People's Pilot, Volume 6, Number 18, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 22 October 1896 — GOV. ALTGELD ON FINANCE. [ARTICLE]

GOV. ALTGELD ON FINANCE.

His Reply to Schurz and Cockran. A REMARKABLE ADDRESS, Single Standard Claims Knocked to Smithereens. THE ISSUE IS CLEARLY SHOWN. Address of Governor John P. Altgeld at Central Music Hall, Chicago—One of the Ablest Arguments In Favor of the Free Coinage of Silver Yet Made—An Exhaustive Consideration of the Subject. I hold in my hand a printed copy of the speech of Mr. Carl Schurz, delivered in this city two weeks ago, and a like copy of the speech of Mr. Cockran, delivered one week ago. The first fills 12 columns of closely printed matter in a newspaper, and both have been advertised as the ablest arguments in favor of the gold standard that have yet been made. The gold standard advocates speak of them as containing Moses and the prophets, the Jaw and the gospel of the money question. From the manner in which these people speak of them, we are warranted in concluding that every argument and every fact that can be marshaled upon that side of the question is contained in these speeches. This being the case, we naturally examine them with the deepest interest, for if the gold standard is to be maintained we want to know what we may reasonably hope from it. No Hope In Either. It would have given great relief to the minds of thousands of patriotic men to have had presented some balm for the ills of our land, and as I love my country more than party or honors I am sorry to have to say to you that in these long speeches, containing, as we are told, the law and the gospel of the gold standard, there is not a line, not a sentence, not a syllable, that offers any hope to the American people That we are in distress is not denied in either speech, but there is no suggestion of a remedy. The substance of the whole argument is that we will be better off and suffer less if we keep quiet and that the remedy proposed by the Chicago platform would only make matters worse instead of better, or, as Mr. Schurz puts it, the application of this remedy would be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire, and, if he is correct in this, then the only question which is left for the consideration of those of our people who are dying in the frying pan is whether they would be any worse off in the fire. McKinley Panacea, The straight out adherents of McKinley have a panacea. They realize the unsatisfactory conditions in our land and propose to remedy them by an increase of thetariff. They feel that some hope must be offered to the American people, and, having nothing else to present, they ask us to again try the idea of increasing the tariff tax. They ask the people to shut their eyes to the fact that the distress from which we suffer exists all over Europe as well as this country; that it exists in the countries having a high tariff and in countries having a moderate tariff and countries having no tariff at all and is clearly due to some cause that has no connection with the tariff. They ask us to shut our eyes to the fact that we have already a very high tariff and that the decline in prices began many years ago under a still higher tariff and that it went right on under the highest tariff ever known in this country, called the McKinley tariff. They ask us to

shut our eyes to the fact that in 1888 the I conditions in our country were unsatisfuc- j tory and that the remedy that was then proposed as a cure was an increase of the tariff and that this immediately followed the election of Mr. Harrison, when the , famous McKinley bill was enacted. They ask us to shut our eyes to the fact that under that law wages were not raised, prices kept steadily falling and that Immediately after its enactment in 1890 there was S marked reduction in wages in several hundreds of the largest manufacturing establishments of this country. They ask us to shut our eyes to the fact that while the tariff shielded the manufacturer in some cases against competition it permitted him to fill his factories with the cheapest kind of pauper labor brought from the fields of Europe, and thus, Instead of raising the wages of the American workmen, not only reduced their wages, but drove them out of employment. They ask us to shut our eyes to the fact that It was in the spring of 1892, while the McKinley law was in force and while Mr. Harrison was president, that the famous Homestead labor riots occurred, being among the most bloody that ever took place in this country; that at that time the conditions of the laborer were rapidly getting worse, and the prices of American products were steadily falling They ask us to shut our eyes to the fact that the McKinley law for the fiscal year ending June 80, 1894, produced a deficit to the United States treasury of $79,000,000.

They ask us to shut our eyes to the fact that neither the laboring man of this country nor of Europe has derived any substantial benefit from the tariff because the employer is always permitted to fill his shop with cheap labor. They ask us to shut our eyes to the fact that the tariff is no longer a matter of theory, but a matter of history. It has been tried, and it has been found wanting. Consequently with the adherents of McKinley it is a question in this campaign of seeing how often they can fool the people. Both Mr. Schurz and Mr. Cockran have beta avowed enemies of this tariff. They cannot and they do not offer it as a remedy for any of the ills of the land, and having no other remedy to offer and seeing no prospect of a change for the better under existing policies they simply tell tl j patient that if he will only lie still he will suffer less than if he attempts to bestir himself. They have no remedy to suggest, but they strenuously object to permitting the people to do anything toward helping themselves. That bishop who told an anxious negro that there were only two ways open for him, and that one led directly down to hell while th other led away off to eternal damnation, was evidently the man who furnished the text for both of these speeches. The negro scratched his head and replied. “If dat’s so, massa, den dis chile takes to de woods. ” And if Messrs. Schurz and Cockran are correct then the

American people will have to take to the woods. Not a Local Question. In considering the question as to whether the demonetization of silver in the world reduced prices they shrewdly leave Europe out of consideration, shut their eyes to the fact that the effects produced (there are the same as those produced here, treat the whole question as though it were local to our country and then argue that, Inasmuch as there had not been many sil- j ver dollars coined in our country, and those | that were coined went abroad because of ' the fact that they commanded a premium of 2 per cent, therefore the demonetization of silver in the United States could not have affected prices because there was scarcely any silver here to drive out of circulation. Silver In Europe Helped to Fix Prices. Let us first look at this theory. The greatest markets for most American products were in Europe. Whatever affected prices of commodities which were shipped there in the end affected the prices of commodities at homa Let us suppose that there was no silver In circulation in the United States; that, as Mr. Schurz intimates, it was all in circulation in Europe. Then it was doing the work of money in Europe; it was doing a work there which would otherwise have had to be done by gold It practically displaced that much gold ' over there and permitted the gold to flow j elsewhere. It increased the volume of money in the world, and in that way affected prices for the world, not simply in any one country, but for the world Under those conditions, so far as prices were I concerned, it made little difference wheth- | er the owners of silver bullion brought it to our mints to be coined or took it to Eu- ' ropean mints to be coined In either case it helped to svfell the volume of money in the world, it helped to do the business of the world and helped to fix the standard of prices of property. Mr. Schurz knew I this fact, and I therefore submit that 1 when he at the outset tried to treat the question as a local one and to conceal from view the fact that if silver was circulating in Europe it was just as good as if it were ’ circulating here, so far as prices were concerned, he was not making a fair presentation of the question. Ido not care to use severer language, although I am aware that if a man speaking for the silver side was to pursue such a course he would be vehemently denounced as a pettifogger. Coinage In This Country. Now let us look at the facts in regard to •She coinage of silver in this country. It is I true that Jefferson for a time suspended I the coinage of silver dollars. The reason I was that half dollars were a full legal ten- j der for any amount, just as much as dol- | lars were, and, inasmuch as the country ' was new and poor, it was thought tiiat half dollars would be more convenient in circulation than dollars, and, inasmuch as they could be used in payment of debts the ; same as dollars, it made no difference, but the coinage was on the same basis as that i of gold, and any man having silver bullion ; could convert it into money just the same as though it were gold, and the treasury tables given out at Washington show that from 1806 down to 1873 there was $154,318,071 of silver coined in this country. In 1871 there were 1 ; 117,127 silver dollars coined—not subsidiary coins, but dollars ' —and in 1872 there were 1,118,600 sil- j ver dollars coined, being nearly twice the j number ever before coined in one year. ! Bear this in mind—the two years before i silver was stricken down there were near- ' ly twice as many silver dollars coined as i in any previous year. Mr. Schurz knew these facts, and yet he presents his figures in such a way as to make the impression'! that no silver had been coined in this 1 country, and therefore we demonetized nothing. His next claim is that we had more money per capita in circulation in 1895 than we had prior to the demonetization, and that, therefore, there was no reduction ! in the volume of money, and that consequently demonetization had nothing t > do ; with the fall of prices. He says that in 1895 we had a total of $2,217,000,000 in circulation, making $22.96 per capita, while in 1873 we had only $18.04 per cap- ! ita in circulation.

Tables Wrong. | Now, this is based on the tables given out by one branch of the treasury department —that is, the director of the mint—i and sometimes copied in the reports of i other branches of the treasury, but they i emanate originally from the office of the : director of the mint, and they are not only wrong, but are well known to be wrong. In his report for the year 1892 the director of the mint explains the origin of these ta- . bles. They ascertained what specie there I was in the country at the time of resump tion, and they have added to it year by year the coinage and what the custom house records show to have been imported, and they have deducted only what the records show to have been used in the arts ■ and what the records show to have been ' exported, and they assume that all the ' balance is still in circulation. They make I no allowance for what was carried over I our southern boundary in a quarter of a cen-

tury unrecorded, nor for what was carried over our northern boundary during that time unrecorded, nor for what was carried to China during that time unrecorded, nor for what was lost during that time, nor for what was used In the arts for a quarter of a century without a record having been made of It, and they make no allowance for what was carried to Europe in the pockets of American citizens traveling abroad and of which no record is made. Yet in one of his reports the director of the mint says that it was estimated that the American travelers in Europe during the year of the Paris exposition spent $90,000,000. Of course the most of that we may ! presume was in the shape of letters of ; credit, and therefore a record was made of it, but no record was made of what they carried in their pockets. Thus you see that the tables become utterly worthless. Again, in regard to paper money, they assume that every dollar that was ever issued by the government and is not shown by the records at Washington to have been canceled is still iu circulation, a proposition too absurd to be discussed.

Reports of Banks. But the treasury department gives out j another report that is accurate, and it tells an entirely different story in regard to the amount of money we have In our country, i This report is given out by the comptrolI ler of the current vho has supervision of [ the national bauk... For several years past the comptroller has been sending a request to every bank in the United States, national, state and private, to report the amount of money they had on hand at the close of business on a particular day and to state what it consisted of. There are in the United States a little less than 4.000 national banks and about 6,000 state and private banks. Substantially all of these banks responded to the inquiry, and I have here the comptroller’s report for the year 1895, and on page 15 he gives a summary of these reports. I will give you this in the language of

the comptroller: “The cash held by national banks on July 11 and by other banks at about that date amounted to 1631,111,290, classified as follows: f Gold. 1127,621,099; silver, $15,594,037; specie not classified, $19,298,363; paper currency, $342,739,129; fractional currency, $1,028.442, and cash not classified, $124,835,220." The reports for several prior years were practically the same. At about that time there was in the United States treasury all told $329,517,713 available for circulation. Adding this sum to what there was then in all the banks of the United States it makes $950,629,000. This constituted all of the money in sight in this country except what there was then in the pockets of the people. There is no way of ascer- I taining definitely just what this would j amount to, but considering the fact that i we had had several years of panic and idleness and distress, during which time most of the little savings had been used up, and considering the further facts that in recent years building associations have been formed in every village in the land, i and the money that used to be saved or ' hoarded In a small way was drawn out I and absorbed by these building associa- I tions, and that we have banks in almost every village in the land, and that all business men deposit every day so as not to run the risk of leaving much money in their stores overnight, it is apparent that the amount of money then in the pockets of the people was not large. Good judges. have asserted that when you take into consideration all of the poor laboring classes of this country and of the colored people of the south, and the fact that farmers had very little money, an average of $5 per household would be a full average, and as there were then about 14,000,000 families, that would make $70,000,000. But in order to cover every contingency let us nearly double this, let us add another $50,000,000. This would make $120,000,000, being at that time, as we say, in the pockets of the people. Adding this sum to what there was then in the banks and in the treasury, it makes $1,070,629,000 as the total money in the United States available for circulation, less than half of the sum named by Mr. Schurz. Amount Per Capita. Now, bear in mind that this is the result of an actual inventory made by all the moneyed institutions in this country, and therefore is the most reliable information which the treasury department has yet furnished us upon this question. If you say we have underestimated the amount in the pockets of the people, then add another $5 for each household, and it will make only $70,000,000 more and still be only half the sum named by Mr. Schurz. If Mr. Schurz knew these facts and withheld them from his audience and his readers and used figures that were incorrect for the purpose of making a wrong impression, then you will admit that he is not a safe guide. If he did not know these facts, then it will be admitted he is not a safe counselor. But in either case it is apparent that so much of his argument as was based upon the alleged amount of money we have in this country must fall to the ground. Money Scarce. The fact is, there is not enough money In this country at present to do its business. In all of the agricultural states of the south, the Mississippi valley and the west there is the greatest scarcity of money. The banks are unable to furnish what is needed, and even in the money centers a very little disturbance renders the banks helpless. Recently we had what is known as the Diamond Match stock speculation, and a collapse followed, and so seriously did this single speculation strain the money market of this great city, with all of its large banks, that many of the banks had to refuse credits to their customers in legitimate business, and the banks, acting together, force*! the Stock Exchange to close, so that there should be no market quotations on Diamond Match stock, for fear that otherwise a number of banks would be unable to meet their obligations and be ruined. A few years ago the banks of New York, that are perniciously active in this money agitation, actually refused to pay their obligations because they had not the money with which to do it and forced the public to take clearing house certificates. Mr. Schurz says there are oceans of monox. lying idle, and then In another sentence he”says that gold isTnow leaving our country and going to Europe because it finds profitable employment there. Naturally you ask if there are ' oceans of money lying idle in those money i centers than how can money going there from here find profitable employment ‘ there. He is no doubt correct in this, that there is congestion in money centers, but . it is because of the constant downward ; tendency in prices which prevents prudent 1 men from embarking in enterprises and I using money for legitimate purposes. The heart is congested and the extremities are l cold, a condition which always follows when a large portion of the blood is taken from a patient Small Amount of Gold Here. In passing I call your attention again to the fact that on the 11th day of July, 1895, all of the banks in the United States of America together held only $127,629,099 of gold, and that sum, added to the SIOO,000,000 of gold that is supposed to be constantly in the treasury, constituted all the gold there was in sight in the United States. No sensible man now claims the poor people are hoarding gold. The fact is that even rich people rarely get to see It. In depicting the horrors which will come upon our country in the event of the election of Mr. Bryan, Mr. Schurz points out in a tlirllllng manner how $600,000,000 of gold would instantly take wings and vanish. Other gold standard orators have dwelt loud and long upon the vanishing of $600,000,000 of gold. It Is one of the ■ stock arguments met everywhere, and it ; is iterated and reiterated by the bankers I themselves. Now, in view of the facts published by the treasury department itself, and which will not be challenged by gold standard people, I am warranted in asserting that these bankers know that there is I scarcely $200,000,000 of gold in the entire country, including what there is in the I United States treasury. They know that if every dollar of gold were withdrawn from all the banks in this country it would make only a little over $127,000,000. When they therefore try to make the impression that there would be a contraction of $600,000,000, their conduct is in keeping with the whole history of this gold standard movement—that is, it is one of , misrepresentation, deception and fraud. ! These bankers further know, and Mr. Schurz knows, tiiat, no matter who is elected president, so long as they want to run their banks they will of necessity keep ; some gold, and it will perform the funcj tions of money while they have it. The fact is, they could not well reduce the amount of gold they now have, and whoever is elected president there will be little or no movement of gold from the banks of this country, but if it were all to go, and if that which is in the United States treasury were also to go, it would amount

*> only about $327,000,000 of gold Therefore, an much of »he nwful catastrophe that is to tw’fnll this land by the removal of $600,000,000 of gold in the event of the election of Mr. Bryan will not come to pass. It is one of those predicted storms that it is not necessary to insure against. No Overproduction. But the main fabric of the whole speech of Mr. Schurs la based upon the theory of overproduction. He insists that there is a fall in the price of silver and that this is due to overproduction; that there was so much more silver produced than formerly that it had to fall in price. You will readily see that if there was the same increase in the production of both metals then there was no reason why the relations which they bore to each other, or the market ratio which they bore to each other, should change. Mr. Schurz knew this. Why didn't he state it that way? Because he knew the facts were against him. He wanted to make an impression which he could net make without a suppression of part of the case. Fortunately this is not a matter that we need to speculate about. We have history, experience and accurate data up a this subject. According to the tables Lulled by the treasury department Aug. 16, 1893, showing the total production of gold and silver In the world at coinage value, it appears that from the year IS'92, when our monetary system was founded, to the year 1852, the time of the great gold discoveries—being a period of 60 years—‘the total production of silver in the world, rating it at coinage value, was $1,769,197,000 and the total production of gold in the world during that time was $960,236,000 —that is, on the average there was just about twice as much silver produced as gold during that time. The production of each metal varied of course during the different_years, and yet the market ratio between the two metals remained practically the same during all that time. The tables giving the market prices show that during those 60 years there was a variance of only seven-tenths of one point, or just about the cost of exchange. The same tables show that from 1852 to 1873 the total gold production of the world was $2,516,575,000, while the total silver production was only $989,225,000 —that is, there was 2)4 times as much gold produced as sliver, yet the market ratio remained unchanged during these 21 years, just as it had during the period of 60 years when there was twice as much silver as gold produced. Again, the same tables show that from 1873 to 1892, Inclusive, the total gold production of the world was $2,176,505,000, while the total silver production was $2,347,087,000 —that is, the production of gold was nearly equal to that of?silver. During the first two periods silver was a money metal. During the last period it was not. Inasmuch as silver did not fall in value, as measured in gold, during the 60 years in which there was twice as much silver produced as there was gold, it is clear that had silver not been demonetized it would not have fallen when the gold production was nearly equal to that of silver after 1873. Silver Has Not Fallen. Again, silver has not fallen in comparison with other property. By taking the average price of all commodities known to the market it is found that a pound of silver will buy as great au amount of commodities as ever. Silver occupies the same relation to the products of the earth and to labor today that it did before. It is gold that has goue up. The law, by striking down the competition, has gi gold a monopoly. It protects gold against competition. Practically the gold dollar is n 200 cent dollar. Nominally it still has only 100 cents iu it, but it takes 200 cents’ worth of commodities to get one when measured by bimetallic prices. Consequently we find, first, that there has been no increase in the production of silver when compared with the increase in the production of gold, and, secondly, we find that silver has not fallen when compared with property and the products of labor. Therefore the entire fabric of Mr. Schurz’s argument must fall to the ground. Fall of Wages. Mr. Schurz next tried to convey the impression that wages have not fallen and were therefore not affected by the demonetization of silver, and he says that wages have risen more than 60 per cent since 1860. See the ingenuity of this and ask yourselves whether this is a fair way of representing that question. All the world knows that wages have nearly doubled since 1860. The question Is, How have wages been affected by the fact that this country and Europe demonetized silver and reduced the volume of money in the world between 1873 and 1879? Had he been candid he would have compared the wages for, say, 12 years prior to the general demonetization with wages for 12 years after that general demonetization was accomplished. This subject of wages was carefully inquired into in the year 1891 by a committee appointed by the United States senate. This committee made a thorough investigation. John G. Carlisle, the present secretary of the treasury, was a member of that committee. It made a long and full report, and it showed that between 1840 and 1873 wages had just about doubled, and then the report says, “After 1873 there was a marked falling off.” The report goes on and shows that toward 1880 there was a slight rise in wages above the point they had recently fallen to, but they never reached the point they had occupied before, and soon thereafter a decline set In which continued. Mr. Schurz was once a member of the United States senate, and the investigation by this committee on the subject of wages must have attracted his attention. If he was thorough in his investigation, be must have seen this report. Had he been thoroughly candid he would not have tried to make the impression that because wages had risen between 1860 and 1873 therefore they were still as high as they ever wera The fact is that there was a great fall in wages between 1873 and 1880. There was a slight rally in 1880 dueto causes which I will explain presently. This lasted for a comparatively short time, and since that time there has been a steady • decline in wages. Wages and prices must lon the average go hand in hand. Labor i creates property. If property must be sold ! for low prices, then labor cannot be paid I high wages for creating it. This is axioi matio. Prices Would Not Fall at Once. Mr. Schurz tells us that if the demons

tization of silver had anything to do with the fall in prices then the fall should have come instantly. I ask you to consider that statement a moment and then tell me whether it is not contrary to the universal experience of mankind. Owners of property do not accept lower prices until they are obliged to. No matter what cause may be operating tb reduce prices, owners of property hold it up as long as-they can. They hold it up until the debts press too hard and the strain gets too severe, when they are obliged to let it go. So that the ■ decline is never instant, and in the very

' Mature of things comes gradually, the weaker holders giving way first and the stronger holding out till the last. Further, silver was not demonetized by all of the countries at once. Germany set her face toward demonetization in 1871, but did not enact her law until 1873. Our government acted in 1873. The other nations followed later. Holland acted in 1875, Russia in 1876, and Austria did not adopt a gold standard until 1879. It is true that owing to the fact that Germany, Italy and some other countries drew heavily upon the principal gold market of the world, which is London, there were serious monetary disturbances in London and some portions of Europe almost every year after 1873, and prices, and consequently business, were seriously affected in Europe during this year. All of the leading financial writers of England refer to this fact, and, although they insist on maintaining the gold standard for England because she is a creditor nation, they attribute this fall in prices, this disturbance in business, to the acts of the governments of Europe in striking down silver by law and establishing a gold standard because these acts of government affect the supply and demand. Supply and Demand. By destroying silver they reduced the supply of money in the world. By adopting a gold standard they increased the demand for gold. In our country there were a number of reasons why the demonetization of silver was not immediately felt First, the government had between 1866 and 1869 reduced the volume of paper money we had in this country, which was all the money we had, from $1,640,000,000 odd down to less than $800,000,000 and had issued bonds instead. This reduction in the volume of money then In circulation in our country was followed by a corresponding fall in prices which had been based on the former volume of paper money. Panic of 1873. The fall was so great that debtors were unable to meet the debts which had been contracted on the basis of prices formerly prevailing, and the panic of 1873 followed as a necessary result of that. By issuing more bonds the government got coin, and we resumed what were called specie payments.

Balance of Trade and Increase of Money. When we began to rally from the panic of 1873, Europe was feeling the effect of the demonetization of silver, but in our country we found that the balance of trade between us and Europe toward 1880 was greatly in our favor, so that according to the treasury tables there were added to the volume of money in our country from that source several hundred millions of dollars. Our gold mines were productive during that time, and there was a large addition to our circulating medium from that source. Then the Bland-Allison act, which partially restored silver, was enacted in 1878 and required the secretary of the treasury to coin not less than $2,000,000 nor more than $4,000,000 per month. The effect of this was to add anywhere from $25,000,000 to $48,000,000 per year to our currency, and thus helped to keep up prices. The increase in the volume of money in our country, according to the treasury tables, during these years was so great that prices and wages rose correspondingly from what they had been after the paniopf 1873. But these causes were local s.ud did not last, and in the course of a few years the general depression which had already spread over Europe, following the demonetization of silver, began to spread over our country, and from that time on has become more and more intense. Effect of Falling Prices. Both Mr. Schurz and Mr. Cockran treat the whole subject of falling prices as if it were simply a scram bio between different citizens—between seller and buyer. If this were all, then the matter would not bo of such transcendent and fin-reaching iinpcr tance and would not so directly asset t: welfare of the whole people. Neither grasps the great principle that falling prices first disturb business in its entire circle and affect the property of both rich and poor, and that when prices go very low they destroy the purchasing power of the great producing and farming olasses, and that this destroys what we r vll the home market and forces manufacturing establishments to shut down, because there are not sufficient buyers to take what they make, and thus forces labor into idleness and destroys the purchasing power of labor and produces a general paralysis in the land. No matter what may be the cause of falling prices, their effect upon the community is more than a mere scramble between buyer and seller, and here is where all advocates of the gold standard fail to rise to the occasion, fail to meet the requirements of the case. Their treatment of this question is almost flippant. Production and Price of Wheat. In attempting to account for the fall in price of property, Mr. Schurz selects wheat as an illustration, and he attempts to show that there has been a great increase in the annual production of wheat; that we have not only opened the whole northwest, which is producing wheat, but that our farmers have to compete with the wheat of India, Argentine Republic and of Russia, and he assumes that therefore the price of wheat had to fall. There are three things to be said in answer to this. First, increase in production does not produce a fall In price, provided there is an equal increase in consumption. This is self evident, and Mr. Giffen, the statistician of the British board of trade, has, on different occasions, pointed out that for more than 15 years prior to 1873 the increase in the production of nearly all commodities in the world had been greater on the average, year by year, than the increase has been in any year since 1873, and yet, as he says, during all of those years prior to 1873 prices kept constantly rising, notwithstanding the enormously increased production, while since 1873 prices have been steadily falling, notwithstanding the fact that the increase was not as great as it formerly was.

The second observation is that wheat has not fallen in price any more than all other commodities. It has fallen no more than all property has fallen; has fallen no more than wages. It is not contended that Russia, India and the Argentine Republic : have entered into competition in the pro- | duction of all other products which our i people put upon the market. I. These two points show that Mr. Schurz lls entirely wrong-dn his theories. The ; third observation is that he is entirely l wrong in his facts. The truth is that therff has been scarcely any improvement in machinery for •raising and harvesting wheat in the last 20 years, and the statistics show that there ■ has been very little increase in the produc- ' tion of wheat in the United States in that , time. More is raised in the northwest it : is true, but very much less is raised in the | central and eastern states. I have endeavored to get the most reliable data on this question from the reports of the various boards of trade and the government reports, which are recognized as the high-

est authority obtainable on this subject The government reports show that the wheat crop for 1878 was more than 420,000,000 bushels, and that for the year 1896 the crop does not exceed 400,000,000 bushels. In fact, If the increase in population is considered, the wheat crop has constantly grown less in proportion to the consuming population ever since 1878. The wheat crop of this year is about 56,000,000 bushels short of what the average has been since 1878 and is 20,000,000 bushels less than it was that year. So that in spite of the opening of the new fields in the northwest there has been no greatly increased production of wheat in this ronnand when compared with the consuming population there has been an actual falling off; yet 20 years ago the price of wheat was more than twice what it is now. Again, in referring to the foreign wheat he endeavors to make the impression that there has been a great Increase in production, and artfully selects a recent year of the highest production and compares that with an earlier year having the lowest production. The fact is that the world’s wheat crop has remained substantially the same for 16 years. In 1880 the world’s production of wheat was 2,280,000,000 bushels. In 1885itwas2,108,000,000 bushels, and' that was the lowest crop of a number of years. In 1895 the crop was very large and amounted to 2,553,000,000 bushels. This year the world’s production is 120,000,000 bushels less than last year, and the total production of the world is smaller than it has been for six years, yet wheat is lower than ever before. In addition to this the crop of rye, which, together with wheat, furnishes the bread of the world, is 170,000,000 bushels short, yet in spite of that fact the price of rye has fallen steadily with that of wheat. It may also be remarked that we have the smallest oat crop that we have had for a great many years, and yet oats are worth less than one-half what they were seyeral years ago. Now, why is it that with the wheat crop of the world 120,000,000 bushels short and the population increasing enormously, the rye reached 170,000,000 bushels short, the price crop has the lowest point that it has ever reached in the history of the country? Purchasing Power of Money. In order to get a more comprehensive view of the whole subject let us see what are the fundamental laws governing finance. , There are two theories at present advanced in regard to the purchasing power of money; one is what is called the cost of production theory, under which supply and demand have but little Influence, and the other may be called the quantitative or volume of money theory. This theory is based upon the law of supply and demand. Cost of Production Theory. The cost of production theory has been seized upon by the gold standard advocates of this country and is used as the basis of their arguments. It simply means that it takes on the average a definite amount of labor to produce a gold dollar, and it is the cost of this labor, the average cost, of producing the gold dollar, that fixes its purchasing power, and after the dollar is once in existence then its purchasing power undergoes comparatively little change. It will always buy an amount of property that Is equal In value to the cost of producing the gold dollar, and the question of supply and demand has but little influence thereafter upon this dollar. It is practically unchangeable and always the same, so say the advocates of the gold standard. Under this theory it does not matter whether money is plentiful in the land or exceedingly scarce. The purchasing power of the dollar will always be about the same. It does not matter whether there are 1,000 men scrambling to get the dollar because they must have it or whether there are only 10 men scrambling to get it, the dollar will remain practically the same. It will buy no more property when 1,000 men are struggling to get it than it will when only 10 men are struggling to get it, and of course if this theory is correct then the demonetization of silver had no effect upon the world’s prices of productsand property. If it is correct, you can wipe out oue-half of the money that now exists in the world, and it will not affect prices. The purchasing power of the dollar being determined by the cost of production it continues to be the sama I imagine I hear some man say, “Why, that theory is contrary to the experience of the whole commercial world.’’ Well, my friend, that makes no difference. Gold standard advocates don’t care about the experience of the commercial world. It is true that under this theory the gold dollar should have beoome very cheap in recent years because there is scarcely an Industry, scarcely a field of production in which such tremendous improvements have been made as in that of gold mining. The labor saving machinery introduced in the last quarter of a century in this industry is equal to if not greater than that applied to farming. It is exactly the same as that applied to the mining of silver. It costs less on the average to mine a gold dollar now than it ever did before, and yet a gold dollar will buy twice the product and twice the property that it did a quarter of a century ago. Let me say in regard to this theory that the great statesmen and great financiers of Europe never entertained it for a moment. They brush it aside with the wave of their hand and look upon it as being ridiculous. Volume of Money Theory.

The other theory rests chiefly on the law of supply and demand. Under it the total amount of money in the world forms the standard and measure of prices. When there is a large amount of money in circulation among the people, prices are high; when money is exceedingly scarce among the people then prices are low. Under this doctrine, if you wipe out one-half of the world’s money prices fall correspondingly on the average. If you double the volume of the world’s money, prices will on the average double; that is, the general tendency will be that way. The price of any particular article or piece of property will again be affected by the law of supply and demand as relates to it. The volume of money forms what may be called the line for prices. It is horizontal if money is steady; it inclines upward if money is increasing in volume; it inclines downward if money is shrinking in volume, and the general tendency of prices will be to move along this line, but the supply and demand in case of different articles will cause the ptice of those articles to from time to time either come slightly above or drop slightly below this line. This theory or law, like the law of gravitation in the physical world, is in harmony with and explains nearly all financial phenomena. When carefully studied, it will be found rt nning through all the centuries and producing the same results everywhere. Under this law the demonetization of silver h id to affect general prices throughout the wbrld—that is, it had to lower the general level of prices. And this was the view which nearly all of the great statesmen and financiers of Europe took of the matter at the time. But that is not all. Uu-

der this law 8 men require more money than 1 man, 1,000 require more than 30 da Increase of Population. In other words, as population increases there must be a corresponding increase in the volume of money or there will follow a practical shrinkage—that is, there will be less money per capita. Formerly there was added every year to the world’s stock of money not only all of the gold, bat all of the silver, except what was used in the arts, the silver being about equal to the gold. This in a measure kept pace with the increase in population, so that the increase in population would not necessarily affect prices, but now there is added annually only the gold that is produced, less what is used in the arts. In other words, there is added only one-half as much as there used to be, while the population is increasing at a more rapid rate than ever. The necessary consequence of this is and will be that if this gold standard is maintained prices must go on slowly and steadily falling throughout all the years to coma So that the demonetization of silver tended not only to reduce prices and thus paralyse the enterprises and the industries of the world, but it also creates a condition which must give us a slowly but steadily increasing paralysis. Checks, Drafts, Etc. It is true that about 95 or 96 per cent of all our business is done by means of checks, drafts, bank notes and other substitutes for money, and that only about 4 or 5 per cent of our business is done in actual cash, and this fact has misled many men, and we hear men argue that there is but little money needed; that other things have taken the place of money, and therefore it does not matter whether there is much money or little money. But these people lose sight of two things. First, that after all these checks, drafts, bank notes and other substitutes for money rest on money. Every one admits that you must have some money, even though it be a little, to base these things on. No man has yet claimed that you can do away entirely with money and use these substitutes and get along. This being so, it necessarily follows that there is a limit to the amount of credit which a dollar can carry. That is, there is a limit to the amount of the drafts, checks and bank notes that can be based upon a dollar. If this were not so, then if there were only one single dollar in the world all the business in the world could be done on credits based on that one dollar. But there is a limit to it. Credit Rests on Money. 1 The second thing that is lost sight of by those people is that the enterprise, industry and business of the world is always so great that it exceeds the credit which a dollar can carry. In other words, the enterprise, the business and commerce of the earth are always carried to the uttermost point possible. They load every dollar up with all that it can carry, and therefore when you strike out any dollar from under this load a certain part of the load must come down. When the amount of checks or drafts is increased, does it not release a certain amount of money and cause it to He idle. The enterprise of men will immediately reload all the money that is so released with every bit of credit it can carry. That is always the condition of the commercial and manufacturing world in prosperous times. It therefore follows that when you reduce the amount of money in the world under these conditions it is a much more serious matter than it would be if there were not these checks, drafts and other evidences of credit, because you destroy not only the given amount _of money, but you pull down so much of the whole'fabric of creditor business, if you please, which has rested on that money. So when you increase the volume of money, you not only make it possible to increase the amount of business in proportion, but you make it possible to increase the business 30 times as much as the actual increase in money, because every dollar of money will again be instantly loaded with credits. Opening the Mints Will Increase Credits. Therefore we say that opening the mints to silver will add to the stock of primary or legal tender money, and this will again be loaded with credits which will make possible' an increase of business 20 times as great as the increase in money. We sometimes hear it asked, “How will you get that money into circulation, or what good wiH this increase in money do you if you have not anything to get-it with, if you have no property or any collateral?” That question is purely American and shows that in some things at least we are yet new. How Money Will Get In Circulation. It needs buta moment’s reflection to see that the additional money will get into circulation just as the money that is in circulation got there, and that when men again coin silver bullion into dollars or get certificates for it, which are legal tender, which can be used in paying taxes, which can be used in paying duties at the custom house, which can be used in paying debts, they are not going to let that money lie idle, because it will not make it profitable any longer to have it so. Money will cease appreciating in value then, and they will go to building houses, building shops, building railroads, manufacturing and doing business; they will start activity in 1,000 channels and 1,000 fields. That will be the result. There wiH be an immediate demand for brains and muscla There will be an immediate demand for engineers, for skilled men, for clerks, for mechanics and for day laborers, and instead of laborers being obliged to tramp around over the country in search of work which they cannot find they will be sought for at their homes and requested to come over and go to work. The man who has nothing to sell except his muscle will find a market for that muscla The man who has nothing to sell except skill will find a market for that knowledge, and very soon the whole community wiH feel the vivifying and the 'electrifying effect of an increase of blood and vitality in its veins. Other Statesmen. I would like to read to you the language of Mr. Goschen, a great banker of London and lato chancellor of the British exchequer, one of the great statesmen and financiers of the world today. I should like to read to you the language of Mr. Giffen, the statistician of the British board of trade. I should like to read to you the report of the royal commission on gold and silver made to parliament in 1888. I should like to read to you the language of a number of other great economists and financiers, men who for years have been assisting in the management of the world's affairs, who for years have had their finger upon the pulse of the commerce and the business of the earth, who have watched the circulation of its blood and have felt its heartbeats, men who are not theorists, but who are first students and then practical men, and you would be astonished to see how their views are all in accord upon this great question. They hold that the law of supply and demand does apply to money. They hold that when the governments by law demonetize

stiver or wipe out any other actual money the governments thus by law reduce the world’s supply of money. They hold that when the governments adopt a gold stand ard .and_make it the only legal tender money the governments by law Increase the demand for gold, because by reason of the law more people must thereafter have gold than formerly had to have it. Increasing Demand For Gold. The work that was formerly done by silver has thereafter to be done by gold, and the necessary consequence of this is to increase the importance of gold, to double the number of people who have to-feave it, and in the end double the purchasing power of the gold dollar. Now, we insist that in harmony with the world’s basic law of finance, in harmony with the entire experience of mankind, in harmony with the expressed views of the greatest statesmen, Hving or dead, the demonetization of silver doubled the purchasing power of gold, so tha£ it took twice as much of the products of the earth to get a gold dollar and pay a debt or pay taxes thereafter, twice as much labor as it formerly did. Destraction of Home Market. The consequence was not only to do an Injustice to the whole debtor world, but inasmuch as taxes, interest, debts and fixed charges remained the same it destroyed the purchasing power of the whole producing classes, because it took all they could scrape together to meet the fixed charges. This first destroyed business and necessarily forced the manufacturers to shut down because there were no longer purchasers for what they made, so that in turn labor stood idle, and it was no comfort to teU the laborer that if he had a gold dollar it would buy twice as much as it used to, for if there was no purchaser for what he made there was no way to get any kind of a dollar. Thus there followed naturally universal paralysis and distress. Restore Purchasing Power. We insist that, according to this same law, the restoration of silver will tend to again raise prices and again restore the purchasing power of the farming and producing classes, and with the restoration of that purchasing power, when the farmer can again spend money at the store, can again spend money at the shop, spend money at the college, spend money in travel, there will come universal activity. The manufacturer will again find a market for what he makes, and labor will be employed, and the tendency will be to revive universal activity and prosperity. Mine Owner and Farmer. Like the common run of gold standard orators, Mr. Schurz appealed to the prejudice of his audience by bringing in the mythical rich mine owner. Now, there are two things to be said in regard to the mine owners. First, a rich mine owner is largely a myth. They are all in distress. Second, the price of the mine owner’s products has not fallen any more than have the prices of farm products. They stand exactly on the same level As measured by gold, silver sells for just one-half what it did, and that is true on an average of all farm products. The mine owner has an enormous advantage over the farmer in breasting the hard times in this, that when he finds that it does not pay to operate his mine he simply shuts it up, and the people who suffer directly are the laborers who are thrown out of employment But the farmer cannot stop farming. No matter how low products go in price, the farm has to go on as before. He must support his family there. He must make hia taxes. He is obliged to go on cultivating his farm and raising more products whether they bring him big prices or a little prica So that the mine owner in the first instance does not suffer as much as the farmer and can protect himself in a manner that the farmer cannot. Therefore in the future I would suggest to the gold standard orators that they drag in the rich farmer and use him as a bugaboo, as the man who is going to profit by the restoration of silver. But to show the utter want of consistency, if not of good faith, I call your attention to the fact that throughout the whole of Mr. Schurz’s speech he speaks of aSO cent dollar. He describes the conditions that are going to exist after Mr. Bryan is elected and after the new regime has been introduced, and he teHs you how silver dollars will be worth only 50 cents under the new order of things and the great injustice that will be done to creditors by giving them dollars that are worth in the market only 50 cents. He dwells on this in a manner that is pathetic, and, strange to say, he does this after having told his hearers that the mine owner was the man who was to be made enormously rich by the restoration of silver. Now, if the mine owner is to be made rich, it will have to be by raising the price of silver in the market, and, if by reason of the increased demand for silver and its use again as money the price of silver rises in the market, then there will be no 50 cent dollar. If all of the new silver dollars can be used to do exactly the same work that a gold dollar would do, then it is self evident that the gold dollar will have to come down from its high perch and be worth no more than a silver dollar. Savings Banks. During the last few years we have heard a great deal about the deposits in savings banks increasing. This allegation, like that of the rich mine owner and the 50 cent dollar, is constantly harnessed up and made to do duty by the gold standard people, and one would get the impression that instead of stagnation in industry and in business in this country there was the greatest activity and that all of our people were employed and that everybody was happy. But the fact is that, inasmuch as the savings banks pay a high rate of interest, higher than the ordinary commercial banks do upon deposits, people of large means in many cases deposit their money in the savings banks rather than in the commercial banks. They do this because money cannot be used profitably in business, and as they do not desire to loan it permanently they put it into the savings bank, where it can be withdrawn on short notice and where in the meantime they get the highest rate of interest, so that instead of the large deposits in savings banks at present being an indication that we are prosperous or that our laborers are employed they show in themselves that capital cannot be profitably or safely used in business or in manufacturing or any of the great Industries of this country. Panic of 1893. Mr. Schurz attributes the panic of 1893 to the fact as he says: “The grave doubt arising in the public mind whether the government would be able to maintain the gold standard. We were then within a hairbreadth of a very widespread bankruptcy of the banks, and only the wisest management and the utmost efforts of the clearinghouses prevented it.” Now, Mr. Schurz is entitled to credit for being the only man in the world who made the discovery that the panic of 1893 was brought about by the cause he named, and he is entitled to the greatest credit because of the fact that he never ran a bank or a business or a manufacturing establish-

ment or a railroad and was never engaged, bo far as we know, in any commercial business. He had an established reputation as a rhetorician and as a man who could make an equally good speech on any side of any question. If the panic of 1898 was due to the cause to which he ascribes it, then we are liable to have panics of that character every year so long as the existing conditions continue; but, my fellow citizens, that panic was not local to the United States, and the depression that followed from it is not local, but exists all over Europe, and, in fact, nearly all over the world, and is most severe in the gold using countries. There was no doubt in the minds of the public at that time about England’s maintaining the gold standard, nor about Germany maintaining the gold standard, nor about the other countries that had. recently adopted a gold standard maintaining it, and yet in all of those coup tries the distress and paralysis are even more severe than in our own. Mr. Schurz may be able to patent his idea in this country, but his letters patent wiH be worth nothing in Europa Bond Sales. But perhaps the strangest part of the speech is that which emphatically indorses and commends the bond issuing poHcy of the present administration. I ask you to consider this a moment. During times of profound peace in less than four years the national debt of this country has been increased 8260,000,000, not to support the government, for President Cleveland declared expressly that this was not needed to support the government, as they had money in the treasury to meet the current expenses. It was done for the sole purpose of maintaining the gold standard by the government and of paying gold on obligations which on their face were payable not in gold, but in coin, which meant that they could be paid in other metal which the debtor—that is, the government—might select. This has been the law and the practice for centuries, and the governments of Europe always act upon it. Mr. Schurz suggests no change of policy, and he offers no remedy; therefore the existing conditions are to be continued, and if it was necessary to issue 8260,000,000 of bonds in the last three years we are warranted in assuming that it wiH be necessary to issue a similar amount in the next three years, and that this will continue to go on. Do you think that this is the right policy for our government to pursue? Every time a bond is Issued the oppression of the men who toil is increased. The interest on these bondsls not produced in the banks or in the offices of the cities. It has to come out of the industry of the country. It has to come from the products of a country, and the products of a country are created by the men who toil; the men who make and cultivate farms, who build and operate railroads, the men who build cities; the men who do the work of the land; the men wjio make our civilization possible. For I say to you that swaHowtail coats and big shirt fronts never yet laid the foundation of empire; purple and fine linen never yet built a mighty state; perfumed handkerchiefs and bright neckties are not the forces that sustain the flag of our country in time of peril. The people who have to pay the interest on these bonds and ultimately have to pay the principal, whose sweat and whose toil have to produce the product to do it, derive not one farthing’s benefit from these bonds. The men who get the benefit of these bond issues are the class of people who manage by the aid of government to Hck the cream and devour the fruit of other men’s industry. Let the American people follow the suggestions of Mr. Schurz, and our country will become a bond issuing country in perpetuity, and the farther down the vista of time the American patriot glances the darker will be the cloud and the heavier will be the burden which his children must face. National Honor. Mr. Schurz and Mr. Cockran wring their hands in horror over what they call the prospect of sullying the national honor and paying our obligations or the interest on our obligations in anything else but gold, and they point to the fact that in 1890 congress declared practically that it was the policy of this government to keep everything on a gold basis; that the world had accepted this, and for us to disregard that declaration would place us in the light of repudiators and dishonest men before the world. Just see how little substance it takes to enable a rhetorician to fill the air with ghosts. When was our great debt created? Long before 1890. And what kind of money did we get for the bonds we sold? We got paper for some and gold and silver for the remainder. Neither Mr. Schurz nor any other mortal has been able to point out wherein you wrong a creditor when you pay him in exactly the same money that he gave you. Neither he nor any other mortal has been able to point wherein you do an injustice to any man when you pay a creditor in money that has exactly the same purchasing power, that will buy as much property of any and every kind and as much labor as did the money he gave you. I will agree with Mr. Schurz that a creditor should not be paid in money the purchasing power of which is much less than was that of the money that he gave to the debtor, but if it is dishonest to pay a creditor in money that is cheaper than the money that he gave the debtor I ask you and ask the American people whether it is not dishonest to compel a debtor to pay a creditor in money that has twice the purchasing power as had the money which he got from the creditor? If paying the creditor in cheaper money than he gave the debtor is repudiation, I ask whether compelling a debtor to pay his debt in money that is twice as dear as the money he got is not robbery? Bonds Payable In Coin. What are the facts? For both Mr. Schurz and Mr. Cockran carefully avoid referring to them. Substantially all of the bonds and interest bearing securities of the United States now in the hands of our creditors at home and abroad provide on their face that they are payable not in gold, but in coin. No man could possibly be deceived in buying one of those bondrf and, with the exception of the bonds issued during this administration, they were not paid for in gold, but were paid for in coin, which meant gold and silver. What is true of the principal of these bonds applies equally to the annual interest. Every individual in the United States or in Europe that holds one of these bonds knew at the time he got it that the principal and interest were payable in gold or silver at the option of the government. You remember that a little over a year ago the president was so bent on fastening the gold standard upon our country that he asked congress to authorize the issue of gold bonds, which he said could be floated on a lower rate of interest, but congress refused to do it. Thereupon the government issued bonds of the same character that it had formerly-issued—that is, coin bonds—and, according to the presi-dent,-they brought less money in the market because of the fact that they were not payable in gold- The bankers got them cheaper than they could otherwise have got them by reason of the fact that they were

payable in x4n and not in gold. And yet, in the fa<’j of these well known facts, Messrs. Schurz and Cockran have the assurance to tell us that we will be guilty of repudiation and of sullying the national honor if we do not pay those bonds in gold. Suppose a man advocating the coinage of silver were to stand before an intelligent audience and make such an argument as that, what would they call him? As I remember it, one batch of bonds was sold in the market for about 817,000,000 less than the president assured us they would have brought hdS they been payable in gold. Yet these bonds are, like all other outstanding bonds that were sold, cheaper by reason of the fact that they were payable in gold or silver, and instead of the national honor requiring us to pay those bonds in gold national honor common sense and eternal justice alike forbid our paying those bonds in gold if to pay them in gold win cost the American people one dollar more than it would to pay them in silver. If It Is wrong to unjustly withhold anything from the creditor that is due him under the contract, then it is a crime to compel a debtor to pay something that he does not owe. Greenbacks, Etc. But the bonds issued by the present administration were issued for the purpose of redeeming greenbacks and treasury notes in gold, and we are told that to pursue any other policy will be repudiation. Let us sea These greenbacks and treasury notes have been outstanding almost ever since the war, and not ope of the several hundred millions that are outstanding is payable in gold. But this is not all. The government has taken pains all along to tell the world exactly what these bills would be paid in. On March 18, 1869, congress passed what was called the “credit strengthening act,” reading as follows: “That the faith of the United States is solemnly pledged to the payment in coin or its equivalent of all of the obligations of the United States not bearing interest known as United States notes, and all the Interest bearing obligations of the United States, except in cases where the law provides they may be paid in a currency other than gold or silver.” Notice here the specific declaration made in 1869 that both the noninterest bearing obligations and the Interest bearing obligations of the United States were payable in coin, gold and silver. Then, on Jan. 14, 1875, six years later, the specie resumption act was passed, to take effect Jan. 1, 1879. It did not provide for resuming in gold, but for resuming in specie, which meant gold and silver. Matthews Resolution. Three years later, on the 25th day of January, 1878, the senate passed a resolution which has become known as the “Matthews resolution,” because it was introduced by Senator Matthews, a RepubHcan from Ohio, and the house passed the same resolution on Jan. 28. This resolution reads as follows: “That all the bonds of the United States Issued or authorized to be Issued under the acts of congress hereinbefore recited are payable, principal and interest, at the option of the government of the United States, in silver dollars of the coinage of the United States, containing 412 grains each of standard silver, and that to restore to its coinage such silver coins as a legal tender in payment of said bonds, principal and interest is not in violation of the public faith nor in derogation of the rights of the public creditor. ” Consider this resolution a minute. It was introduced by a Republican and passed by both houses of congress, and it expressly declares that all of the bonds already issued and all that may thereafter be issued under the acts of congress were payable, principal and interest, in silver dollars. This resolution did not change the character of the bonds nor of the obligation. It could not. It simply declared what was the law at that time—that is, that the government, being the debtor, had the option of paying in any kind of money named in the bond. And inasmuch as the bonds were payable in coin, and coin meant gold and silver, the government had the right that every debtor has of declaring which money it would pay in. If there had been a misunderstanding about the question before that, there was a notice to all the world. And, mark you, no fault was found with this; no bondholders complained at that time; neither the eastern nor the European bondholders sent their bonds over and claimed that there was a misunderstanding. They were not thrown on the market., There was no talk of repudiation. And if they were payable in silver then, when was the contract changed so as to compel us to pay gold now? A contract has two sides to it, and every increased obligation is supposed to carry with it an increased consideration. And even if it were true that congress had thereafter by mere resolution declared that all obligations should thereafter be paid In gold, it would not make them so payable. Congress, as a matter of fact, never made such a declaration. But if it had it would be void if it increased the burdens of the debtor. Suppose congress had by resolution declared that the holders of those bonds should give to the United States an additional sum of money to what they originally paid for them. Would the holders be obliged to pay? Nay, would not you have heard an outcry about robbery? If congress could not change the contract with reference to the creditor, it could not legally change it with reference to the debtor. So you see that under the contracts with the creditors and under the declarations of the government made to the world from time to time the bonds and the interest thereon, as well as the greenbacks and treasury notes, are payable in silver at the option of the government. And the eastern bankers so understood this all along and made no complaint, and it was not until Mr. Harrison was president and Mr. Foster was secretary of the treasury that they broached the subject of having these treasury notes redeemed in gold. This was in 1891. Paying Greenbacks In Gold. From Jan. 1, 1879, to Jan. 1, 1891, only a little over 834,000,000 of greenbacks were presented for redemption, or an average of a little over 82,500,000 per year. You see there was no run on the treasury then because the policy pursued by the treasury up to that time did not offer a special inducement to make a run on it, but at that time Mr. Foster and the Harrison administration yielded to the influence of the eastern bankers and ordered treasury notes to be redeemed in gold alone, and the Cleveland administration did the same. This was in the fall of 1891, and see what has happened since then. During the four years following that date 8351,000,000 of greenbacks and treasury notes were presented for redemption and redeemed, and to carry out this policy of redeeming these notes in gold President Cleveland Issued the 8260,000,000 of bonds. Think of this amount! The burdens of the American people increased 8260,000,000 in four years without benefiting the debtor a farthing. Hud the same policy been purs’.icd which wo pursued before of redeeming these notes in gold or silver at the option of the government very few of them would have

been presented. There would have been no disturbance in the money market and no necessity of issuing bonds. Criminal Policy. This poHcy was a criminal policy, and it is a child of and in keeping with this entire movement to fasten a gold standard upon the world. It is dishonest. It loads the people of this country with burdens for which it gives them nothing in return. It is a policy from which the masses of mankind all over the world derive no benefit—a policy which benefits only a few men who call themselves financiers, but whose mission in life seems to be to get something for nothing whenever they can get the government to assist them in doing so. Amount of Products to Pay National Debt. Let us see how tile policy of the American government has affected the American people and who has derived the benefit of that policy. After we had resumed specie payments we were on the same basis with the other nations of the earth, and our national debtamounted to about 82,000,000,000. At that time wheat was worth upward of 81 per bushel, and the price of all other American products ranged in proportion. At that time it would have taken about 81,800,000,000 bushels of wheat or a proportionate amount of other American products to pay the whole national debt Since that time we have been paying for nearly a quarter of a century, and at present the debt is a little less than 81.800,000,000, wheat is selling at less than 50 cents a bushel, and the prices of all other American products on the average are in the same proportion, and today it will take 3,600,000,000 bushels of wheat or a proportionate amount of other American products to pay the remainder of the national debt —that is, after we have paid for 20 years, after a generation has labored to reduce this debt, it now will take twice theamount of American products to pay the remainder of the debt that would have been necessary to pay the whole of the debt at the time we resumed specie payments. Who Profits Now? We are a producing nation, and the policy of our government has tended to reduce the prices of our products. Twenty yeaijs ago when a foreign bondholder took one of our 81,000 bonds and clipped off the interest coupons for a year, amounting, say, to 850, he could buy with them only from 40 to 50 bushels of wheat or a proportionate amount of other American products. Today when that bondholder clips off the coupons for a year's interest that same 850 will buy him 100 bushels of wheat or a proportionate amount of other American products. I ask you, my fellow citizens, in whose Interest has the American government been run during this time? And if this policy is to be continued, if this gold standard is to be maintained, if we are to go on with a constantly increasing population and a nonincreasing volume of money, then there must bo a further and a continuous decline in prices over the world, and when another generation has spent its life paying at this national debt It will theniiake nearly twice ns much of American products to pay the remainder of the debt then existing as it .will take today to pay It. is it any wonder that the gold standard people do not want this subject discussed? Is it any wonder that they charge that we are trying to arraign class against class when we call attention to what are simply the hard facts? The American people are the sufferers, and the only people who profit by this policy are the foreign and the eastern bondholders and their American agents. In one of the bond transactions under the present administration a New York banker and his associates, who represent English capital, made upward of 810,000,000 out of the government in a few weeks. Is it any wonder that those men want to continue this policy? Do you really think, my fellow citizens, that a policy which lowers the price of all American products while it Increases the American debt can be said to be a wise American policy? Indebtedness of This Country. The indebtedness of our country, when you consider the vast corporation, municipal and other debts, almost baffles computation. It is nearly all held abroad. The interest has to be raised by the toil and the labor of American people It has to be paid by American products. Shall we pursue a policy which will keep the price of American products down so low that it takes practically everything that the American nation can earn to annually pay the interest on that indebtedness, and thus destroy their ability to buy, which means a destruction of the American market? Can we reasonably hope for any prosperity in the future? Talk about maintaining this gold standard and paying these vast sums In gold! Why, there Is not gold enough in all the world to pay a fractional part of the interest on our debt in gold, and In recent years we have repeatedly seen gold manipulated in such a manner that a few great institutions control It In other words, they were able to corner the available gold. I have already shown you that In the entire United States there Is only 8137,000,000 of available gold. That includes all the banks have, and the amount of gold in sight in the world which is available at any time Is very small, and we therefore must expect if we stay on this basis that gold will be cornered repeatedly from time to time The speculators will profit, and the producers will suffer. Steadiness of Standard. Mr. Schurz claims that the gold standard is a steady standard and therefore desirable for the commercial transactions of the world. Other gold standard advocates have made the same declaration. It is impossible to understand why they have done so, for all the world’s experience is to the contrary. England is a gold standard country. The Bank of England rests on a gold standard. France is a bimetallic country. While it has coined no silver since 1878, the Bank of France rests on the bimetallic basis. During the ten years from 1875 to 1884, inclusive, the Bank of England was obliged to change the rate of discount 66 times; the Bank of France only 18 times. In other words, during those ten years the bimetallic standard was five times as steady as the gold standard. And during the seven years from 1885 to 1891, inclusive, the Bank of England was forced to change the rate of discount 59 times; the Bank of France only 6 times. When one metal alone is the standard, it is affected not only by the change in production, but by reason of its limited quantity is subject to- manipulation, whereas when the standard is supplied from two sources there is greater steadiness in the supply and the volume being so much greater it is more difficult to manipulate. Prices and Legislation. Mr. Cockran argues that you cannot change values, and then he uses this language, “A man may change prices by legislation. ” That sentence admits the charge luade by the bimetallists and is in harmony with the views of the greatest European statesmen, who claim, with the bimetal lists, that when the governments of the world demonetize silver they by legislation reduce the supply of money in the world, and when they adopt a single gold standard

they by legislation Increase the demand tor gold, so that by legislation the law of supply and demand was In such a manner interfered with as to force up the purchasing power of gold to twice what it formerly was. If our committee were not so poor, I should recommend that they give Mr Cockran a check for traveling 1,000 miles to make that admission. Cockran on Wages. Mr. Cockran further gave us the benefit of his views on political economy In this language, “Wages depend on production and nothing else. ” Again he says, “Wages denend absolutely on production. ’ ’ If this Is correct and nothing further is needed than to produce, then all that is necessary is for tho mills to start up and go to producing, and the more they produce the higher the wages they can pay, and everybody will be happy. If there are any manufacturers in the house, I ask you how this would strike you? Has Mr. Cockran covered the case? Is there not something wanting? Has he not left out the most essential element, and that is the market? No manufacturer can run his mills unless he has a market for the things which his employees make, and It is strange that all of the gold standard orators of the country persistently shut their eyes to the fact that until we restore the market there Is no use of opening the mills. Wages depend on the prices paid for the things that are manufactured. The manufacturer cannot run his mills and pay high wagos and accept low prices for his products. Labor creates property, and tho price of that property must necessarily fix the scale of wages Opening Milla. Major McKinley recently told some gentlemen that he thought it was more important to tills country, that w’e should open tho mills to the laborer than to open the mints to the mine owners. This la an artful statement, calculated to deceive. Suppose he is taken at his word, and every mill owner in America opens up his mills. How long will they run? And, if they are obliged to shut down, why will they be? Because there is no market for the things they make, and I say to Major McKinley that tho only key that will oi>en the mills and keep them open is an increase in the volume of money in this country. Let prices gradually come up to the bimetallic standard, and you will restore the purchasing power to the country. The farmer will again be able to buy, the railroad will be busy, and every business will increase with the general prosperity. The manufacturer will be busy, and the bankers and merchants will again be doing business. That 1s the only way in which the mills can again bo permanently opened. Labor Paid In Gold. I recently heard a gold standard man make this argument to laborers: “Why, you earn your broad by tho sweat of your brow. You begin toiling early In the morning, and you work until night, and when night comes you want to lie paid in gold. You want a dear dollar. You want a dollar of the greatest purchasing power to buy you us much of tho comforts of life as is possible.” Avery seductive argument. It looks plausible on its face; but, like all the arguments offered on this gold subject, it is fallacious, calculated to deceive and utterly ignores tho fact that the laborer needs a market for whut he produces. It is an insult to tho intelligence of tho laborer to tell him that the gold dollar buys more than any other dollar if you do not at the same time tell him how he can make that gold dollar. If this subject of prices were tho mere scramble between buyer and seller, then the idea that the dear dollars were in the interest of laborers might bo correct, but the trouble >is that a dear dollar not only in this country, but in all countries, lowers prices, and therefore means not only lower wages, but by lowering prices and leaving the fixed charges the same it destroys the market. It has disabled those people from buying who formerly bought. To the loborer it presents itself this way: A dear dollar and no market for the things he makes, the mill closed, himself out of employment and his family out of bread. China and India. China and India have lately been held up to us as horrible examples of the condition that wo will reach if we coin both gold and silver. I have pointed out to you the effects that a reduced volume of money has upon tho prosperity of a country—that as the volume grows smaller and smaller tho people sink lower and lower. In China the amount of money in circulation is only about 82.50 per capita, in India about 88 per capita. And while many things in both countries and in other countries that have but little money in circulation have contributed to the present unhappy condition of the people the most potent of all causes has been the inadequate circulation of money. And if this gold standard is to be maintained for the world—if, as I have said, our population is to go on increasing at enormous rates all over the world and the volume of money does not increase—the tendency of our country will be directly toward the same conditions that exist in China and ludiu. Local Creditor. But, says some one, if you add silver to the volume of money, will you not be injuring pur own local creditors who have fnoney loaned out? I say no—emphatically no. No creditor, be he banker or private individual, can possibly benefit or profit by having universal bankruptcy all around him. Every creditor, be he banker or merchant or private individual, does profit by having general activity around. It opens new channels for his capital, it creates a demand for his money, and he profits by general prosperity. There is just that difference between falling and rising prices. Falling prices not only injure the debtor, but if long continued they in the end destroy the creditor, while rising prices help the debtor and by producing general prosperity increase the prosperity of the creditor. Not a Partisan Question. ( In 1861, when the drumbeats called you to arms, you were not asked whether you were a Republican or a Democrat; you were not asked whether you were a Whig or an independent—you were only asked whether you loved the flag and were ready to fight for it. In 1896 the question is not whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, whether you are a Populist or a Prohibitionist. The question is, Do you love republican Institutions and will you help maintain them? We are at the fork of the road. By turning to the left wo pass permanently under a British policy; we go into the region of dear money and low prices—into the region of perpetual hard times for all men who toil; wo go into the region where we will have Turkey, Egypt, India and Ireland for associates. But if we turn to the right; if we repudiate Hanna and his boodle; if we respect the memory of tho fathers; if we again declare, as they did, that we are independent of every nation on earth, then this republic will leap forward on a new career of grandeur and of glory, a career of prosperity and of happiness, a career that will elevate the sons of men and be a blessing to the people of the earth. ,