Greencastle Star Press, Greencastle, Putnam County, 17 October 1896 — Page 7

THE PEOPLE’S CAUSE

\n Appeal to Am rican and Freemen.

Patriots

JOHN CLARK RIUPATH,

fate IVoplr’* I'liitocmvy l'ruiteiitt*(l l>y tin* Caiulidate For

I’rof. John Clark Uidpatb, fusiou caui <lut») for Congrebs in the TiiU uisliict, ipoko to a Krt-ar amlit'ucu iu the Wigh am at Terre Haute Thursday ui^nt, Dot. 8. The speaker was driven to the wigtvam iu au open carriage, which also cou aiued Judge C. F. McNutt, L)«iuoCIM; id. C. Uaukiu, National Populist coaiinttteeuiau of Indiana; W. H. isoale, P-iver Eepubliuoa, uud S. X. Jones, Populist. The torcnhght parade was a most creditable turnout. It was au “eye opener” tor the goldites. When the wigwam was reached there was one enthusiastic mass of humanity and the arrival of Prof. Kidpuih was greeted with continued cheers. Juuge C. F. McNutt presided. Froi. itidpath’ii Speech. Professor Riupath spot . us follows: Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen:—in beginning my address this evening 1 will indulge in a word of pereoualuy. Twenty years ago this summer 1 published my first book. in the last chapter 1 thought it well to say a tew words to the young men of our country on the things essential to the perpetuity of our free institutions. I will venture to read the last paragraph of that work: “The fourth idea essential to the welfare and stability of our republic is the nobility of labor. It is the mission of the United States to ennoble toil and honor the toiler. In other lands to labor has been considered the lot of serfs and peasants; to gather the fruits and consume them in luxury and war, the business of the great. Since the mediaeval times European society has been organized on the basis of a nobility and a people. To be a nobleman was to be distinguished from the people To be one of the people was to be forever debarred from nobility. Thus has been set on human industry the stigma of perpetual disgrace. Something of this has been transmitted to the new civilization in the est—a certain disposition to revive the old order of lord and inborer. Let the odious distinction perish; the true lord is the laborer and the true laborer the lord. It is the genius of American institutions, in the fullness of time, to wipe the last opprobrious stain from the brow of toil and to crown the toiler with the dignity, luster, and honor of a full and perfect manhood.” This last paragraph from my first book may serve to show that my sympathy with the cause of labor, my advocacy of the rights and interests of the workingman, is not a w’et-weath-er spring which has burst out just before the presidential election! On the contrary it is a spring w hich has flowed, an unfailing fountain, for twenty years and will continue to flow' until heart and flesh shall fail. THE QUESTION STATED. There is one great overwhelming question before us in this autumn or 18bti. It is the Money Question. Reduced to its simplest form, the question is this: Whether the American people shall be obliged, under the compulsion of law, to transact their business and in particular to wty their debts with a dollar worth two hundred cents, or whether tney shall be permitted to transact their business anil in particular to pay their debts with a 100-cent dollar according to the law and the contract. One great parly appears in defense of the principle that the American people shall be henceforth compelled to make their exchanges and to lift their mortgages with a 200-cent dollar; while another great party, the party of the people, appears for the restoration of our old constitutional system of currency to the exact position which it held under the statute and the constitution for the first elghty-on<‘ years of our existence as a nation. This involves the future transaction of all our business, and in particular the payment of all our debts, with the time-honored statutory silver dollar or its equivalent worth precisely one hundred cents, according to the law and the contract. This question is hot upon us, and my judgment is that the American people, In spite of nil opposition, in spite of ail the powers, including the prodigious money pow’er now rampant in the land, are going to reclaim the right of transnoting their business and paying their debts according to the statutory standard unit, worth just one hundred cents to the dollar, neither more nor less: and that they will not accept the intolerable scheme of plutocracy which declares in fact, if not in words, that they Bhail henceforth transact their business and discharge their debts with a cornered do’lar worth two for one. Let us undertake this question dispassionately. It is a great question, and we are all. whether Democrats. Republicans, or Populists, in one boat. We are all Americans. Let us not quarrel and abuse one another in the manner of savages, bnt let us enter on this question in the spirit of enlightened Christian eitizens, anxious to know ♦he truth, willing to aeeept the truth when It is found, and courageous enough to follow it regardless of consequences. TRLE IMPORT OF THE ACT OF 1872. Oue hundred uud four years ago last April the foundation of our American monetary system was laid. That foundation exists in what is known as the act of 17U2. It was then the first administration of Washington. The new republic was then not quite three years old. Jetlerson was secretar y of state, and Hamilton was secretary of the treasury. Jefferson had already, under the confederation, secured for us the great blessing of a decimal system of currency; that is, our currency should be counted by tens, beginning with a cent, and multiples of the cent up to a dime, a dollar, ten dollars, etc.. This new, convenient system was taken from the French mathematicians, and was substituted for the clumsy, unscientific and stupid English system of money counted by pounds, shillings and pence. In the winter of 1791—92 Mr. Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury, prepared his report on the currency, and that report in many of its features was adopted: but in its leading feature—its most esentinl feature—it was not adopted. Hamilton’s report was in favor of a single gold standard of values as the basis of our system. This part of the report the Congressional committee took in hand and Hamiltons plan was rejected. Instead of liis report, the act of April 2, 1792, was prepared and adopted. This act d(>cinred a Wmetailic system of money. Dnr money was to exist tn two kind gold and silver. There should be of i old coins three denominations; namely, an eagle, a haH-eagle, and a quarter

eagle. The silver coins should be of four denominations; namely, a dollar, or unit, a halt dollar, u quarter dollar, and a dime. This scheme was after- j wards enlarged, (namely, in 1819) by the addition of two gold coins; a double eagb-. or twenty-dollar piece and a gold dollar. There was also added a hall dime of silver, and at one time a

three-rent piece

We are here at the very bottom of the money question, which is now the one absorbing economic and political question before the people of the United States. I am anxious to the last degree that you shall understand the very first facts in the controversy; for a knowledge of these facts is necessary to a clear understanding of all the

rest.

I he statute of 1792 provided a gold eagle as the largest American coin then recognized; but the gold eagle of the original statute of all subsequent statutes was not made to be ten dol'ars, but to lie of the value of ten dollars. The half eagle was not made to be five dollars, but to be of the value of five dollars. The quarter eagle was nc made to be two and a half dollars, out to be of the value of two and a half dollars; subsequently when the double eagle was added that coin was not made to be twenty dollars, but of the value of twenty dollars. Even the gold dollar of 1819 was not made to be a dollar or unit, but to be of the value of a dollar or unit. THE DOLLAR OR UNIT. Under the act of 1792 the dollar or unit was made to he of silver and of silver only. It was to be composed of •17114 grains of pure silver, with a certain amount of alloy. It was to be called a dollar or unit. None of the gold coins were made to contain dollars or units, but to be of the value of dollars or units. Not a single dictionary or cyclopedia iu the English language before the year 1878 ever defined ‘•dollar”, that is our monetary unit, in any terms other than of silver. In that year the owners of our standard American lexicon cut the plates of the work, and adroitly inserted a new definition of dollar, which had become necessary in order to make the gold intrigue seemingly consistent with the

facts.

I repeat that under the net of 1792 the silver dollar of 371'4.grains of pure silver was the one ami only monetary unit in our American system. True, our system was bimetallic. Roth gold and silver were made to be a full legal tender. Both were made to be a measure of values. But the unit existed in silver only. It did not exist, that is, it was not defined, in gold. Under the act of 1792 the silver dollar was made to he the one statuary and constitutional final unit of all money and account in the United States, and that dollar continued to be the one undeviating unit of American money for the first eighty-one years of our national history. It was the one ultimate measure by which all other values, even gold itself—both coined and uncoined gold—were determined. I am well aware that the present reckless advocates of the gold standard have been trying to make it appear that at two or three times in the interval between 1792 and 1873 Conereslsonal and executive actions were taken by which the silver unit was somewhat displaced, and the gold unit substituted therefor. But this is not true. Indeed it is absolutely untrue. It seems to me amazing that men, making a special plea in the manner of attorneys and striving to make the worse appear the better reason, should go about teach Ing the people that the several Intermediate acts between 1792 and 1873 changed the essential nature of our coinage and brought us around, as if by degrees. to a new basis restinr on gold rather than on sliver ns Its liottom fact. There is not a word of truth in it! The whole allegation to the eootrary is conceived in the spirit of falsehood, and is intended to mislead the peenle. SUSPENSION OF SILVER COINAGE DID NOT AFFECT THE LAW. Take for example the suspension of silver coinage by President Jefferson, in 1800. Did that act of the President change our monetary system? Did it change the law? Did it modify the law? Did it offer or suggest a new unit? Did It make gold the standard instead of silver? Did it to any degree affect the statutory and constitutional provision by which the silver dollar was made the one unit of our monetary system? Not at all. The orators and organs who tell you about the suspension of silver coinage by Mr. Jefferson must know that that act did not affect the law; that it did not touch the question of our monetary unit or modify our system at all. Is any man so devoid of common sense ns to suppose that if President Cleveland should at the present time order the temporary suspension of gold coinage, the law for the coinage of gold or the law making gold to be a unit of primary money would thereby bo altered or modified or abrogated? Does not every sensible man know that the law would not by such act of the President be modified at all? what power has a President over our financial laws, or any other laws which Congress has enacted and some President has approved? He has no power over them. President Jefferson had no power over the law. lie could order a temporary suspension of coinage, but he could no more alter the law than the Sultan of Morocco or the King of the Fiji Islands could change our American postage from two cents to five. THOSE EIGHT Mil.LION OF SILVER DOLLARS. Then again we are told that up to the year 1873 only eight millions of sliver dollars had been coined at our mints. This is repeated and repeated, as though it signified something. Well, what does it signify? It certainly does not signify that the silver dollar WO! any the less the sole unit of money and account in the United States. It does not imply that the silver dollar was any the less the ultimate measure of all values because only eight millions of them had been coined. There stood the law all tho same. There stood the statute, and there was tho constitution under which the statute had been regularly enacied. Suppose there were only eight millions of silver dollars up to 1873. What has that to do with it? Why should any goldite orator try to impress you with the belief that because only eight millions of silver dollars were coined in the first period of our national history, therefore silver was not the constitutional and statutory money? It really makes no difference, so far as the principle is concerned, whether eight millions or eighty millions or eight hundred millions or only eight single dollars were coined under the law; the law was Just as much a law and the silver dollar was just as much the ultimate unit of all values in the one case ns in the other. No man shall truthfully say the contrary. All this declamation about the suspension of •liver eolm.zp in 180(1 and about there being only eight millions of silver units coined In the period before 1873 has nothing whatever to do with the essential question. It is only so much dust thrown up to Wind the eyes of the peonle and to make them believe a false-

hood.

Besides, the statement that we had tn our first period only eight million silver dollars coined is made to mis'end; for those who make it withhold the oth er fact that during the period referred

to we had a total of legal tender stiver t specie payments. Then it was that a

profound intrigue was hatched in the brains of the money lords of both Europe and America to change the monetary system of the world in such a manner as to double the debts and to divide by two the resources of mankind. A plan was concocted in particular to change the monetary system of the United Slates, substituting a new dollar or unit for the dollar or unit of the law and the contract. We can hardly aproarh the subject in good temper; and 1 will tell you why. It has never been regarded as honorable or even decent in the affairs of men to

tamper with a contract.

TO CHANGE THE CONTRACT IS A

CRIME.

To change a contract has always been regarded as a crime. The nations of antiquity legislated strongly against the principle and practice of altering the existing agreements of men. Even Ravages perceive the utter immorality of tampering with a pledge or promise. To change a contract Is perfidious. To do so is a gross violation of the bottom condition on which human society exists, or can exist. What is left when good faith disappears from the conduct and purposes of men? When the individual alters a note and writes in more or less the laws calls it forgery, and the forger is sent to prison. This is true even in the small personal violations of contract between man and

man.

The contract is sacred and must he fulfilled, else there is an end of the social compact. What, therefore, shall we say of the fraudulent and covert alteration of all contracts by changing the units in which such contracts are to he fulfilled, substituting, by national authority, a new unit or counter, worth more than twice as much as unit or counter agreed upon and promised? Such a process is, as Lincoln declared it to he, “ a heinous crime against the people,” a sin against man-

kind.

INTRIGUE OF 1873.

The men who managed the financial legislation of 1873 secretly devised a scheme to change every contract existing among the American people and to compel the people ultimately to transact their business and in particular to pay their debts with a dollar worth two for one; that is, to pay, under the compulsion of a statutary intrigue, twice , as much as was agreed to in the cou-

substdiary , tract. As I said, the subject can hard- . io.,nar, no j y approaclied with equanimity.

The coin of the United States, as we have seen, existed in two kinds, silver and gold. Should the government ever again reach the basis of specie payments, the debtor would have the option of paying in the one coin or the other, according to his convenience and the plentifulness of the given kind. This option constitutes the essential element of bimetallism. That it could lie taken away from the debtor seems in the retrospect a thing so monstrous as to be incredible. It was a valuable option which the debtor in the United Sta’es had held unchallenged from the foundation of the government. No creditor had ever tried to take it from him. It had never been denied or questioned by any. It bad always been cheerfully conceded down to the time of the civil war, when an unforseen condition removed all coin and put the country, as we have seen, on the basis of a legal tender paper money. The monstrous scheme was conceived, however, of destroying the option of the debtor to pay in silver, by destroying the coin unit of that metal, thus reducing the debtor, all debtors, including the government of the United States—to the necessity ot

paying in gold only.

This scheme was not only conceived, but was contemplated with equanimity, not indeed by the people, but by those whose interests were so profundly concerned. In the last session of the forty-second Congress, the question was insinuated into legislation, but was housed from the public with a skill j worthy of the noblest cause. Words are inadequate to describe tho j profoundity and criminality of this inj trigue. It was carried into effect by the act of Feb. 12. 1873. It was done by a turn of Shyloek’s wrist, so adroit and one micht say devilish, as to be indescribable in the phraseology of this world. It was an act on which no king of the seventeenth century would | have ventured without incurring the risk of revolution. It was an act which

coinage of more than a hundred and five millions of dollars! This amount, considering tho sparsity of our population and the slowness of commercial transactions In the earlier years of the Republic, Is fairly comparable with the amount of silver currency that we now have in United States when the same Is measured by the needs of our seventy millions of people, our forty-six states, our continental expanse of territory, and the rapid and tremendous de-

mands of commerce.

THE ACTS OF ’Sf, ’37 AND T)3. Neither have the acts of 1834 and 1837 nnvthlng to do with the essential question before ns. The goldite orators have recently been trying to make it annear that the acts of 1834 and 1837 changed more or less onr monetary system. and tended to substitute, if they did not actually substitute, a potd standard of values for the silver or bimetallic standard that had hitherto prevailed. As a matter of fact, almost the so'e signifieanee of the nets of 1831 and 1827 was to change the amount of gold in our gold coins, in order to make s'u-h reins coincide In their commercial value with the commercial value of the

silver in our unit.

Note with care tha f it wns the gold eolns that were changed and not the standard silver unit. That silver unit has never to this dnv been changed In the fraction of a single grain from what It was in the beginning. To this hour it is precisely the same as It wns made to lie by the statute of 1792. In 1821 and 1837 the ratio of gold to sliver was twice changed. But the change was in the gold, as indeed it had to be: for the silver dollar was the unit, and the unit, which was the ultimate measure of all contracts and all exchanges, could be altered without the commisison of a crime. Tho ratio of gold in gold coins to that of silver in the silver unit was changed, first, from 15 to 1 to 1514 to Land then to 16 to 1; that is, 16 or nearly 16 parts of silver to 1 of gold, or to put it more correctly, one part of gold to 15.98 parts of silver. So also of the act of 1853. This act Is referred to by the goldite organs as though it tended to change or actually changed our system from the basis of the silver unit to the basis of a unit in I gold. It is not true that the act of 1853 did any such thing. It did not tend to any such result. The principal signi- | licunce of the act was to reduce the

| quantity of silver in our

coins, so as to prevent, by cheapening them, their exportation. This might be honestly done; for the subsidiaiy coins were not any longer a full legal tender, and we might properly reuuce them iu commercial vaiue as much us we pleased without altet ing the contract or in any way interfering with the equity of exchanges. But mark well that the silver dollar or unit was not reduced or tampered at all. it was not displaced from its rank as iht ulUmute test and measure of utl rallies. It continued to be the oue primary unit of money and account in the United

States.

LEGAL TENDER POWER OF SILVER HAS NEVER BEEN ABRIDG-

ED.

Still another point must be dwelt upon and emphasized. That is that tue full legal-tender power of the silver dollar has never at any lime, to this hour, been aonugtd or abolished by any statute or act of the government or by any contingency or change in our monetary system. r l he iegaltender quality oi our standard shver dollar is as clear and lull today as it ever was. No statute has ever touched it. No statute lias ever made it or allowed it to be made less than a dollar, it is today a full legal tender in the payment of every debt, public uud private, of whatever kind among the American people, unless such debt has been made by the terms of some special

contract payable in gold.

The suspension of coinage in 1806 by Jefferson did not make the silver dollar to be less a legal tender than before. The acts of 1834 and 1837 did not make the silver dollar to be less a legal tender than it was from the beginning. Neither did the net of 1853 make it so. Neither did the fact that only eight millions of those coins were struck in our first period make it so. Neither did the act of demonetization in 1873 make it so. Nor did the act for remonetization in 1878 modify, but rather it did redeclare the full legal ten der character of the silver dollar for all debts public and private in the 1'ni-

good faith on the part of its inventors, i (Mr. Blaine.) whether I may call him

j c. , x. i though subsequently defended, even to ted States. Neither did the Sherman , t j ie p r f> s ,. n t day, by the ingenuity of law of 1890 abridge or modffj the full • great men and by all the purchasable legal tender quality and power of the ability of the world is nevertheless eon?cr?o er v^° vi’u ^' t ‘ ,t h er ' lH L , h e ! J ct °f i demned by the conscience and common IS.'J.bj which tile purchasing clause of sense of mankind as the most coldthe Sherman law was abrogated, touch j blooded, unjust, unmitigated outrage

or affect in the slightest degree the legal tender power of the silver dollar. There has neveV been one day in our national history from the 2nd of April, 1792, to this autumn of 1896 In which the standard silver dollar has not been a full, lawful, constitutional and just legal tender in the payment of every debt contracted among the American people, whether public or private, unless such debt lias been by specification in the contract made pay-

able in gold.

What therefore shall we say about the allegation of the^odite orators and newspapers about the payment of our debts with a debased and dishonest dollar. Such allegation coming from what ever source it may, is false, and absurd. It orginates in either ignorance of the facts or in the purpose to deceive the people. Let no man ever repeat it again! in particular, let no man ever believe it again! We have only one dishonest dollar in this country; and that is made of a metal which has been cornered in the markets of the world and the price of It put up until it is worth two for one. EMERGENCY OF THE CIVIL WAR. When the civil war overtook the American republic our monetary system was just as I have described it.

ever done in this century to the rights and interests of a great people. NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE

CRIME.

True it is that by the stature of 1792 the legal equivalent of the dollar was made to exist in the gold coin also; but the dollar in gold wns a dollar only by its conformity in value to the silver coin which was the one standard unit of money and account. Our metal money existed in both kinds, and the sys'etn was bimetallic to this extent, that the debtor might pay In either; but the unit existed in silver only. To abolish that unit, to strike it down, to cancel it, and to substitute another therefor was a crime. It has been rightly so branded by the American people, and it will be so written in history. It makes no difference whether it was done secretly or openly; whether in the day or in the night; whether by a committee or by the House in full debate; whether the bill was printed or not printed; whether Cetigress understood it or did not understand it. It was a crime all the same against the rights and interests of the American people; aye, against the American people themselves and aginst all the people of the world; for it was done against justice.

mere is no interpretation of the thing done that will sallsty the common sense ot the American people. \V liat reason or motive or exptuuatiou tan the authors ol that act ever pieseut as an upoiogy to the world? They have had twenty-three years in which to find or invent an answer; but no studied reflection or ingenious af let thought has been aide to suggest a plausible, to say nothing of an honest, motive for tlie act of 1873. What did they do it for? That is the question which they must answer. Here Jies the world weltering in industrial and commercial ruin. Here are the sorrows of a great nation unassuaged. Here Is tremendous America prostrate under the invented and purposed curse of men. What have the authors and inventors of the curse to say in justification of their deed? Virtually nothing. They say that the demonetization of silver was not a crime. They say it was innocent. They say it was not demonetization al ail, but only a little amendment of the coinage. They say that the act was only inciden-tal—-a sert of half-playful circumstance of patriotic legislation, harmless in its conception and pure in delivery. They say that the measure was understood, that it was debated, that It was sent back to committee and born again, that some men voted for it and others against it. They say every Irrelevant and inconsequential thing imaginable about the act of 1873, but they avoid the one essential question, and that is, What was the bottom reason or motive for such legislation? What did they do it for? They say, not for this and not for that. Well, then, what for? The truth is that the authors and promoters of the net of demonetization can offer no explanation or reason for it except an explanation that does not explain or a reason which admits the crime. The real motive of that act was the ulterior purpose, the covert design, of destroying one half of the primary money of the world. It was a project filmed over with intrigue to reduce silver, the old time money of mankind, from its place as a precious metal to common merchandise. The gold-pro-ducing nations were in the scheme, and America was hoodwinked. The authors of the measure planned to destroy one half of the money resource of the world, and thus to double the purj chasing power of the other half. The 1 intrigue was to put upon gold the enj tire monetary office; to change every I contract in United States; to make every debt worth twice its face, and to ] divide by two the resources and strength of every workingman under the circle of the sun. It was a far-reach-ing and profound scheme to halve the price of every gift of nature and every product of human industry in the j world and to compel the payment of ev- ! cry debt with a measure o ftwo for one. | The real authors of this scheme uni derstood it perfectly well. They knew | what they were about with their harmless accident of legislation!” Rut | Congress ns a body did not know the | thing intended; the country, the na- ! tion, knew it not; and the President j who signed the act did not know that be j was signing a warrant for the bankI ruptcy of the nation. Nor were the I plan and motive of the thing done ever revealed until it began to declare itself in the Industrial and commercial ruin of the nation. HOW MUCH OF THE HISTORY OF DEMONETIZATION IS KNOWN. | The secret history of the act of de1 monetization lias never been--and perhaps never will be—fully exposed to the light of day. Thus much is certain, that when the bill for the revision of the coinage was brought into the House by the Hon. William 1). Kelley, chairman of the committee on coinage, weights and measures, it contained a provision for the standard silver dollar as well as for the other coins of our system. Thus much is certain also, namely, that in sonic manner and by some hand that provision was stricken nut; and then the emasculated bill was in some way worked through both House and Senate without the knowledge of either body, or any considerable number of the members, as to the nature and intended effect of the measure that wns passed. The President’s signature was obtained to the hill without his knowledge that thereby silver was demonetized. Nearly eight months afterwards, namely, on the 6th day of October, 1873. General Grant wrote a letter to his friend Mr. Cowdrey a bank president of Brooklyn, in which he expressed his surprise that silver money was not making its appearance as a means of aiding in the resumption of specie payments. The General did not know that his own signature had made it impossible that a single sliver dollar should lie coined for purposes of resumption of for any other purpose whatsoever. In the letter to Cowdrey he

said

as one more witness to the fact that it was not generally known whether silver was demonetized. Did he know, as speaker of the House presiding at that time, that the silver dollar was demonetized in the bill?” To this Senator Blaine replied: “I did not know anything that was in the bill. And now I should like to exchange questions with the Senator from Indiana who was then on the floor (of tho House) and whose business it was far more than mine to know. DiJ he know?” Senator Voorbces replied: "I very frankly say that I did not.” General Garfield, afterwards President of the United States, speaking at Springfield, Ohio, in the fall of 1877,

said:

“Perhaps I ought to be ashamed to say so, but It is the truth to say that I, at that time being chairman of the committee on Appropriations, and having my hands over-full during all that time with work, never read the bill (act of 1873.) It was put through, as dozens of hills are in Congress, on the faith of the report of the chairman of the committee; therefore I tell you, because it is the truth, that I have no knowledge about it.” This extract seems to raise a question between the dead Garfield and the living Sherman. On the 10th of January, 1878, Senator Bock of Kentucky, speaking to the proposed measure of remonetizing silver,

said:

“What I complain of Is: that the House never knew what was in that bill. Will any sane man believe that they (Senators) deliberately consented to strike down silver coinage? Mr. Sherman says they all did. I do not

believe him.”

Tin's is a question between the dead Bock and the living Sherman. In this same debate Senator William M. Stewart, of Nevada, now charged with inconsistency, and false motives by orators great and little, said in a colloquy with Senator Sherman: "Whatever may be your construction of their meaning now, the words you used then induced me to vote with you, because you made me believe that you were sending out a bona fide dollar, us good as any in the world.” The Hon. Wm. S. Holman, of Indiana, who became father of the House of Representatives, speaking from his desk, July 13, 1876, said: “I have before me the record of the proceedings of his House on the passage of that measure, a record which no man can read without being convinced that the measure and the method of its passage through the House was a colossal swindle.’ I assert that the measure never had the sanction of the House, and does not possess the moral

force of law.

"I myself asked the question of Mr. Hooper, who stood near where I now stand, whether it changed the law in regard to coinage. And the answer of Mr. Hooper certainly left the impression upoi* the whole House that the suhjec, of coinage was not affected

by that hill.”

On the 15th of February, 1878, Senator Thurman of Ohio, said: “I cannot say what took place in the House, hut know when the hill was pending In the Senate we thought it was simply a bill to reform the mint, regulate coinage, and fix up one thing and another, and there is not a single man in the Senate, I think, unless a member of the committee from which the bill came, who had the slightest idea that it was even a squint toward demonetization." Finally Senator Roscoe Conkiing, of New York, speaking on the subject on the 30th of March, 1876, said in indig-

nant Inquiry:

"Will the Senator allow me to ask him or some other Senator a question? Is it true that there is now by law no American dollar? And if so, is it true that the effect of this bill is to be to make half dollars and quarter dollars the only silver coin which cart be used as a legal tender?” Here the question is between the dead Conkiing and the living Sherman. THE MANAGERS OUGHT TO BE

CONTENT.

The authors of the act of 1873 can well offord to be content. If they are condemned by the judgment and whipped by the scorn of the American people they can still afford to smile; for they made their game and won it! For twenty-three yetrs they have watched the wreck as disinterested spectators. Their own strong ships are flPed with the treasure-trove of land and sea. Surely they have little occasion to worry! True, the floods are filled with tlie wrecks of poor men’s earnings and the broken symbols of hope. The fortunes of the humble millions arc in the sea. The lifeless bodies of young husbands are floating there. Wives and mothers with despairing faces are

no n • 1 • ‘‘The panic bps brought greenbacks j *' n ^ ,n 8 *° niasts and spars. I saw a

During that awful conflict our metallic against truth, against the law of both

money all fled from us, and left us to our fate. It is alarming in the retrospect te reflect upon what would have happened to us to our great republic, to the destinies of civilization on this continent, if we had been left in the hour of peril to rely upon gold for our support. Some kind of money we had to have, and a new kind of money we did devise, and the union war was, on the basis of that currency, fought

out to a victorious conclusion. The currency which had to he pro-

man and God. Nevertheless, it was

done.

What did they do it for? that Is the question. The men who engineered the act of February 12, 1873, from which such disastrous consequences have flowed, had some motive in view. What was it? The scheme did not engender itself, but was contrived with some end in view. Nobody demanded or expected or imagined the posihility of the passage of such a measure as the demonetization of silver. To say that

about to a par with silver. I wonder that silver is not already coming into the market to supply the deficiency in the circulating medium. When it does come- and I predict it will soon-we will have mode a rapid stride toward specie payments. Currency will never go below silver after that. The circula'ion of silver will have other beneficial effects. Silver will become the standard of value and will be hoarded in a small way. I confess a desire to see a lim-

ited hoarding of money.”

CONGRESS DID NOT KNOW THAT SILVER WAS DEMONETIZED. On the 10th of May, 1879, Willliam D. Kelley, father of the House of Representatives, speaking indignantly and in retrospect of the act of 1873 said: “The committee of coinage, weights and measures, who reported the original hill (act of 1873) were fairsful and able, and scanned its provisions closely. As their organ I reported it. It contained provision for both the standard dollar and the trade dollar. Never having heard until long after its enactment of the substitution in the Senate of tlie section which dropped the standard dollar, I profess to know nothing of its history; but I am prepared to say that in all the legislation of this eoun-

wooden cradle with two babies in it going down the flood, and the white tin of a shark was flung up where it sank! O. be sure the authors of the act of 1873 have nothing to answer! Why should they? Their only reply to the indignant question of mankind is a good-natured guffaw and some pleasant levity about the dangers of a Mex-

ican dollar!

WHAT THF RESULTS HAVE BEEN. Now. gentlemen, citizens and voters. I ask you. in all candor, to look back over the history—the financial history the industrial history, the business history—of this great nation since the Act of Demonetization. Many of those here present remember distinctly every turn in our affairs since that Qioch twenty-three years ago. What has it been but a history of ever-deep-ening depression and disaster? What lias it been but a history of ever-accumulating wrongs? What has it been but a history of the gradual and yet rapid transfer of the resources and wealth of the American people from the hands of Hie many to the hands of the few? What has it been hut the story of the paralysis of all enterprise and the increasing premium on all intrigue, idleness and fraud? What has U been but the story of tlie gradual conversion

vidod to meei the startling emergency | the managers had no end in view is to

was. in the nature of the case, made to be a legal tender In the payment of debts. The government must needs have such a money. AH metallic money—as Is its Invariable habit under such circumstances—slunk nwny and hid itself in dark coffers, mostly beyond the sea. What did the dealers in gold care for liberty, for the waste of human life, for Hie republic, for the union made sacred by the sacrifices

and blond of our fathers”

j “The merit of the country marched

, and filled the union ranks;

The money of our country marched

' and filled the English ranks.

I At last the war was over—the sold-

iers ceased to roam:

They came with bugles playing, the specie sneaked back homo!” After about twelve years, during which srecle was unknown in tho gen- | oral business of the United Stctes. it began to be foreseen that the basis of metallic motley would he restored. It

saw what the American people do not believe and what history—being ra-

I tlonal—will not record.

As to the bottom motive, then, of j this act of 1873. let It be written In ! black. The promoters of the inquii tons measure have seen fit to complain 1 of the estimate In which their work is l held by the American people. They '•nruplaln that thev themselves are ; harshly and unjustly judged. They I complain that millions of men who i have lost their homes and had their i prospects in life blasted by the act of | 197? nersist in calling it a crime. They | try to laugh it nwny by repenting in | mockery the words with which the in- [ famous measure is stigmatized by the

I rnused-un nation.

i WHY TUE AUTHORS OR TUE ACT

COMPLAIN AND WINOR

Rut whv do they complain and wince? P tn bevnu«e the pet of wtilrh 1 they are the anthers cannot he erplnined nwav bv any rm•oacb’c or ov-

try there is no mystery equal to the , . . ... , ,

demonetization of the standard silver ra, 0 ' con f v ' lsl °" 0 SZSXI-SZ&Smws E~cSSSiK ht U wmiam D^KclRyTf'ter more than | American shopkeeper and small tradessix years of mingling with the foremost nu ' n 1IU0 a ,etn U " * 1 ° rn P |, My approxi-

nien of the nation had never found one who could tell him how or why silver was demonetized, what shall we say of those who, twenty-three years after date, are trying, under pressure of public condemnation, to explain it—and

cannot?

Testimony to prove the ignorance of Congress with respect to the nature and intent of the act of demonetization can lie adduced to the extent of a volume. On tlie 15th of February. 1878. Senator Allison of Town sold tn the Senate: “When the secret history (mark the secret history! of this hill of 1873 comes to be told it will disclose the fact j that the House of Representatives in- ! tended to coin both gold and silver and to nlaee both metals upon the French ratio (IS'k to 1) instead of our own but that the bill afterwards was doctored.” On tlie same drv v’:en thu was ut-

mates the character of a perpetual serf? What has it been but the story of the transformation of American society from a condition of freedom and happiness and plenty to a condition of slavishness, of misery and approaching

pauperism?

As I came home from New York, I saw hanging In the street of an Ohio town a big flag with this inscription on it: “For President. William Jennings Bryan— Free Silver and Less Misery.” 1 thought that pretty good! It was a summary of the whole question. We want in this country a little less misery and a little more light and hope! PRO' EOF THE DEPRESSION OF PRICKS BY DEMONETIZATION. 1 propose now to show you by a slmI le computation seme of the results that have come as the inevitable conse-

. tried Senator D. W

chrH’engcd

\ oer''' ( e of Tndi- 1 queitres of the Act of demonetizing sil-

was foreseen that we should return to | en plausible hypothesis of honesty and

f -r?'Otf)t* .Tnmos O.

^ • .-1 r .. . *

^ r\ r -* (l , nio v,r M'*:i; ic.n

- •

i ”1 want to ask my f rlend from Maine

Pl-i-r

’ rrj

• rl -

vtr and reducing by one-half our basis nrimnry money in the United States. • a of lb st results has been to int . ■ the deftr-nd. ti.d therefore raise tUe pt ice, of gold. The price of gold

lias risen year by year, until it is now worth two for one. Under this enormous pressure the prices of all other commodities have gone down and down, until not only has the stimulus, to honest industry been taken away, but the work of production has everywhere been reduced to a struggle for

life.

The producers of America are literally engaged In a struggle for life. If they do net win the battle in which they are engaged, they will go to the wall. The financial legislation, beginning twenty-three years ago, has been so contrived as to leave silver money exl>ost d to the intrigues of the enemy, and to place gold in such a situation that the price of jt may be gradually advanced at the option of the holders. I; has made silver to be merchandise, coinalde into dollars only under such conditions that the bullion value of silver may be depressed by the Goldites as much as they please. During this period of twenty-three years gold has steadily appreciated. Its purchasing power, as measured by the-average of all other commodities, has risen higher and higher. The supposition that the ararage of all other commodities has deenned in value is absurd . Thcyhave only declined in price—price as measured by gold. Gold as measured by silver has advanced ia price and purchasing power. The prie% of silver bullion has declined or has been forced down by the standard of gold; but the value of sliver—raw silver—has not declined at all. The whole situation has been so prepared by the money jobbers as to produce a divergency, a disparity, in the bullion values of silver and gold. But gold has been able to conceal its fallacy, just as any other metal, from iron to iridium, would conceal its fallacy if it were the sole standard of values. So much gold, namely 23 22100 grains, is stamped as the standard dollar; but if the treacherous metal should rise until its purchasing power is five hundred per cent greater than It was. until one unite of it will purchase | a thousand bushels of wheat or fifty acres of farming land, it will not re- | veal the lie that is in it. It will still be the “honest dollar!” As matter of I fact, gold bullion has risen higher and 1 higher; and all tilings else, including I silver bullion, have been correspond- ! ingly depressed. The effects of partisan degeneration | are nowhere more strikingly seen than ! in the unscrupulous or ignorant asserj lions of the Goldites, about the “depreciation of silver.” They continue to speak and to write of the “fall of silver” just as though the purchasing power of j that metal had really deciihed. Not I once, or a hundred times, but a thousand times tlie friends of truth in this j controversy have demonstrated the I falsity of the assertion and common belief that silver has greatly declined in ( value. It seems necessary to Iterate and retirate the undeniable truth that, except as measured by gold, the value of silver has not in the last twenty years declined at all. I therefore append, once for all. a simple demonstration, which ought to suffice, of the real facts about the purchasing power of silver. At the end of August, 1875, gold and silver were practically at a commercial parity of values. Silver had been at a j premium, hut gold had risen after the i act of demonetization, in 1873, and in 1875 the two metals stood on a level I of 16 to 1. That was twenty-one years ago. At that time a gold eagle or its equivalent three thousand seven hundred and twelve and a half ounces of silver —gold being still at a premium of 11 per cent above legal tender paper— would purchase as follows: Of wheat—at $1.24 yer bushel 9.2 bushOf flour—at $6.75 per barrel 1.6 nffi - rels Of cotton—at 15 cents per pound 76 pounds Of mess pork—at 20.90 per barrel 53-100 of a barrel Of sugar—at 10 cents per pound 114 pounds. Of wool—at 45 cents per pound.... 25.3 pounds. Of beef— at 14% cents per pound.... 80 pounds. Of bar iron—at 2.9% cents per pound 390 pounds. At the present time (calculating for August 20, 1896) a gold eagle will buy of the above staples as follows: Of wheat—at 55 cents per bushel.. 18.2 bushels. Of flour—at $3.25 per barrel.. ..3.1 barrels. Of cotton—at 7% cents per pound .133 pounds. Of mess pork—at $6.25 per barrel.. 1.6 barrels. Of sugar—at 3% cents per pound.. 320 pounds. Of wool —at 15 cents per pound.... 66.6 pounds. Of beef— at 7 cents per pound.. 143 pounds. Of bar iron—at 1.3 cents per pound 769 pounds. A comparison of these two tables will show • xactly the appreciation in the purchasing power of gold since the time (1875) when that metal and silver were at a commercial parity—an appreciation which is the direct result of the insidious influences of demonetization. At the present time (August 20, 1896) the raw silver in ten silver dollars, that is 3.712% grains of uncoined silver, will purchase of the above staples as follows: Of wheat—at 55 cents per bushel.. 9.8 bushels. Of flour— at $3.25 pe^ barrel 1.7 barrels. Of cotton— at 7‘j cents per pooli'd.. 71.8 pounds. Of mess pork— at $6.25 per barrel.. .86 barrels. Of sugar— at 3% cents per pound.. 173 pounds. Of wool— at 15 cents per pound.... 35.9 pounds. Of beef— at 7 cents per pound.... 77 pounds. Of bar iron— 1.3 cents per pound 415 pounds. A comparison of tables one and three will show beyond controversy that iu case of the eight staples examined the ' raw silver in ten silver dollars now buy ; more of all but two (cotton and beef) ! than a gold eagle would buy In 1875. In the case of cotton there has been the loss of a fraction, in the case of beef of three pounds in a hundred weight. Therefore the purchasing power of uncoined silver as measured by the average of the great staples of the American market has not depreciated but ao tually tippeciated s ni^j Unit date w ten silver and gold were last at a commercial parity. The demonstration is us certain as any ether mathematical re8Ul “GOLD NEVER FLUCTUATES.” Inddcu.dlly. t Iso U is demonstrated that gold is net, as the Goldites sty, an undevtaiin' mi oso-v of values On the contrary, it is a deviating measure. , Nothing is more eett in tnifi that sili ver is 'he ‘Ln lier and more honest ! measure of the two. It keeps pace more truly in its movements with the market values of the world; and those market values, derived >"om ,v >e 1 ►rar that produces them, are the real criterion of measurement always and ev- | erywt.ere. Gu me outer na. u, &,uiu i climbs up the column higher and j higher under conditions to which It in