People's Pilot, Volume 4, Number 22, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 November 1894 — BUT ONE SOLUTION. [ARTICLE]

BUT ONE SOLUTION.

Thia Country Must Lead and Others Follow in Restoring silver and Establishing Bimetallism. The situation in Germany is almost as it is in the United States —as bad as it is in all the countries whoAe'ffnancial systems rest on the single g»old standard. In all these countries there is felt the stagnation of trade, the suppression of industrial enterprises, the lowering of profits, the depreciation of prices, the decline of wages, followed by such cutting down of expenses that adds millions of anxious workers to the army of idlers who swarm about the trade centers in a condition of unrest. When editors allude to gold as a “stable” standard, and to the gold dollar as an “honest” dollar, we may be sure that the statement is based on willful ignorance, or is dictated by some special interest that can be readily traced to its source. We say willful ignorance, because all the facts appertaining to this great question are within easy reach of every sincere student, and they are overwhelming in their character. It may be said, with entire truth, that no disinterested and impartial mind can investigate this great question and arise from the investigation in favor of the single gold standard as a measure of business and prices in this country, or in the world. On the other hand, we have in mind numerous instances—especially in England where the single gold standard has been in operation for nearly four score years—where men have begun the investigation as gold monometallists and have come out of it the most zealous bimetallists. This is as much as saying that the gold monometallists have no case, and that is the simple truth. They have not an argument to go upon that is worth considering; not a fact to rest upon that is of anj r moment. This is so well known to those in this country who favor the single gold standard that they do not attempt to make any argument in its favor. They content themselves with hiding behind side issues and making the fight from under cover. There are at this moment but two men of any repute in this country who are willing to come out from under cover and argue in favor of the single gold standard. These men are Mr. Edward Atkinson and Mr. Horace White, and their intellectual equipment is of such a character as to lead them to be willing to father unblushingly, and no doubt unconsciously, the baldest errors in statistics, and the most ludicrous lapses in logic. All the rest of the gold monometallists, with a sensitive regard for the figure they cut before the public, are hiding behind the somewhat gauzy screen of “international bimetallism” —not real international bimetallism, for that is secured beyond all question whenever the United States open their mints to the free coinage of silver—but the impossible “international bimetallism” that depends wholly and entirely on the initiative of Great Britain. This scheme is fraudulent on the face of it, but we have no doubt a great many sincere men in this country—especially in New England—profess to be in favor of it because of the opportunity it gives them to educate the public mind in regard to the vital importance of settling the money question on a basis of justice and equity. Ordinarily, however, it may be accepted as a fact that the writer or editor who argues in favor of international bimetallism as the only solution of this question, may be set down as a genuine gold monometallist. There is, in fact, but one solution of the question, and that is for the Uniied States to move independently in the matter, just as she moved in 1770 to secure her independence, and as she has moved ever since—scorning European dictation on any question, and steering clear of foreign entanglements. It is curious that pretty much the same arguments that are now employed against the independent free coinage of silver by the United States should have been used against the movement for American political independence. The analogy is complete when we look around and discover that the very same element that figured under the name of “tory” and opposed American independence is now opposing the settlement of the American currency question by the American people. It should never be forgotten that the business men of New York passed strong resolutions against the declaration of American political independence in 177 G, and they are passing resolutions against American financial independence in 1894. —Atlanta Constitution.