People's Pilot, Volume 3, Number 16, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 6 October 1893 — THE SILVER DEBATE. [ARTICLE]

THE SILVER DEBATE.

BynopoU »t the DtecuMtoa ta the Uatted State* Senate. On the 27th the resolution offered by Mr. Dubois (rep, Idaho) to postpone action on financial, tariff and federal election measures until next January was taken up, and Mr. Dubois made an argument in its support Messrs. Mitchell (rep. Ore.) and Chandler (rep, N. H.) opposed the measure. Mr. Wolcott (rep, CoL), in the course of his remarks in favor of postponement, referred to Mr. Gorman (dem., Md.) as leader of the steering committee, in terms which the latter ■ evidently considered offensive. Mr. Gorman declared it was plain to everybody that ths resolution under discussion was merely for the purpose of filling up the time of the morning hour; that could not be denied. He then took up the scenes of the last few days and said that the history of the senate could show no parallel He said “the chief actors in them are doing much to belittle this great body and bring it dows to the level of a county convention or a meeting of some city council 1 believe that the time will come, and speedily, when the chief actors will regret the part they have played and make a tone mete." He wanted to know if Mr. Wolcott referred to him as of the steering committea Mr. Wolcott said he had heard there was a steering committee, and that Senator Gorman was the democratic head and Senator Aldrich its republican. Mr. Gorman then said he had “been a member of this body for over twelve years. Since a boy twelve years of age (pointing to the pages) I have been connected with this great body. I have seen scenes enacted in which all the greatest senators that have lived took part The vital interests of the country have been involved. But this is the first time I have ever seen a senator who has listened at the keyholes of committee-room doors or received his information from eavesdroppers tell the senate of what took place and what was said at private conferences.” Continuing he said: “lam not the mouthpiece of the president, but I cannot allow the assertion that he used his patronage to Influence congressional action go by without declaring that there has been no occupant of the executive mansion who has, in the administration of his office and the distribution of patronage, been so careful to avoid any action that might be construed as an attempt to swerve congress from its legitimate course. He has been so careful that he has scarcely done his party justice." Mr. Aldrich (rep., R. L) denied that he at any time had undertaken in any conference to represent anybody but himself. He intended hereafter, speaking upon his responsibility as a senator and as the representative of a state, to cooperate with the senator from Maryland, or any senator who would save the senate from further humiliation, if possible, in the eyes of the American people Mr. Wolcott replied to Mr. Gorman's remarks. He said he had not cast the slightest reflection upon that senator by intent or otherwise. What rankled in his mind was that he had been characterized as one of a steering committee, but ke (Wolcott) had not named him. If the senator was a “steerer” he ought not to have objected to a reference to that fact He would not have risen to reply to the senator had it not been for the fact that he had seen fit to suggest that he (Wolcott) had listened at committee-room doors, and he had been followed by his faithful ally and pupil the senator from Rhode Island, with the same intimation. Mr. Gorman stated that he had said that the senator (Wolcott) obtained his Information from eavesdroppers who listened at the door. “I understood," Mr. Wolcott persisted, “the senator to intimate that I had listened at com-mittee-room doors. Nobody knows better than he that I would scorn a dishonorable method or dishonorable means. lam glad he now says that he did not say so” Mr. Wolcott closed with a passionate appeal on behalf of the silver-producing states, and the Dubois resolution went on the calendar. Mr. Pasco (dem., Fla) spoke on the repeal bill He argued against unconditional repeal but also opposed an obstructive policy. Mr. Teller (rep, Col.) said the criticism that had been made on the president had not been a personal assault It was an official criticism of official acts; and if the doctrine were to prevail here that a senator was not to criticise official conduct there would be an end to this country of free government If Mr. Cleveland were an unpopular president his encroachments would do no harm. Harm came* in this case from the fact that the people were willing to trust him. On the 28th Mr. Peffer (pop., Kan.) sent to the desk and had read the letter of the president to Gov. Northen, of Georgia. The letter did not dissipate, said Mr. Peffer, the confusion in the public mind as to the president's real opinion on the monetary question. Ho might be a monometallist; he might be a bimetallist; but there was nothing in the president’s letter to show what kind of a metallist he was. Mr. Peffer said there was but one thing the president insisted upon and that was the repeal of the Sherman law. While pretending to be a bimetallist, as a number of senators pretended to be; while pretending that he favored the use of gold and silver, the president made it plain if anything in the letter was plain that he would measure by a gold standard, whereas the history of the country has been just the reverse. Gold had been measured by the silver standard, and Mr. Peffer insisted that the system had not been changed so far as concerned the law. He said his amendment, which is the pending one, would give the country bimetallism. Mr. Peffer declared that “whenever the administration, represented by its friends upon this floor, are ready to accept the pending amendment or some other amendment which will bring about the restoration of the law of 1837, they can pass the repeal bill in twentyfive minutes. Ido not believe there is a senator here who would care to say one word more if only the chairman of the committee on finance would indicate to us that he was ready to accept that compromise. Then he could shake hands across the bloody chasm, pass the bill and take a rest for a week or two. Speak-, ing for myself and the people I represent, that is the only compromise we offer m. will accept Anything less than that would be a surrender."

Before he reached the conclusion of his re--marks Mr. Peffer said, while he was willing to •ontinue with his speech in the evening and to address the senate till sunrise, he did not desire to exhaust the patience of the senate by asking the senators to remain longer than they wished to An executive session was then held. On the 29th ult. Mr. Harris (dem, Tenn.) spoke against repeal. He favored the coinage of the entire American product of silver, at any ratio to be agreed upon, saying that that of sixteen to one would be satisfactory. He said ho had always understood that Senator Sherman believed and had stated that the limited coinage provided for by the Bland-Allison act would bring the United States to a silver standard and drive gold out of the country. Mr. Sherman replied that ho believed, as he always had, that the continued purchase of silver, either under the Bland-Allison act or the act of 1890, without limitation, unquestionably would bring the country to a time when gold would disappear from circulation and silver would be the only standard. The free coinage of silver, in his opinion, would result in a silver standard. The act of 1890 would tend In the same direction, and in time would undoubtedly bring the country to a single stiver standard. Therefore he favored the abandonment of the system. He (Sherman) thought the coinage of from two to four millions per month would have that effect also. At the close of his speech Mr. Harris expressed himself ready to accept any fair and honorable compromise, but said that he would vote against unconditional repeat Mr. Morgan (dem., Ala) declared himself opposed to repeal and ridiculed the proposition of an international agreement governing the coinage of silver, and made an argument in favor of the constitutional rights of the people. He said we are told even by the president of the United States, that functions of congress for the regulation of money cannot be properly exercised, and ought not to be exercised in these chambers, except in concert with some foreign powers. That is the proposition. We are told that we cannot exercise it wisely or justly until we have obtained the consent of some foreign power. If that proposition 1* true then we might jut as well declare we

are not * government and that we have not got the power, under the constitution of the United States, for taking eare of the important and serrious interests of the people We might just as well declare, so far as this particular debate is concerned, and so far as the influences and considerations that operate in this chamber as a pressure upon us are concerned, that w e have never accomplished our independence of Great Britain. If it be true that we still consult Great Britain, that we must still act in harmpny with her, that we cannot legislate for our people till we get her consent for a certain measure, then we have not achieved our independence; and perhaps it was a mistake that we ever made the effort. “That idle dream of international unity in regard to this matter," said Mr. Morgan, "can be realized only in the fervid imagination of every enthusiastic statesman.” On the 30th ult. .notices were given of two amendments to the silver repeal bill—one by Mr. Wolcott (rep., CoL), providing for the return to the states interested of the amount of the cotton tax collected from them during the war; the other, by Mr. Perkins (rep, CoD, providing for the coinage of silver of American production at the existing ratio, the treasury to retain a seigniorage of 20 per cent; also providing that hereafter there should be no gold coins minted of less than 110, and no bank notes or treasury notes issued of less than K, and for a monetary commission of five experts. Mr. Camden (dem., W. Va.) argued in favor of the silver repeal bill and Mr. Peffer (pop, Kai) resumed his speech against repeal On the 2d Mr. Kyle (pop, S. D.) argued against the repeal measure. He took the ground that the Sherman law was not In any way responsible for thh business troubles of the country. He appealed to senators from the south and from the west to stand for the protection of their own states. He contended that, as between gold and silver, silver was the more stable measure of commodities; that it was folly to fritter away time with an international monetary conference, and that the hope of the United States was in looking forward towards a Pan-American alliance. Mr. McMillan (rep, Mich.) made an argument in favor of repeal. He said that the argument that the United States should continue the purchase of silver for the sake of the silver mining and kindred industries could not stand. Silver had declined ,in value for the same reason that iron had. The result of closing the silver mines had been to start work on the gold mines. Whatever might be the evils of a scarcity of money, the evils of an overabundance of money were still greater. Congress should do these three things: (1) Provide for a currency, every part of which shall always be maintained at par with the world’s money; (2) provide for adequate banking reserves distributed throughout the country in accordance with local business necessities: and (3) provide a ready means of converting securities into cash and cash into securities according to the need for a more-ex-panded or a more contracted currency. If these things were accomplished the quantity of money might be left to natural business causes Mr. Dolph (rep., Ore.) expressed the belief that the cause for the present business disturbance in the country was the fear of hostile tariff legislation. The democratic party was standing, torch in hand, to fire the industrial interests of the country. Was it, then, any wonder that with such a threat mills and factories had closed and idle men walked the streets demanding work In a wordy controversy with Messrs Teller and Stewart on the question of free coinage, Mr. Dolph asserted that the advocates of free coinage did not want a silver dollar that was worth a dollar in gold. They wanted a 56-cent dollar—a cheap dollar; the cheaper the better.