People's Pilot, Volume 6, Number 14, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 September 1896 — WAS FOR SILVER IN 1891. [ARTICLE]

WAS FOR SILVER IN 1891.

Hon. W. W. Gilman Put Himself on Record Five Years Ago. and is Therefore no New Recruit to the Silver Cause. , From the Fowler Toiler. Oct, 2,1891. Goodland, Sept. Bth, 1891. A plea for the restoration of silver tp its rightful place bv the side of gold as a lawful basis of valnes. That any different law regulating the coinage of silver from that which controls the coinage of gold is required, is hard to understand by any person not having gold to sell. Each of these very valuable metals has an intrinsic value other than that attaching because of their use as money. The value of each as a means of exchange for other commodities would depend—leaving law out of the question—entirely on the cost of mining and finding the metal, which cost svould vary with the conditions of abundance and scarcity, gold always much more valuable because the hardest to obtain. Gold has the greater beauty, and is most valuable for plating and wares, but were it as abundant as silver its value in the market would be lessened accordingly. Those who believe that there should be but one standard of value must show why gold is of more value than both gold and silver jointly. In al! important measures precedent goes a long ways; rime and established custom have attached to them something of reverence but even here the goldites are blocked; no very ancient author ity attaches to gold as an exclusive standard as a basis of values from Which to measure all other commodities.

The world budged along as far as we know for thousands of years before gold was coined as money. History places it about seven hundred years B. C. and the Leydians as the people. Holy Writ gives silver by weight and in fact as far as precedent goes silver has the advantage, it was the principal money in all the early history of the world. Great arnres were maintained, wars fought, products, people, kings and nations were bought with silver. It was thirty pieces of silver that was the price of “Him that was valued.” And all this time we have evidence that gold was to be had; perhaps those people did not think best to choose, for a basis of value tlie metal hardest to ob tain, they wanted more latiude and did not see :flt to corner themselves, and there was not at that rfime enough of “Wall Street” to run. a Conner bn money. Grain and oil largely paid flor the Temple at Jerusalem. Gold was in abundance with the wise man Soloman. He made many things but no coin, and silver was so abundant as to be of no account, and yet silver was the chief means of exchange. 1 Nor can it’be said at this time that gold is “King.” It has one habit of royalty—it keeps well out of sight. The great mass of people whose financial welfare is so bound up in the preservation of gold as a basis of all values very seldom see its royal color. I would like to know why it is better as a standard of values? lsitbecause.it is scarce? Other things are yet more scarce. Is it .because of its beauty? That would encourage hoarding, and would be an argument on the side? The only. Use of money, as such, is to use it as a means of exchange. Who does not know

that the-gold of the earth in value is but a small fraction of the value of all other Commodities and withqut help from other coin would be swamped? '* f Silver, even at the present standard of - value would come nearer, in case of a general dearth rf>f money among the nations, of filling the bill as a lone standard, than gold, because it is more easily obtained, more general in circulation among all the‘people of the earth, and for that reason less liable to be cornered. r I make no claim to wisdom as a financier but I believe that justicq for all is greater than gratification to a few, and I want some good reason given for national legislation that changes the value of credits or debts. The gold-bugs say, “Gold is the only fit standard of values because the civilized nations of the earth have adopted it as such by law. Second. That with a cheaper metal as a basis of values our nation-would be at a disadvantage in trade with other nations. Third, That gold being small in bulk it is easily and cheaply handled. Fourth, That to make silver Jree coinage would cause America to be the “'dumping ground” for silver, for all Europe, Jpfth, . That free coinage of silver would drive gold from our land. Sixth, That silver is a base metal, and being of a relatively less value than gold, the wage-earnei would have to receive it only, as his pay for his labor. I have given here, as near as I can remember, all the “stock in trade” in the way of argument, why gold should be the only standard of values. Excuse me—there is one more : The silver being of less market value than gold, its real or intrinsic value constantly fluctuate. Now while I have heard no other argument why gold only is, in the minds of some persons, fit for a standrd of values, I can think of a few others. First, Because the' persons whose capital is, wholly—or nearly so—in money, very naturally want to enhance the vaiue of their property, and no modp is so easy ana sure to do this as. to make it scarce, hence the demonet) za tion of sifter and the erecting of gold. Putting a legal bar against silver has enhaced the rel ative value of gold as compared with the price of all other property, but who has gained by “Act”?* Ans.: The gold owner has gained millions and all their gain has come from, the owners of other property, the price of which has been depreciated by the crowning of gold. And the wage-earner has not escaped any more than the raiser of wheat and the nose of the debtor has been ground to the £>one, that the creditor may get fat. Another reason why gold should be the only standard that its owneis don’t mentin, is that, its being the only standard gives its owners a strong lever-pur-chase over the owner of any and all other kinds of property, thereby enabling the gold-bugs to use all other property-owners as a fulcrum, over which they may with their long lever of gold lift Up any burden which, may in the natural order of business fall on their hands to raise. One more argument which I never hear them mention is, that the owners of gold in largfe amounts are the first-clpss ari.s tocracy of the earth ; they, and they only, can by reason of what the law accords them, dictate not only the price of all other properties. but they can and do dictate the financial policies of the nations of the-earth. Since the adoption of gold as

the sole standard of values, the National debts in the aggregate have increased enormously, and the written and printed evidences ■of such debt in the hand of the gold capitalist has enabled him to secure such legislation as to double the value of the debt to the creditor, and for the same reason and by the same action increased the burden of the debt by increasing the difficulty of payment. This very thing has been done by the gold-bugs of Europe and America to the National debt of the United States, and the individual debt everywhere. “Wall Street” dictates the financial legislation of this country and they protect their own interest at the expense of the people. This kind of legislation may do for the kingdoms of Europe, where royalty sits in golden ease, but our was founded on the greatest good to the greatest number. It never was intended by the Constitutional Fathers that the National legislation of this country should so shape itself as to make the great ihass of people do yeoman service to gold owners on “Wall Street.”

For nearly thirty years Congress and the executive have been their pliant tools. King Gold and King Caucus have united to hold their dominion fast on the backs of this people. Can we emancipate ourselves? If we do it will be by downing both Kings together. But let us briefly consider their argument in detail: Civilized nations have adopted it. Well, suppose they have. What, if anything, have they gained by doing so? Doubled their own debts fbr the sole benefit of a few individuals who were not needy and who were in no svay .entitled to.special favors at the hands of the law making power, and increased the burdens of the subject. Royalty never pays its own debts, J«he industrious citizen pays it all. It is not, have other Nations adopted-gold, but has that action on their part done them any good as a Nation? A re they any better off as a people? Has their burden increased or decreased? Are the people making a living any easier, have they better food to eat or clothes to wear? Has it shortened the hours of labor, or reduced the number of the poor? If it has done none of these things then it is a foolish act, and a wise Nation that cares for its people will reconsider a foolish action. If the Nations of Europe havs gone deep in legislative infamy, and worked great injury to their subjects, by adding to their burdens, for the benefit of a few rich men, is that any I‘eason why our Nation which is a government for the whole people should follow their bad example. I thought we had undertaken to show a better way to govern than that of op* pression. ■*' But then we would be at a disadvantage in trade, stet us see. England trades very largely with us, with S. America, China and India. Does she as a rule use gold or silver in that trade? Do they pay the farmers of 'this country in gold, or do we take other commodities in exchange? Only the balance in trade is paid in exchange, and seldom gold is used, in fact our exports to England are greater than our imports, and we sell them gold and silver beside. Beside it is a fact that silver is in demand for the very purpose of trade with l?oth India and China. If a silver dollar would pay as much At debt, and buy as much

of goods, how would we lose by selling our products for silver to European merchants! If they buy our grain they will have to bring their money here to pay for it and if they choose to bring silver at a greater cost of trans portation, the cost of bringing it is for them to pay. And if we buy their goods, won’t a dollar 1 ? wortn of goods pay for adoll&r’s worth of gold? It take% two to make a bargain, and Jonathan is generally considered a pretty fair hand at trade would It not be fair to consider that our people will trade only where and when the bargain is as good for them as the other fellows? Let us remember that it is the hungry that have to buy. We are not a starving people, and if we have to buy, and have only silver to pay, why should that fact hurt the gold-bugs? It will be time enough for them to complain when the farmer squeals. “But they will dump. It will take a “right smart” of a dumping to disgust the average farmer of this country. It may disgust the gold-bug. I expect it would as “shylock’s” occupation would not be as profitable as before. Silver is the money that England, France and-Germany, not to trade with South America, China and India, and in its daily use as currency among the people in those countries as it is in Italy, Spain and France almost exclusively. How will those people get along if all their silver is dumped over here? They would have to call on us for silver then just as they do now. They are taking our silver now, glad to get it, and have to have it. The only difference would be that they would have to pay more for it and in consequence would get more for it. But how woul4 that hurt us? Oh, yes; the goldbugs, it might hurt them, well that “ain’t our funeral.” But then we want an honest money says one. Certainly we do. And what is honest money? It is any money that is and will do just what it purports or promises to do on its face. The silver dollar says on its face that it is a dollar and that it will be a fair equivelant for a dollar’s worth of goods. And it further says if Congress will repeal the unjust law that robbed me of my just right I will then pay a dollar’s worth of debt and will be worth as much to the wageearner as though I were gold. The reason why a silver dollar is not an honest dollar is, because the gold-bug interest has influenced Congress to take from silver its just right to p>y a dollars worth of debt. One might as well scatter the seeds of a a contageous disease and then complain of the result. Silver is as honest as gold, and neither of them more honest than its fellow. Nor are they more honest or useful than the black coal. They are each God’s gifts to men and are more honest than the people who use them for unjust purposes. But says another, the silver bullion is worth only about 80 cents on th| dollar of coin value. True, 'but what would it have been worth if its owners could have it coined at will as the gold owners can? You limit the coinage of gold to one-half thq annual product of the mines in this land; take away their legal tender quality for the payment of debt and how soon would go.d bullion tumble? It would not be long until you could talk of the dishonest gold dollar. At the same time have free coinage of silver, and it a fujl legal-tender for any amount'and the payment of any debt and then see which the honest dollar

iis. No dollar having the requisite amount and grade of metal is [dishonest, except as dishonesty attaches by the acts of the law. Let the men who made the silver dollar dishonest look to their own character. Any man of fair intelligence can see that if the conditions of the two metals were exchanged that, silver would be worth one hundred percent, less cost of coinage, and that is all gold is ever worth. But they say “the free coinage of silver would only help a few individuals who own silver mines and would be of no benefit to the great mass of people who are not owners of silver bullion. Such an argument, if good for anything, is just as good against the free coinage of gold or any other metal. I don’t believe the profit the gold mine owners were by the law permitted to have it coined. But if that argument is to be considered we will* see what its value is. The scarcity of money makes the price of* all other commodities low; it increases the burden of debt because it makes it harder to get money with which to pay that debt. When grain is scarce a corner can be worked on grain—when money is scarce a corner can be worked on.money; the smaller the amount of money the easier to corner. Every producer and the wage earners are losers by a scarcity of currency, or as they say a “tight money market.” The American people are not benefited as a people by legislation to help a lot of usurious rascals to corner the money market. The members who voted to demonetize silver 'and limit its coinage were voting against the of the people who sent them to Congress. The measure was sneaked through like a deed of darkne is —a trick of the sharp lobbist and trick tliat succeeding congressmen have acquiesed in, to their and the people’s # wrong. In treating this subject I have written only from a standpoint of what I believe to be right and justice. I know there is a difference *of opinion on this subject and I want to know the right and when I am convinced of the right I will maintain it by voice and vote. Will some reader of the Pilot who thinks for himself and who differs from us uu this question be so kind as to tell me wherein lam wrong? If I am wrong I want to know it. I have ..never yet heard of a member of Congress that would own to voting for the demonetization of silver.

W. W. GILMAN.