Rensselaer Republican, Volume 27, Number 49, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 August 1896 — Page 10

pie. As much Is furnished as will stay In circulation. The amount In circulation at the present time is estimated by the Director of the U. S. mint at $115,000,000, or $2.96 per capita, which is nearly twice as much as we have in active circulation. We do not begin to use as much silver ih dally 'business as is used in England. This system, established eighty, years, ago, was the beginning of what is now known as the gold standard composite legal tender. System. It is a system based on Gresham’s law. It recognizes the fact that if two metals are put in circulation without limit at a ratio fixed by law they will both stay in circulation only so long as that ratio corresponds with the market ratio. As soon as the fluctuation of the market makes one metal more valuable than the other, las compared with the coinage ratio, it will disappear from ~elrcula-~ tion. At the time this system was adopted in England the object aimed at, so far as silver was concerned, was not to exclude or limit its circulation, but to get it into circulation and keep it there. Prior to that time the law in England was in substance Just what the free silverists propose to give us now. It fixed the legal ratio at 21 shillings. In, silver to the sovereign in gold and gave both metals equal rights of coinage. But at that ratio full weight silver was worth more than 21 shillings to the sovereign, and so would not stayin circulation. To remedy this evil the law of 1816 was passed. And it succeeded tn accomplishing that object perfectly. It gave to the people of England a practical bimetallism—the actual circulation of gold and silver without the disturbance of either by the other, and this in a higher degree than has ever been enjoyed for so long a time by any other people In the world. But for all that I think there is a better system. It is international bimetallism, of which I shall speak rnqre fully hereafter.

THE FRENCH SYSTEM. In 180? France established a double standard system by providing- for the coinage of gold and silver on equal* terms at a ratio of 15% to 1. The principal silver coin was the five franc piece, about the weight of our silver 'dollar. The ratio adopted was-ahnost exactly the commercial ratio at the time, the average for 1803 being 15.41 to 1. But within two years silver fell ■ to 15.T9 to 1, and for fifty years following 15% to 1 was, as a rule, a slight overvaluation of silver. The difference was very little. Only three times within that period did silver fall as low as 16 to 1. But that overvaluation, slight as it was, was enough to set Gresham’s law in operation, and the gold money of France disappeared, leaving her little else b< sides silver five franc pieces for use. The discovery of shining yellow sand In the tail race of a California saw-mill In 1848 was the beginning of a greatly increased production of gold. For the ten years preceding 1$5() the world’s average annual production was about $36,000,000; for the ten years following, $133,000,000—an increase of nearly four-fold. This disturbed the commercial ratio between gold and silver gomewhat, although the change was not great The ratio was between 15,19 to 1 and 15.46 to 1 from 1831 to 1860. But this made 15% a slight undervaluation of silver in France, and in accordance with Gresham’s lau> again silver . flowed out of France and gold flowed in until there was a great scarcity of silver coin . In the meantime Belgium, Italy, Switzerland and Greece had adopted the double standard system with coins of the same value as those of Frange, and In 1865 these nations entered into a convention or treaty with each other T)y Which was formed what is known ps the Latin Union. By its terms all 'the powers which were parties to it ■engaged to coin silver and gold at a iratlo of 15% to 1, and to support each other In the maintenance of that ratio by receiving at their respective treasuries and banks the five fraiac silver coins and all gold coins of the other powers at their face value. The arrangement worked well until 1871. when silver began to fall. In 1872 it was 15.63 to 1; in 1873 it was 15.92, and In 1874 it was 16.17. It became manifest that unless something were done to prevent it the inexorable operation > of Gresham's law would take gold away again and leave them only the cheaper silver. And by special conventions in 1874, 1875, 1876, and 1878 the coinage of silver was limited and then entirely suspended in the Latin Union. By its terms the original convention of 1865 expired In 1880, but it has been twice renewed, and is still in force, as modified in the manner Just stated. *

FALSE ASSUMPTION OF THE CHICAOO PLATFORM. It la worth a moment’s time In passl- - to point out In this connection a misleading statement In the Chicago' platform. It IS there said: Gold monometallism la a British policy*, and its adoption has brought other nations Into financial servitude to London. It is not only un-American, but anti-American, and It can be fastened on the United States only by the stifling of that indomitable spirit and love of liberty which proclaimed our pollt- 1 leal Independence in 1776 and won in the war of the revolution. The Import of this declaration Is that the present goinage system of the United States which ita friends are trying to maintain Is British monometallism. It means that or nothing. It was intended to be so understood afld to affect tip minds of men accordingly., Now the fact Is that the present American «yßtem is aore unlike the British system than that of, any other great European nation . In England there is no toll legal tender silver at all There Is silver, as I have said, and more of It In active circulation than with us, but It Is legal tender for only forty shillings. ‘ '-•?-> - In France, on the other hand, ye find g gystem almost Identical with our own.

In both countries gpld and silver are legal tender without limit, and in both countries the coinage of silver has been suspended because it became manifest that to continue-it longer would make It impossible to keep the gold. According to the estimates of the director of the U. S. Mint, France had, on Jan. 1, 189 A ?850,000,fX)0 of gold, and $430,fnllJegal tender: silver—Just the amount we have now. Of other European countries the following had at same date the amoqhts stated in full legal tender silver: Germany. $105,000,000: Belgium, $48,000,000; Italy, $21,000,000; little Switzerland, $lO,000.000; Spain, $120,000,000; AustrigHungary, $80,000,000; and -Holland, $53,000,000. That’s the company we are in; not that of England at all. And' nobody Is proposing to adopt the English system in this country. What shall we think of a eon vein ionwhich puts such a mis-statement In its platform? Did the men who wrote it, and the convention which adopted it know no better? Or were they simply practicing on tlje credulity of the people? HISTORY OF COINAGE IN THE UNITEii STATES. H?' When the victorious colonies emerged from the revolutionary war and took up the problem of self-government under a constitution they had little metallic money of any kind, and that of the moßt miscellaneous character. Nearly all the Coins In circulation were of foreign mintage. The one among them best known was the Spanish silver dollar. The establishment of a mint and a system of coinage was a subject which engaged the attention of the ablest statesmen of the young republic. Amohg the 1 discussions of it are three great papers worthy to stand beside any studies in finance: ever given to the world. The first is the report of Robert Morris to the Congress of the Confederation Jan. 15, 1782, of a plan of national coinage and for the establishment of a mint; the second a paper on the same subject by Tlios. Jefferson, understood to have been communicated to Congress at the same time as the report of Robert Morris; and the third a report of Alex. Hamilton, then Secretary of the Treasury, to Congress, Jan. 28, 1701,—1t Is to-be regretred that these papers are not accessible to the general reader. Their wise, calm, sagacious discussion of the subject would make wholesome reading In these feverish times.

Each of these papers recognizes h's a first consideration the propriety of adopting the Spanish silver dollar as . the unit of value of the new system because it was already the unit in use and the coin most familiar to the people. On this subject Mr. Jefferson said: In firing-the unit of-money these circumstances are of a 1 principal importance. I- That it be of a convenient size to he applied as a measure to the common 1 money transactions of life. 2. That its parts and multiples beuln an easy proportioii io feqyb other "so as' to facilitate the Money Arithmetic. 3. That the unit and its.parts or divisions be so nearly of the value of the kno'vn.coins as that they may be of easy adoption for the people. The Spanish dollar seems to fulfill all these conditions. The unit or dollar Is a known coin and the most familiar of all to the minds of the people. It Is already adopted - from. South to North, has identified our currency, and therefore happily offers Itself as a Unit already introduced. Our public debt, our requisitions and their apportionments have given it actual and long possession of the place of unit. The course of our commerce, too, will bring us more of this than of any other foreign coin, and therefore renders it more worthy of attention. On the subject of the ratio between gold and silver he said: Just*principles will lead as to disregard legaj proportions altogether; to Inquire into the market price of gold in the several countries with which we shall be principally connected in commerce, and to take an average from them. , Perhaps we might with safety lean to a proportion somewhat above par for gold, considering our neighborhood and commerce with the sources of the coins and the tendency which the high price of gold in. Spain has to draw thither all that of tbelr mines, leaving silver principally for our and other markets. It is not Impossible that, 15 for 1 may be found an eligible proportion. I state it, however, as conjectural only. , His final recommendations »-com--1 prised the following, among others: To appoint proper persons to assay and examine .with the utmost nccuracy practlcable the Spanish milled dollars of different dates In circulation with us.

To appoint also proper persona to Inquire what are the proportions between the values of fine gold and fine silver at the markets of the several countries with which ice are, or probably may be connected in commerce, and what Vould be the proper proportion here, having regard to the average of their values at those markets and to .other circumstances, and to report the same to the committee to be by them laid before Congress. The Inevitable operation of Gresham’s law* was dearly seen and recognized by Hamilton. On that subject he said: One conseguence of overvaluing either metal in respect to the other, is the banishment of that which is undervalued. * * • This consequence Is deemed by some not very material; and there are even persons who, from a fanciful predilection to gold, are willing to Invite It, even by a higher price. But general utility will best be promoted by a due proportion of both metals. If gold be most convenient In large payments, silver Is best adapted to the more minute and ordinary circulation. He was fully alive to the Importance of conforming the legal ratio to the commercial ratio with the utmost possible exactness. On this he said: In establishing a proportion between these metals, there seems to be an option of one of two things: To approach, aa nearly aa can be ascertained, the mean or average proportion In wbat may be called the commercial world; or. to retain that which now exists In the United States. As far as'these happen to coincide, they will render the course to be pursued more plain and more certain.* • • In Holland, the greatest money market of Europe, gold waa to allver, in December, 1789, as 1 to 14.88; and In tli'at of London It has been, for sofne time past, bat llttle'dlfferent, . approaching, per ha pa, ; something near Ito IC. It baa been seen that the existing proportion between the two rnetala In tUa country Is about 1 to 16. * • *

The only question seems to be, whether the value of gold ought not to be a little lowereu, to bring It to a more exact level with •the two markets which hare been mentioned; but as the ratio of 1 to 15 is so nearly conformable to the state of those markets, and best agrees with that of our own, It will probably be found the most eligible. Observe the scrupulous care with Which these great thinkers approached the question, what pains they were at to be sure that the gold dollar akd the silver dollar should be of the same intrinsic commercial value, and then turn to that wild gathering at Chicago, milling madly in where statesmen tread softly with its clamor for silver dollars'at 10 to 1, regardless of all values, independently of all creation and reckless of all conseqdences. And to cap the climax they invoke the sacred name of; Jejferson in the platform that sets .forth’ the demand. •OUR FiRST COrNAGE LAWr 1 1 The act of Congress establishing the mint- and regulating the coinage was passed April 2, 1792. ft provided for the coinage of $lO, $5 and $2.50 gold pieces weighing 24-J4 grains off fine golf? to the dollar, and stiver pieces weighing 371J4 grains of fine silver to the dollar, being at'the ratio of 15 grains of silver to oUe of gold In weight. The silver dollars were described as .“Dollars, or units, each to bfi of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current.” The gold and silver coins were all legal tender for all payments without regard to amount, and were coined on the same terms at the mint, 1 This was a double standard system, pure and simple, and the first one, I believe, ever expressly and intentionally enacted by law. The French double standard system was' enacted, as T have stated, in 1803—nine years later. , V • • • TItE UNIT. Great stress is laid In the arguments of free. Silverists upon the point that the original unit of value was the silver dollar. That is true, as respects the language of the law. But In a pure double standard one metal has the 1 same legal relation to value as the o-ther in every substantial sense. And so thought Mr. Hamilton in our own case. In his report referred to he said: fThe—next Inquiry toward a right determination of what ought to be . the future money unit of the Cnitt-d States turns upon these questions: Whether it ought to be peculiarly attached to either of the metals, in -nrefgreucig_to the other or not; and, if to either, to which of them.

The suggestions and proceedings hitherto have had for their object the Annexing of it emphatically to "the silver dollar. A resolution of. Congress on the Oth of July, 1785, declares that the money unit of the United States shall be a dollar; and another resolu..ti.on. of the Bth of August, 1,786, fixes that dollar at 375 grains and. 64 hundredths of a grain of fine silver. The same resolution, however, determines that there shall also be two gold coins: one of 24G grains and 268 parts of a grain of pure gold, equal to ten dollars; and the other, of half that quantity •>f pure gold, equal to five dollars. And It is not explained whether either of the two species of coins, of gold or silver, shall have any greater legality In payments than the other. Yet it would seem that a preference in this particular is necessary to execute the idea of attaching the unit exclusively to one kind. If each of them be as valid as the other, In payments to any amount, it is not obvious in what-effectual sense either of them can be deemed the money unit, rather than the other. If the general declaration, that the dollar shall be the money unit of the United States, could be understood to give it a superior legality in, payments, the institution of coins of gold, and the declaration that each of .them shall be equal to a certain number of dollars, would apear to destroy that inference. And the circumstance of making the dollar the unit in the money of account, seems to be rather a matter of form than of substance * When Congress took up the subject the dollar was the unit of account in use; that is, the word dollar was the term in which values were expressed and computations made; and the thing represented by the word was the Spanish silver dollar which was in practice the measure of value. Congress adopted both the word and the thing. It ascertained the number of grains of sliver in the Spanish dollar and made that quantity of silver the U. S. silver dollar. It divided that number of grains by fifteen and made that quantity of gold the U. S. gold dollar. Then It made both kinds of dollar equal under the law. The silver dollar was called the unit because it was, in fact, the starting point. But the money would have been the same, Its value the same, and every element of Its utility the same if the law had called the gold dollar the unit, or called them both units. So that the mere circumstance that the silver dollar was called the unit is of no significance In this discussion.

SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION. Our double standard worked very well for a little while, but after a few years the market value of silver a’s compared with gold began to decrease, and so the balance of our double standard began to be disturbed. By 1821 the commercial ratio was nearly 16 to L Gresham's law cams into play. Gold being of more value as bullion than it was as money went out of circulation and left the country. The subject was several times before Congress. In 1819 the then Secretary of the Treasury, W. H. Crawford, made a report on the subject In that report' he said: It is believed that gold, when compared with silver, has been for many yean appreciating In value; and now, everywhere, commands in the money market! a higher value then that which has been assigned to It In state# where lte relative value Is greatest. If this Is correct no Injustice will result from a change In the relative legal value of gold and silver, to at to make it correspond with their relative marketable value. In 1821 a committee of the House made a report on the subject In which they -said: ,v ' That they are of the opinion that the Tains of American gold compared with stiver ought to be somewhat higher than Ay law at present established. On Inquiry they find that gold coin*, both foreign and of the United States, have, In a

great measure, disappeared; and from £he best calculation that can be made there Is reason to apprehend they will be wholly banished from circulation, and it ought not to be a matter of surprise, under our present insulations, that thi? should be the’ ease. To remedy these evils and bring gold back Into circulation, Congress, on June,2B, 1834, provided by law for a ’ diminution In the weight of gold coins, making it 23.20 grains of pure gold to the dollar, instead of 24.75, as In the act of 1792. The weight of the silver dollar remained at 371.25 grains, as before. If you will divide, that by 23,20, the weight of the new gold dollar, you Will find the quotient to be 16.00 as nearly n as you’ can state it in two decimals. In 1837 the weight of the gold coins whs Increased by law (fdr what reason I know not) to the extent of two hundredths of a grain to the dollar, making the weight of it 23.22 grains of pure gold Instead of 23.20. This made the ratio 15,0 ff to 1, as nearly as It'can be stated In two decimals, Which has remained the legal ratio to this time. And this, we call without substantial Inaccuracy, a ratio of 16 to 1. But this ratio did not exactly hit the market value, either. It was a slight undervaluation of silver. Consequently silver left the country Us gold had done before . The discovery of gold in California In IS4B added largely to our supply of that metal, and by 1853 we had practically a gold metallic currency, but not even enough sliver for the purposes of small change.

NEW RATIO FOR FRACTIONAL COINS, By the act of 1792, which up to, this time had not been changed as regards silver, the fractional coins Were of the same relative value as the silver dollars. That is, the half dollar contained Just half as much fine silver as the dollar, and so of the quarters and dimes. And they were all legal tender without limit. Consequently the fractional coins were just as valuable to export as the dollars, and when silver was worth more In the market than the coinage ratio they left the country. By an act approved Feb. 21, 1853, Congress undertook to remedy this evil in this way: the amount of fine silver in the half dollar was reduced from 185.82% grains, which was its weight under the law of 1792, to 172.08 grains, and the other fractional coins in proportion; and these coins were made legal tender for only five dollars. This made a coinage ratio for the fractlonal silver coins of 14.82 to 1, while the market ratio was 15.33 to 1. Isl that situation a pound of silver was worth more as bullion than as fractional coin, and there was therefore no inducement to export the coin. And we did not export it. It remained in Circulation until the suspension of all specie payments after the beginning of the civil war.

THE SILVER DOLLAR. In the meantime the silver dollar had a. curious history. As I have said, by the act of 1792 the silver dollar was made the Unit of value and legal tender to unlimited amount. But for all that It would not stay in circulation. And the reason was this: It contained a little less than the Spanish dollar. We had at that time a considerable trade with the West Indies where the Spanish dollars abounded. The difference between the two dollars was not so great but that our silver dollars were readily taken in the West Indies. There was therefore something to tie made by exporting our silver dollars to that country and bringing back Spanish dollars to be re-coined at our mint. And so Our mints were kept busy at the public expense coining dollars for the benefit of the money brokers. To stop this unprofitable business President Madison, In 1S()6, Ordered that no more silver dollars should be coined. And no more were coined for thirty years. This would have ended the exportation of silver except for the fact which I have stated that the fractional coin had the same value proportlonaljy as the dollar. It was only when that was reduced In 1853, as just detailed, that we were able to keep our fractional coin at borne. And so it happened that up t 6 1553 a period of sixty-one years after the silver dollar was made the unit of value, less than four million of them were coined in the United States, ail told, and of them almost none were In circulation. Within the same period $231,000,000 In gold had been coined, of which an abundant supply remained In circulation? Although we started out on a coinage ratio adjusted to the market ratio as closely as we could make It the change In the market ratio aeon drove out our gold. In 1834 we changed the ratio ln-order to coax the gold beck. It came, and then the silver went odt. We couldn’t even keep our silver dimes until we reduced the sliver In them. And during all this time the variations of the market ratio at a yearly average never exceeded a point and a quarter between extremes. The highest price of sliver between 1792 and 1853 was 15 to 1 and the lowest 16.25 to 1. And yet there are men who think or who say, rather, for It seems to me Impossible that those men think at all that we could have free coinage at 16 to 1 with a market ratio of 81 to 1, and keep both metals In circulation. THE SYSTEM Of 1853. The law of 1863' gave us practically the English system of 1816. That law, as I have told you, gave the English people gold coin aa unlimited legal tender with ailver aa legal tender for tony shillings. The law of 1853 gave the people of the United States gold coin aa full legal tender, and ailver for legal tender for five dollars and In both cases the real value of the silver coins was made leas than tbelr nominal value to keep them from being exported or melted down for bullion. So far the two systems were exactly the same. There was only this difference. There was on our statute book authority to coin full logal tender dollars. But that

statute was a dead letter. There were no dollars;—or next to none, in circulation, under it, ahd no incentive to make more at that time because silver was not worth as much as dollars as it was as bullion. So that for all practical purposes the law of 1853 Introduced in this country the English system of 1816. And that lasted until the suspension of specie payments at the breaking out of the war. . _ I have kept the promise I made rou awhile ago In two particulars; I have taxed your patience pretty heavily, as' I forewarned you I would, but I have proved the 1 truth of Gresham’s law by the world’s experience for a hundred years. History teaches no more certain lesson; the law o.f gravitation Is no more inexorable in its operation. The circulation of gold and silver on the Chicago plan is impossible. It is silver monometallism In disguise.

—BBXAMUIi THE FORE. There Is only one imaginable semblance of an answer to this argument. It Is that the opening of the mints to the free coinage of silver would make such a demand for it that the price would rise to parity with gold at 16 to 1. Mr. Bryan was in such a hurry to get that claim to the front that on the day of his nomination he sent the fallowing telegram to the New York World:, , , , Chicago, July 10. To the Editor of the World : The restoration of silver to Its ancient place by the side of gold wjll, In my Judgment, restore the parity between both kinds of money and thus permit a general return of prosperity. The World, which did such effective work In behalf of an Income tax, will find a. still larger fleld of, usefulness In supporting the gold and silver coinage of the Constitution. W. J. BRYAN. Is there any reasonable foundation for such a judgment? I grant that the first tendency of free coinage in the United States would be to advance the price of silver. But to what extent would that tendency be effective? An Increase of price, would tend to Increase production. Only the high grade silver mines are being worked now. Hundreds that are now Idle would start Into activity upon even a small Increase In the price of silver. This increased production would tend to check the advance in price. Besides this, an opportunity to sell silver here at more than its market value would tend fd draw it hither from all other countries. The world’s total stock of sllvey eoin Is estimated at four thousand million dollars, to say nothing of bullion and plate. A high price here would start vast quantities of ft toward our shores. And lt» would come and coming as long as the price here was substantially above the market elsewhere. In short, before we could bring stiver to a parity with gold In the United States we would have to lift up the price of all the silver in the world to that level. And this against the Increased production of all the mines in the world, turning out no one knows how much more’ than ever before. What do you think of the man who thinks he knows that that can be done? And what shall we say of the prudence and solid sagacity of a man who, the day of his nomination for the great office of President of the United States tosses off such a prediction ns carelessly as though he were guessing at the, weight of a Nebraska steer?” And mind you, !t will not suffice to raise the price of silver part way to parity—to 25, or 20, or 18 to 1. I have shown you that It takes only a fraction of a point in variation between the coinage ratio and the market ratio to drive out the dearer metal. The price of silver must come to 16 plump, or within a minute fraction of It, to keep both metals in circulation. Mr. Bryan’s prediction Is a rash and unfounded conjecture. *

THE CONSEQUENCES. Let ua consider now in the light of these 1 facts what we have good right to believe will be the certain consequences of the adoption of the 'Chicago plan. The first consequence will be a tremendous shrinkage In the volume of money In the United States. Wo have now about $1,773,000,000 of money, all told. About $567,000,000. of that Is gold. This gold will not circulate with free silver worth only half as much as It Is. It would become a commodity to be bought and Isold just as It was when the greenbacks drove It out of circulation during the war. And this change would have to take place suddenly. It will be as Impossible to come to It gradually as to go without a plunge. The moment that it Is known for sure that the change Is coming there will be a scramble for the gold. Indeed, the scramble Is liable to begin at any time from the mere apprehension of the change. And to take the gobl out of use as money means a shrinkage of $5671000,000 in our currency—practlcnlly one-third Of the whole.

Free sllverlsts sometimes attempt to parry these facts with the statement that there Is.no gold In circulation Dow, that the banks have It all cornered. It Is quite true that most of the gold Is heli by banks, and trust companies, and monied corporations of various kinds, although there Is more or lees of it scattered over the country. A man can get It upon request In reasonable amount,by asking for It at any time. But It Is held, wherever It lfi.jMs money. It Is part of the reserve, which banks and other Institutions hold. If that reserve were not held In gold It would have to be hejd In some other form of money. The gold they hold la part of the aggregate money itock. Jt Is counted in the per capita supply of $21.15 which the U. 8. Treasury department reports for July. I* 1808. The moment It becomes unavailable as money the total stock will be reduced that much, and the vr capita supply will be only tbcut ®U. That la wbat I mean by a stringency—- ...

a sudden contraction of the tstal plyNo thoughtful man will suppose that such an event could occur without a financial crisis of unparalleled severity. To measure, the destruction of credit, business and values that would attend it is beyond human foresight. But we can foresee that amid the crash and the chaos there would be two s,ets of men looking Indifferently <sr. like Nero at burning Rome, and Jf%&lng money out of the general disaster. They would be the silver minq owners, pocketing two dollars for one, and the gold owners reaping a harvest from the premium on gold. And to considerable extent they would be the same men. No one knows what the premium on .gold would be. It reached a hundred and fifty per cent, during the war. If it reached only fifty it would put a profit of nearly $300,000,000 in legal tender money Into the coffers of -the. men \jr.ho held the gold. The second consequence would be but a continuation of the first— the permanent establishment of silver monometallism. I say permanent, because that condition would be as permanent as the law which created It, But does any one believe that we would be content to stay there; to take a place permanently with China, India and South America, as a silver standard nation? I referred a moment ago to the idiotic raving of the Chicago platform about English domlnnfion over our money affaire—the silliest stuff ever put in a political platform. It says: “Gold monometallism is a British policy, and its adoption has brought other nations into financial servitude to London.” England does hold a large part of the trade of the world with au,Jron grasp; but what are the nations which are subject to her? Are they gold standard Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, United States? iNo, Indeed; they are the silver standard nations—China, India, South America. If we want a place among the commercial slaves of Great Britain the way to get It is to adopt the silver standard; If we want to be her rival we must arm ourselves with the same weapons she uses—gold and silver. The doughty warriors who , met at Chicago are not Only spoiling for a fight with England, but propose to make It with a bass-wood club and give her the gun.

THE BAD FAITH OF IT. My last and greatest objection to free coinage on the Chicago plan _ls that it would be a breach bf public faith. As before, I cannot content myself with the mere statement of this proposition; I must prove it. And to do that I must go back again to history. I must tface the steps by which we have come to the place where we arc now, jnd show how and why It is that free sliver coinage at 16 to t woiild'bea v-lo-lation of good faith on the part of the government.- And for this I invoke again yOur considerate patleiice, for I can not make it either short or entertaining. ~ : recent Legislation. I have already sketched the course of legislation In the United States on the subject of coinage and ratios from 1792 to 1853. The next Important law was that of Feb. 12, 1873. This stntute has been the subject of more misrepresentation than ever befel any other legislative act. It was a law covering many matters relative to the mints and coinage; It was Intended, In fact, as a revision of all pre-existing laws on that subject. It contained five or six sections relating to the coinage of gold and silver. The substance of them was about as follows; The gold dollar, without change lu weight or fineness, was made In terms the unit of value; the other gold coins were continued without change, and all gold coin remained legal tender without limit, as before. The fractional silver coins were changed slightly In weight to make them conform exactly In value to corresponding coins of the Latin Union, and they were declared to be legal tender for five dollars, as In the law of 1853. The coinage of the full legal tender dollar of 1792 was suspended, and the trade dollar substituted. This coin contained 378 grains of pure silver besides the alloy (420 grains standard), being 6% grains more than the old silver dollar. The old dollar of 371% grains of fine silver (412% grains standard), was then worth three per cent, more than a gold dollar, and so would not circulate as money. Much less would the more valuable trade dollar circulate. And It was not Intended for that purpose. It was made expressly for foreign trade —especially with China, and to compete with the Mexican dollar In that trade. Nevertheless, It- was Included with the fractional coins as legal tender for five dollars. Apart- from the extra value of the trade dollar this stntute gave us. as matter of law, the English gold standard composite, legal tender system whlcli wa had for all practical purposes under thedaw of 1853, ns I have pointed •out. So that the change in our system of which the free silverlsts complain so bitterly, really took place in 1853, ii> stead of lb<3.

THE “CRIME OF ’73.” But the misrepresentations respecting this statute of which I spoke a moment •ago relate not so much to Its terms as to the manner of Its passage. It has been dinned Into the ears of the people for years that the law of 1873 was passed by Irregular and clandestine methods, and by procurement of English emissaries. There Is no practical Importance In the question, because the present situation and the facts which give character to It and which determine what we can do and what It lg our duty and Interest to do are all ihe ' same, no matter how the law was passed. But such things naturally nffect men’s feelings. 1 would resent the Interference of English agents In our national legislation with Indlgnatlop. And I would have an unfriendly predisposition toward a lalv passed, by any soft