assist Democratic members in their election to the next Congress. After this preliminary scorching, Colonel Taylor entered upon a searching analysis of the effect of free coinage. He yielded a portion of his time to A. J. Hopkins of the Aurora district. Mr. Hopkins made a concise speech showing the weakness of free coinage and condemning the reckless folly which would jeopardize the financial interests of the country aud deceive the farmer and the laboring man in order to try a dangerous experiment. Mr. Bland said, in opening the discussion:

It was just 103 years ago that the founders of this Government adopted what wo call “the double standard.” Tills provided for tho coinage of gold and sliver without limit at the mints of the United S ater; that silver should be eolnod the same as gold, should have the advantages and the same recognition. The sliver dollars should consist of 371 4-100 grains of silver—precisely the dollar of sliver that Is cal ed for In this bill. This bill provides that gold aue silver shall be coined at the ratio fixed by the act of 1837; that gold and silver shall he equal at the mints. In order that this equality should be preserved It Is necessary that silver should bo put on the same plane in regard to the issue of certificates at the mint as the gold. While this bill places gold and silver on an equality In the matter of the issuo of coin notes in their deposits at the mints, it ulso maintains that equality by providing that when the coin notes shall be presented for redemption the Government shall bo free lo redeem them either in gold or silver as It may prefer. Thus coin notes issued on deposit of cold bullion may be redeemed in silver, or coin notes issued on deposit of silver may be redeemed m gold, just as the Treasury may prefer. In arguing for a greater volume of money, Mr. Bland said he would admit that the refined system of credits which has grown up iu tho country does to a certain extent economize the use of money, but in tho eml tho day of paynn nt of these obligations always came, and then we must have money. In 1881, when we had passed a bill for refunding the national debt, tho national banks of the United States surrendered $18,000,000 into the National Treasury as a threat made for flic purpose of inducing a veto from the President—a threat which effected its purpose—and the result of this withdrawal of $18,000,000 from circulation put interest up in New York at the rate of one cent a day. Notes and bends are not money—they are conveniences. The whole fight e ver this issuo is between the capit .lists who demand interest and the people who demand money instead of interest. The gdntleman dc nounced the periodic attempts made for international conferences and Intel national agreements every time the free coinage of silver is proposed, and said: Are we to be shackled here by the apathy of the governments of other nations? Ia our linuncial system to be regulated, not by our own Ideas of justice and our own conveniences, but by the conveniences of other nations? The moment that this great government declare, for the free coinage of’ silver the other commercial nations, too, will solve that question. Self-interest will compel them to do -o. Tbe restoration of silver here means tbe restoration of It everywhere—the world ever. 'lhe moment you restore silver, if gold Is taken from circulation, prices will go down in proportion and that necessitates money from abroad to purchase commodities here that go down because of the contraction of money. Everything will be cheap. The man who holds his gold Is simply holding it for silver, for silver will take the channels of circulation. Let silver be coined once and see what the result will be. You may have to pay a little more, if you have the two metals at par, but let us remember that as a rule when money Is plentiful prices are gcod. Labor, after all. Is the onl/ money.

Mr. Bland then explained the last section of tho bill providing that whenever France opened its mints to free coinage of silver at a ratio of 15J to 1, the United States should adopt that ratio. He called attention to the fact that for seventy years France had by its open mints fixed the price of both metals and kept them on an unvarying parity of 15J to 1. To allay any apprehension that might arise because of tho French ratio being 15* to 1, while ours was 16 to 1, it was proposed that the United States should adopt the ratio of 151 to 1 whenever France did so. Continuing, Mr. Bland declared that the action of the Government of the United States on the silver question had been an invitation to Europe to go upon the gold standard. We began silver’s demonetization in 1872, and in all our efforts to restore silver we had been defeated by limitation. When a free coinage bill was passed in the House in 1878 by a two-thirds majority and sent to the Senate, the same idea of an international agreement was injected into the question, and meanwhile we provided for the purchase of from s2,ooo,<if>» to $4,000,000 a month. The last Congress passed an act to purchase $4,500,000 of silver monthly, and its friends proclaimed that it was done in the interest of silver. He opposed that bill, and said the gentlemen were deceiving themselves and the country, and that silver could not be brought to par in any such manner. The law of 1873 compelled the coinage and use of tho silver dollar. The law of the las t Congress used tin; bullion as mere dead capital in the Treasury, which might as well be at the bottom of the Potomac. In conclusion, Mr. Bland said: I appeal to the gentlemen on this floor to lay aside every idea of party exigency, every Idea but that which U right and Just, and to cast their votes according to the dictates of their own consciences and to the ple'gos they made to the greater productix’e masses of the country. If they do that this bill Is snre; this cause Is won. How far the criminal law was violated, and how far it was avenged, in regard to murder, during 1891 is shown by the following ligures which relate to the United States: The number of murders in this country last year amounted to i,906, or 1,616 more 1 than in 1890, and

I 3,339 more than in 1889. The executions in 1891 numbered only 123, of which 27 took place in the North and 96 in the South. That is, one murderer in 48 received capital punishment. During the same period the lynchings which outraged instead of avenged the law numbered 195, or 68 more than in any previous year. The lynching 3 all occurred in the States west of Ohio and south of Maryland.