Rensselaer Republican, Volume 27, Number 49, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 August 1896 — THE SILVER QUESTION. [ARTICLE]

THE SILVER QUESTION.

' An Address Delivered at Fort Wayne, Ind., Before the Soldiers’ Sons and Citizens’ Republican Club, Aug. 6, 1896, by Robert S. Taylor, Although' I am a republican find speak to-night to a republican club the •subject which I shall discuss is a matter of business rather than politics, and of "business which concerns us all exactly alike under whatever party flag we have been accustomed to march. The Republican platform adopted at St. Louis contains this declaration on the subject of money: The Republican party Is unreservedly for sound money. It caused the enactment of the law providing for the roßnmptlou of specie payments in 1878; since then every dollar has been as good as gold. We are unalterably opposed to every measure ctflcidated to debase our currency or impair the credit of our oouutry. We are therefore opposed to the free coinage of silver except bf_Jnternatlonal agreement with the leading commercial nations of the World, which we pledge ourselves to promote, and agreement can be obtained, the existing gold standard must be preserved. All our silver and paper currency must bo maintained at parity whh gold, and we •favor ail moasures designed to maintain Inviolably the obligations of the United State* —and all our money, whether oolu or-paper, at tlio present Btaudard, the standard of the most enlightened nations of the earth. A convention assembled at Chicago in the name of the democratic party adopted a platform which contains this ou the subject of money: We demand the free and unlimited coinage of both gold and silver at the present legal ratio of 10 to 1, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation. We demand “-that the standard sliver dollar shall be a full legal tender, oqnnlly with gold, for ail debts, public and private, and we favor such legislation as win prevent for the future the demonetization of any kind of legal tender money by private contract. The platform of the populist party adopted at its convention at St. Louis echoes the same demand. I prefer not to take the delicate responsibility of deciding whether the men who met nt Chicago constituted a democratic convention or not, or whether we are really confronted by one free silver ticket or two. Looked at from the Trout it appears to bo-one, but looked nt from behind there appear to be two. And in order to dodge those questions I shall speak only of the Chieago convention and of its utterance as the Chicago platform.

It would be impossible to frame a sharper Issue than the one here presented. For ouee. political platforms say something aud mean what they r*' ' i say. The question comes to us with the directness of a -referendum. “Shall it be free silver at 1(5 to 1? All in favor say Aye; all opposed, No.” Aud it is well that it should be so. Nothing we can do—no tariff legislation we can enact, whether it be, as I would have It, in the direction of more efficient protection, or as my democratic neighbor would have-It, In the direction of freer trade, can give us solid prosperity until we know what a dollar Is and Is to be. lam glad, therefore, that the question has come up just ns it has. I run to meet the flglit. Let’s settle it; think it out, talk it out, vote it out nud be done with it. Then we can turn to other things— tariffs, trusts, monopolies, labor questions—all Important to the public welfare, but all awaiting the decision of the money question. Let me explain first the precise question which is to be decided. We have nt the present time about $1,773,000,000 of money In the United Stares, made up approximately as follows: Gold coin $5(17,000.000 Sliver dollars 480,000,000 Sliver fractional....*.... 75,000,000 Treasury Notes—greenbacks ..., a~. .... 34(5,000,000 Treasury Notes coin notes 129,000,000 National Bnnk notes 226,000,000 $1,773,000,001 Of the silver dollars $342,000,000 are represented by silver certificates and of the gold $42,000,000 are represented by gold certificates, both of which clrcu late In place of the coin. In stating the amount of money we have It would be inaccurate to Include both, and so I omit the certificates. This gives us as a classification of our total currency sl,072,000,000 In coin and $701,000,000 in pa.per. Tffe gold coin, stiver dollars, and U. 8. treasury notes, amounting to $1,472,000,000 are all legal tender In unlimited amounts; the fractional silver Is legal tender for amounts not exceeding $lO, and the bank notes are

legal tender at all. It has been the policy of the government to keep all this mftne. at an equality of current value —gold, silver and paper, all circulating everywhere, and all equally good everywhere. As a result we have had.for twenty-five years past the best money we have ever had, and as good, in my opinion, as we possibly could have, barring the relaxation in recent years of some precautions necessary to keep It good.' STANDARDS AND RATIOS. It is impossible to carry on modern business without a money •standard fixed by law. The law must define what a dollar is by reference to a fixed quantity of gold, or silver, or both, or somea? thing else. • Under our, present law our gold coins are made of an alloy containing nine parts of pure gold to one part of base metal. This is called standard gold. The silver dollars have the shme proportion of alloy. Our legal unit and standard of value is a gold dollar containing 255-10 grains of standard gold; 'and our silver dollar, which is declared by law to be equal to the gold foliar in value and is equal to it in legal tender power, contains grains of standard silver. If you divide the latter of these numbers by the former you will get a quotient of 15.988-)-. That is, the silver dollar is fifteen and nine hundred ana ninetyeight thousandths times as heavy as the gold dollar. That figure is so close to 10 that in our common speech we call it 10, and we say that one silver dollar is sixteen times as heavy as one gold dollar. That is what we mean by 10 to 1.

It is impossible for the government to coin gold and Silver without fixing the weight and fineness of each kind ot ■ coin; and this, as I have shown, establishes a ratio of weight, which is called the coinage ratio, or legal ratio. We did not always have a coinage ratio of Ui tu 1. Under our first coinage law the ratio was 15 to 1; that is, 15 ounces of silver were taken to equal in value 1 ounce of gold. In France, and a number of other European countries tbe coinage ratio is 1514 to 1. __ There is also a market ratio, or, as it is sometimes called, a commercial ratio. Tills depends on the relative values of the two metals in the market; that is, on the rate at which one can be exchanged for tbe other in tbe form of bullion. At tbe present time 'silver is Very cheap. You can exchange one ounce ,of gold for about 31 ounces of silver. You would express that relation by saying that silver is 31 to 1. Copper is cheaper stilL You can get r.bout 3,000 ounces of copper for 1 ounce of gold. Hence you would say that copper is 3,000 to L

The legal, or coinage ratio being fixed by laic, remains until c hanged by law. But the market ratio varies. It has been found impossible to keep the two ratios the same for any length of time. As will be seen later, many attempts have been made to conform the legal ratio to the market ratio, but however exactly they may coincide at the start the fluctuations of the market soon separate them. All the silver dollars we have were coined on government account; that is, the government bought the silver bullion in the market aud coined the dollars In, Its mints as its own. The coinage of our present stock of silver dollars began in 1878. Silver was then worth on the market about 18 to 1. It has been falling gradually since that time, with occasional fluctuations, until it is now worth, as I said, only 31 to 1. It being the policy of the government to keep all the money* in circulation equal In value, It Is manifest that the continued fall in the price of silver, and the continued accumulation of silver dollars were making that task more and more difficult and dangerous. And 60, since November, 1893, comparatively few of them have been coined. At the present time the Intrinsic value of the silver in a silver dollar is about 52 cents. I shall speak of it for short as CO cents.

The free silver advocates propose now to begin the coinage of silver dollars again, and this time, not as heretofore, on government account, and with some limitation of amount, but with the doors of the mints open and an Invitation to everybody to bring his sliver and have It coined at the ratio of 16 to 1 without limit. And the dollars so coined are to be placed by law on the same footing with gold dollnrs, ahd the people are to be compelled to take them as good dollars, no matter what they may be worth In fact THE ISSUE. This, therefore, is the issue: Shall we stand by our present system, keep our gold, silver, and paper as we have them now, and make it a first object to maintain the equal and stable value, of all alike, as the Republican party proposes; or shall we make It a first

object to coin all the silver dollars we can and let gold and paper take their chances, as the Chicago platform proposes? To one who has never looked into the subject this may seem at first blush to be a small question to make so much ado about. “Certainly,” you say, “why not coin all the silver we can? If one silver dollar Is good, two are better; let’s have all. we can get.” And If it were a mere question of having few or many, I might say so too. But suppose the fact to be tha*t our present three-legged system of gold, silver and paper Is so organized that it Ts essential to its stability that there shall be a limit to the proportion of silver in it, and that It is reasonably certain that unlimited silver coinage .•_.. . j, ■ - would destroy ther balance of its parts, drive out the gold, break down the stiver, upset values, derange business and . precipitate a financial crash as Impossible to forecast as the devastation of an earthquake;,then the question becomes a serious one. And that is the view* of It which we have to consider. TIIE PRACTICAL USE OF SILVER. Before taking up the more difficult and important aspects of the subject there are two points which may tie touched ifi passing. The first is that the free coinage program takes no account of the real demand for sUwr money , but proposes to force it on the people against their wishes. The kind of money which people like best, and which is best adapted to their use is a matter of national habits, tastes and degree of civilization. Barbarous tribes have used shells, teeth, stones, and many things which we would consider of no value at all. The 383 millions of people In China use ordinary transactions a coin mode from an alloy of oopper, iron and tin worth about ono-teuth of a cent of our money. At the trading posts and in large transactions silver is used and the government lias lately authorized the issue of a silver dollar. But few of the people ever see any kind of money except the coins which I have described, and which go by tho name of "copper cash.” That would be poor money for Americans, but it meets the wants of the Chinese. When a eopj>er coin or two represents a day's work, it is a better money for ordinary purposes than gold or silver. In the United States a week’s wages In copper would be more than a man could carry home. A little higher In the scale of civilization we find India, Mexico and parts of -South Amorica, where silver Is the standard money, with copper for small transactions. At the top of the scale. In the United States, Great Britain and most of Europe, we find gold, silver and copper—gold as the standard money, the basis of paper and medium of international exchange, -with silver for small transactions, and copper, nickel or Tirooiae for the smallest ones. This classification is not tho result of chance. It Is a process of natural selection. Each nation of the earth as it works its way upward in wealth, intelligence, commerce, and the arts, wants better and better forms of money. The people of tlie vUnited States want silver for daily use In small transactions Just os they want nickels and copper cents for still smaller ones. But they do not waut silver as the sole or principal money of tne country.

As proof of that fact soo where the silver dollars are now. There are about 378,000,000 dollars in the vaults of the U. S. Treasury and about 52,000,000 in the hands of the people; while of gold there are about $100,000,000 in the treasury uml $467,000,000 in circulation. And this, although tho government has for years used its best efforts to get the silver dollars into circulation. The people simply will not havo them. I do not mean to say that all the silver dollars in the treasury are serving no function ns money. Thera arc outstanding $312,000,000 of silver certificates which represent that much silver In the treasury and circulate os money. But the fact remains all the same that the people will not take out and use more than about 60,000,000 silver dollars, and never have.

The people are willing, to be sure, to take the paper certificates which represent the sliver In the treasury and uso them as money. And if we adopt the free coinage policy we shall find that It is no part of the plan to take the unlimited quantities of silver dollars which will be coined away from the mint and circulate them among the people. That would be Impossible. Their owners will want silver certificates In place of them and want those made legal tender money by law. But what Is the sense In making Illimitable quantities of money which the people do not want and will not use? If the dollars are never to be taken out of the U. 8. treasury, why coin them? Why not simply, deposit the silver bricks and

Issue the certificates? And if the treasury is to be turned Into a for sllTer, coined or uncoined, which is never to be used directly as money, but only as the basis of certificates, ’why limit the deposits to silver? Why not take In Iron, copper, nickel and lead, and Issue certificates on them? And If the metals, why not other property as well—wheat, corn, cotton, whiskey, lumber?.— ’’... In fact that is, or has been, the monetary scheme of the populists. It, has been proposed by that party that the government shall establish warehouses all over the country and buy up staple commodities and issue notes for them as legal tender money. The only real difference between that and the free silver program is one of degree. And in one respect the free .silver program is more objectionable than the other. It starts in by fixing double the market price on the commodity to be purchased.

THE FAVORITISM OF IT. * » * This brings me to the second of the two points I mentioned a moment ago. It is that the free coinage proposal involves an unfair partiality toward the silver mine owners. As I have said, it is not proposed that the government shall buy the silver and coin it, as heretofore, but that the private owner shall have the right to deposit his silver and have it coined for him in unlimited amounts. And as be will not in practice take the dollars away, but paper dollars in place of them, the real transaction will be a sale of the silver to the government; and at a ratio of 1C to 1* it will be a sale at nearly twice the market value. This will be a fat,'deal for the mine owner, but how about the rest of us out of whom he will make his profits? When the government buys the silver and makes the dollars, as it has done’ heretofore, the profit, if I there be any, accrues to tbe treasury, and so to us all. But by this scheme the mine owner will get the profit. He will get a legal dollar for 52 cents’ worth of silver. And that will be no small sum. The average production of silver In the United States for three years past at its commercial value has been about $40,000,000 per annum. I suppose it has paid to work the mines at the market price of silver, or they would have boon stopped. If so, a sale of the whole output to tbe government—at- double price would mean $40,000,000 per annum more profit. Is there any justice In the purchase by the government of the product of the silver mines at this exorbitant price while the product of the farms is left to find a market the best way It cau?

TIIE MILK IN THE COCOANUT. Tills exposes to view one of the mainsprings of the free silver movement. On the part of the mine owners it is simply a huge speculation. That is why the senators and representatives from the silver producing states stand together on that issue to a man, aud are ready, as” the republican senators from those states were, to break faitli with their party, boycott the government and bankrupt the treasury in order to force a concession to their demands. Do they know the truth so much better than any one else? Has Wisdom established her sole habitation In tho Rocky Mountains? Nonsense. So far as these men are concerned, t,hey are simply on the make. To what extent they may think that they have convinced themselves that they are right I will not undertake to say. Selfinterest will do wonders in that kind of conversion. But the fact remains too plain to be disguised that the impelling force of the free silver movement in the silver producing states is to make a market for their product at tho expense of the rest of the people.

THE CHEAP MONEY DELUSION. But this Interest, powerful as It Is, would got have been able of itself to set In motion the free silver cyclone which has blown down the Democratic party. Ever since the close of the war there has been a considerable sprinkling of men In the United States who believe in cheap money. The fundamental points of this philosophy are (1) the Hj.ore money the better; and (2) the cheaper the material you make It of, the more you can have of 1L This idea found Its culmination In the proposition of the greenback party that the government should supply the people with money by the issue of fiat paper; that Is, paper In .the similitude of bank notes but not carrying any promise of paying anything to anybody* Thus, there was to be printed on one piece of paper ‘This Is a dollar,” and on another, "This Is ten dollars.” These were to be made legal tender by law, and taken out and used by the people as money. THE FOLLY OF THIS IDEA. The kindest thing which can be Mid of a man who believes In snub a scheme is, that he baa lost his head on the sub-

Ject of money.- Much abstract speculation has made him mad. This Is the way he reasons; “Money is a measure of relative values; we say a horse is wy-tli a hundred dollars and a cow twenty-five; that means only that a* horse Is worth four times as much as a cow. It is also a medium of exchange. A man sells his horse for a hundred dollars, not because be wants the hundred dollars, which he can neither eat, nor drink, nor wear, but because he wants a cow, which be buys for twen-ty-five dollars, and a suit of clothes, which he buys for twenty dollars, and so on. In order to perform these functions it is not necessary that the money shall have any value. A golden yardstick will measure doth no better than a wooden ope.” And so by this sort of philosophizing a man works himself around by and by to. the idea that all the uses of money are conventional and artificial, and that therefore any kind of token authenticated- by the stamp of the government as the common authority S ill d‘o Jnet as w< T as gold or silver, or promises to pay in those metals. * MONEY IS PROPERTY. It is quite true that money is a measure of value and a medium of exchange, but it is also something more than these; it Is property. And it is as property that It attracts human desire and stimulates human effort. It is as property that men think of it, covet it, and struggle for IV It is for this that they toil without ceasing, brave all dangers and take all chances, not for imaginary units of value or Instruments of exchange. The fact that money is exchangeable for other things adds to its value—may be said, indeed, to impart to it its chief value. It Is all kinds of property in one—food, drink, clothes, travel and amusement Nevertheless it is as property In the true and concrete sense of that word that men think of it and desire It It Is property first and a standard of value and medium of exchange next Hence It is that there Is no such thing as good money that is not good property. And to be good property money must be something which men value In and of and for itself, or to which they attach a value because of some promise or assurance which it carries of something behind or beyond Itself. Tbe value of a thing is the estimate of Its desirability In the minds of men. The measure of its value Is the intensity of human desire to possess it. What nobody wants to possess as his own has no value as property; what all people or some people want a little has some value; what all people want very much has great value. It was decided by the foremost nations of the world centuries ago that gold and silver are the best forms of property for use as money. From that decision there Is no appeal. It was in ignoring that fact tlmt the green backers made their fundamental mistake. They thought the question was open to argument. They supposed that If they

could prove by reasoning that Irredeemable greenbacks ought to serve the purpose of money os well as coin they would have good right to expect that they would be adopted by the people. And their party came to grief because It collided with the rocky fact that the world has made up Its mind that It will not extend its confidence to any kind of money which does not consist of gold or silver, or some reliable promise to pay in those metals. TIIE MAIN QUESTION. All that I have said so fay touches only the engff parte of the subject. The objections to free silverism which I have stated are valid ones, but not the most Important ones. Of those which I regard os more Important the first is that the thing which the free silverists propose is impossible- They talk about gold and silver as the money of the constitution. They call those of us who stand by tho present system gold monometallists, and call themselves bimetallists. They give the people to understand that by placing gold and silver on on equal footing at the mint we shall have the fullest possible benefit of the circulation of both of them as money. That, I say, is impossible. I say that with free coinage of both gold and silver at suoh a ratio that the gold in a gold dollar is worth more than the silver in a silver dollar the two metals cannot both stay in circulation. You might as well try to circulate two kinds of gold dollars, one having more gold in R than the other. In such a case every bank, every‘ticket agent, every merchant, every person through whose hands money flows becomes a strainer to strain out the more valuable coins for speculation and pass the others on for circulation. Hence the- free silver plan la a delusion and a snare. It cannot accomplish what U promises. * It cannot give us

gold and silver. It will mke the circtt latlon of gold impossible, and leave os only silver. It is not bimetallism, bnt silver monometallism-. This Is such an important fact In tnis discussion that I am not content merely to state It. I must prove it. And I can do that only by the facts of history. The recital of them will be somewhat ■ & . . ■-—* tedious and I cannot promise that they will be Interesting except as your own Interest in the subject shall make them —; j.. , j ; j. _ so. But if you want the bottdto facts there Is no> other way to get them. GRESHAM’S LAW. For a good many centuries after gold and silver came into fashion as money little attention \t-as paid to the laws affecting their circulation. So far as 1 i know, it was In England, and aboul \ three hundred years ago. that the subI ject was first studied. Her wide eom--1 mcrcial relations brought her both gold and silver from ail parts of the world, i but she experienced much difficulty in keeping them both, iu circulation. The cause of the trouble was .first pointed out by Sir Thomas Gresham, a financier of tbe time o< Henry tbe Eighth, in the statement that “if debased coin j is attempted to be circulated with full ! valued coin all of the latter will disapJ pear from circulation and debased coin | alone will remain, to tbe ruiij of com- | merce and business”; or, as it is sometimes put, “bad money drives out good.” This principle is known as Gresham’s law. The first attempt to conform legislation to it, so far as I Know, was in 1717. At that time silver was being exported from England, leaving only gold In circulation, to the great inconvenience of the people. Sir Isaac Newton- (the astronomer), who was then director Of the royal mint, made a report to Parliament pointing out that the reason why silver was leaving tbe country was, that it was over valued by tbe law as compared with golfl. In his report he said this: The demand for exportation (of silver) arises from the higher price of silver in other places than in England In proportion to gold * * » and may therefore be diminished by

lowering the value of gold in proportion to silver. If gold In England, or sliver In East India, could be brought down so low as to bear the same proportion to one another la both places, there would be here no greater demand for sliver than for gold to be exported to India. And if gold were towered onto so as to hone the same proportion to the Biker money in England which it hath to silver in the rest of Europe there would be no temptation to export silver rattier' than gold to any other part of Europe. At the time this was written the English guinea passed by law at 21s 6d in sliver, whereas the actual value at market rates for silver was only 20s Bd. That is, silver was over valued in Its legal ratio nearly a shilling to the pound, and was In consequence leaving the country to make room for the cheapet gold. 81r Isaac Newton’s proposal, which was atlopted, was, to try as an experimental measure, a reduction of the legal value of the guinea from 21s 6d to 21s. But it proved that he did not carry his equalizing process far enough. Sliver was still overvalued and still continued to leave the country, until England' came to have a gold currency. From that time until 1816 the English monetary system was based theoretically on the double standard. That Is, gold and silver were entitled to coinage on equal terms, and both were legal tender without limit at a ratio of 21 shillings of silver to one sovereign of gold. But as this was an overvaluation of silver the only silver coins in circulation were those which liad been worn or clipped to such extent that the real value, of the silver In them was less than the gold value of a shilling. As Sir Isaac Newton had pointed out, there was no temptation to export such coins, and they remained In the country; aud they were too scarce to drive out the gold. But they formed a very scanty and Inferior money for ordinary trans* actions. PRESENT ENGLISH SYSTEM. In 1805 a discussion of the subject begun which led the way to a law enacted In 1816, which forms the foundation <rfrthe present English system. Under tnat system the standard coin is the gold Sovereign, which, with the half-sovereign, Is legal tender without limit a m to amount The unit of silver coinage is the shilling, equal In value by law to the twentieth part of a sovereign, and to about twenty-five cents of our money. There are several other silver coins, some larger, some smaller. The silver coins were all made originally of less Intrinsic value than their sacs value—a difference which has been very much Increased since by the fall In sliver. They are legal tender to the amount of forty shillings—about ten dollars In our money. All the silver money Is coined by the government on Its own account from silver purchased In the market. The amount of It Is limited te the practical wants of the peo-

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

of dark-lantern methods. The free sllverites realize th'S and so keep up no end of clamor over the “crime of ’73.” They have put it in the Chicago platform, and I suppose we may expect to hear it from now to November. THE CHARGE IS FALSE. The answer to all this is that there Is no truth in it. The legislative history of the'bill from its Introduction to ... its passage is matter of record, and demonstrates the regularity, fairness, and openness of the proceedings beyond possibility of doubt, and by your leave I will put aside the main line of my thought for a bit to give you a sketch of this history. The bill was drawn up in the Treasury department, in the ofliee of the Comptroller of the Currency, and was transmitted to the Senate by the Secretary Of the Treasury, April 25, 1870, with a letter and report from the Comptroller of -the Currency explaining it in detail. It was introduced iu the Senate by John Sherman April 2S, 1870. Sec. 14 of t)ie bill provided for the coinage inigold of twenty, ten, five, two and a half, three and one dollar pieces, the' one dollar coin to he the unit of value, and all of them to be legal tender iu all payments. Section 15 provided for the coinage in silver of half, dollars, quarter dollars and dimes, to be legal tender for all sums less than one dollar. Sec. ,17 provided for the coinage of nickels and Copper cents, to be legal tender to the amount of fifteen'cents. Sec. 18 provided that no coins of gold or silver should thereafter be issued except as in that act provided, - JTlie bill was taken up in the Senate Jan. 9, 1871, read in full, debated during that day and the next, and passed by a vote'of 30 to 13. It then went to the "House and was referred to the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures,’and printed as it had passed the Senate. On Feb. 25, 1871, a substitute was reported by the Committee, which was ordered printed. In the substitute these changes, were made: In Section 14 the words, “and these coins (the gold coins) shall bo a legal tender in all payments,” were changed to “which coins shall be a legal tender .in all payments at tlm'r denominational value.” And in See. 15 the words, “that the silver coins issued in accordance with the above section

shall be a legal tender in any one payinent of debt for all sums less than one dollar ,” were changed to real, “which coins shall be a legal tender at their denominational value us or -any Amount not exceeding five dollars in anyone payment.” The 51st Congress closed without further action on the bill. In next Congress,, on March 0, 1871, the substitute bill just referred to was introduced' as a new bill in the House by William D. Kelley, nnd referred to the Committee on Coinage. On Jan. 9,1872, the Committee reported the bill without amendment and a recommendation that It pass. It was then taken up and (debated for two days. Upon the suggestion of Mr. Garfield it was re-committed to the Committee for , the reason, as he said, that it involved a considerable -Increase in salaries. On Feb. 9 following the bill was reported baek-fro;m-tlie-Gommlttee r read Afirst and second time, re-committed to the Committee, and ordered printed. On Feb. 13, it was reported to the House again, ordered printed as corrected by the Committee nnd made a special order for the second Tuesday of March following nnd from day to day until disposed of. On April 9 following It was tifiken up on third reading and debated until the adjournment for the day. The lending speech whs made by Mr. Hooper of Massachusetts, who said among other things: Section 14 declares what the gold coins shall be, and their respective weights, and makes them a'legah tender In all payments at their nominal value, when not below tho standard weight nnd limit of tolerance prescribed, and at a valuation proportioned to their netnnl weight when below the standard weight and tolerance. Thus far the section Is it re-enactment of existing laws. In addition, it declares the gold dollar of twentyfive and eight-tenths grains of standard gold to be the unit of value, gold practically having been In this country for many years the standard of value, ns It is legally in ■Great Britain and most of the European countries. The silver dollar which bu laic is now the legally declared unit of value, does not bear a correct relative proportion to the gold dollar, lleing worth intrinsically about one dollar and three cents in gold it cannot circulate concurrently with the gold coins. Mr. Potter, of New York, said: Then, in the next plqce, this bill provides for tho making of changes in the legal teuder coin of the country, and for substituting as legal tender coins of only one metal instead as heretofore of tiro. I think myself this would be a wise provision, and that legal tender coins, except subsidiary coins, should be of gold alone. In the course of the debate some flings were made at the greenbacks •which stirred up Sami. J. Randall to this vigorous protest: Now. I will go with the gentleman from New York for n resumption of specie payments whenever he is ready: hut the Idea of his getting up here aud describing, as he ■does, our currency ns rngs I tell him Is beneath his intellect, beneath his position In this house. It is beneath his Americanism. Sir, our greenbacks are not rags. I am In favor 6f this bill, after an examination of Its provisions, because I believe the former mint laws wore confused, and I believe that this codification of the lawn will make them plain and tho execution simple. On May 27, 1872, the bill passed tbd House by a vote of 110 to 18. It then ■went to the Senate and ou May 29, 1572, was referred to the Committee on Finance. On December 10, 1872, It was reported back with amendments and ordered printed. On Jan. 7, 1873, further amendments were reported by the Committee and the original bill ordered reprinted with the amendments. On Jan. 17, 1873, the bill was again taken up, debated and passed. The amendments wbtcb had been made by the Senate were non-concurred in by the House; a committee of conference was appointed which reconciled the differences; the report of the ■eem-

mittee was concurred In without a division In either body, and the bill was approved Feb. 12, 1873. It has been said, I believe, that the law was changed at the last minute and some advantage taken of an unsuspecting Congress in that way. I can not take time to follow the amendments In detail, but a brief reference to them trill dispose Of that,claim. As I have shown, Sec. 14 of the original bill fixed the weight and value of the gold coins, made them legal tender in' all payments and made the gold dollar the unit of value. Some changes were made in the wording of this section, but no change was made in its substance at any time. Sec. 15 of the original bill provided for the coinage of silver halves, quarters, and dimes, but not dollars, and made silver coin legal tener to the limit of one dollar. This was amended by tile House Committee in Its first report to raise the limit to five bill was re-introduced March 9,' at the beginning of the 42d Congress. -As reported by the House committee Feb. 13, 1872, the section on silver coins —Sec. I(s—provided for the coinage of dollars, halves, quarters and dimes, the weight ’of the dollar to he fflf groins standard and thf: others in proportion. The weight of the pre-existing silter dollar was 412 y 3 grains stafidard. This was worth more than a gold dollar and hence it could not be kept in circulation. The reduction to 384 grains made the intrinsic value of the silver dollar less than that of the gold dollars and proportional to that of the fractional currency. On this point Congressman W. I). Kelley said during the debate on the bill as thus amended: But, sir, I again call the attention of the House to the fact that the gentlemen who oppose this bill insist upon maintaining a silver dollar worth three and a half cents more than the gold dollar, and worth seven cents more than the half dollar, and that, so long as thte.se provisions remain, you can not keep sliver coin in the cbuntry. Certain bullion dealers of New York are making from fifty thousand to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year out of your government. , Mr. Hooper said: Section sixteen re-enacts the provision! of existing laws defining the silver coins and their weights respectively, except In relation to the silver dollar, which Is reduced in weight from four hundred and twelye and a half to three hundred and eighty-four grains; thus making it a subsidiary coin in harmony with the silver coins of less denomination. to secure its concurrent circulation with them. The dollar of four hundred and twelve and a half grains, by reason of Its bullion or Intrinsic valu* being greater than its nominal value, has loug ceased to be a coin of* circulation, and Is melted by manufacturers of silverware. The five dollar legal tender limit was retained lu this amendment and through all subsequent changes. Iu this form the bill passed the House, and went to the Senate. In the Senate the bill as reported by the Committee Jan. 7, 1873, provided for the coinage of trade dollars weighing 420 grains standard, instead of the subsidiary dollar of SSi grains standard, thus amending the bill ns it bad passed the House. This was done because the trade dollar was cofisidered desirable for the China trade, and for the particular convenience of the people of California. And In this form the bill passed and became a law. To sum up the whole matter the law made these changes in our gold and silver coinage: 1. It made the gold dollar the unit of value.

2. It discontinued the coinage of the old legal tender silver dollar of grains standard, 3. And limited the legal tendSr function of silver to five dollars. - 4. And so established In place of the former double standard the composite legal tender gold standard. These broad changes were in the bill when it was introduced, and remained in it from beginning to end. There was no provision in it at any time for continuing the coinage of the old legal tender dollar. Suelr Is the history of the coinage bill of 1873. It was before Congress for a longer time, considered and reported on more frequently and printed oftener than one bill In ten that becomes a law. It is true that the provisions affecting the gold and silver coins were not the ones which attracted most attention. The numerous debates on the bill were mostly over other matters In It. The last one was efilefly about the American Eagle. As the bill came from the Senate Committee after Its last reference It knocked that old Bird off from his perch on the half nnd quarter pieces. But his friends rallied In force and he roosts there still; and long may he rooet. But the only reason why the question of units and standards was not discussed moVe fully was that there was no difference of opinion about It —not even enough to provoke debate. There was no general discussion of the subject In the press and among the people because there was no public Interest In It. I know that some Senators nnd Representatives have said since that they did not know what tyjje In the bill when it passed. But the history of the proceedings on the records of tbe two Houses shows that every such Senator or Representative waß either seeking to dodge responsibility by his statement, or was guilty of some inattention to business in his place In Congress. That the latter should happen to the extent of omitting -to take notice of the sections of the bill affecting the coinage would not be strange nor particularly disgraceful. The bill was one relating to the operations of the mint. It had the endorsement of the; Comptroller of the Currency and the Treasury Department. There were Committees whose business It was to look after It, and they did look after It. That It sjiould not excite the particular Interest and attention of every member of Congress was entirely natural. But It was not pnt through In the dark, nor by crooked ways and means. On the contrary, Jt was an open and

straightforward piece of legislation, as honestly and fairly Introduced, considered and passed as any law that ever received the President’s signature!' V-" WISDOM OF THE LAW. The question of the wisdom of the law of 1873 opens a wide field of discussion—one impossible to occupy within the limits of this address. It opens the whole subject of the comparative advantages of the single and the double standard systems. I can do little more towards the discussion of it than to state the general situation in 1873. As I have told ypu, pure double standard system ever set up by law Intentionally and by deliberate choice was .our own In 1702. France followed in 1803. In 1810 England set up her single gold standard system which I have described. So that when the law of 1873 was Introduced in Congress the two systems had been on trial in three of the leading nations of the world for more than fifty years. The essential feature of the English system is to take one metal as a standard and coin It without limitation and then, in order to keep both metals in circulation, coin the other in . limited quantities, and at a ratio which will keep the money value of the coins above the market value of the metal in them. The standard might be either gold or silver. In the discussions which preceded the passage of the law of 1816 some of the ablest thinkers In England advocated the use of silver as the standard, eminent among whom was John Locke. Gold was eliosen, partly, perhaps, because It was preferred by those In control, notably Lord Liverpool, but principally, I think, because there was more gold than silver on hand at the time, Just as our government in 1702 adopted the sliver dollar as the unit of value because the people had It already. me French system did not work as well in practice as the English system. As I have pointed out, the fluctuation of the market ratio between the metals upset the balance of the 'system and -made it impossible to keep both metals” In circulation. The discovery of gold In California in 1848 and In Australia in 1851 put a new complexion on the money question. The world’s production of gold from 1851 to 1870, Inclusive, reached the incomprehensible figure of $2,596,000,000. It was more than the whole stock in existence in 185$. This enormous expansion of gold production was a serious menace to the stability of the ratio between the two I me Ails. No one could tell what would come next. Of all nations England was best prepared to meet such changes. Her single gold standard made her comparatively indifferent to fluctuations In the commercial ratio. But on the continent there was great anxiety for the future. The formation of the Latin Union In 1805 was a .defensive measure for the protection of the money of the nations Who joined it By agreeing to a common system with a common coinage ratio, and that each member of the Union should receive tlJfe coins of the inhere at par they fortified' themselves to some extent against the operation of Gresham’s law. As among themselves there could be no tempta-tion—to-export_or Import j>ml kind of money In preference to the other, Just as there is no such temptation as between the States of our Union. Tills experiment was undertaken with some misgiving at the thqe. Although Belgium, Switzerland and Italy had adopted the French system some years be-. fore, they all favored the adoption of the single gold standard as the basis of the Union. The influence of France, however, prevailed, and the double standard was retained. Two years later, In 1567, the French government called a monetary conference at which the leading European nations and the United States were represented. The result of its deliberations, was an expression of judgment in favor of the single gold standard, but it was recommended that until all were ready to move in unison the double standard of “the Latin Union should remain.

In the following year a commercial convention representing one hundred and nineteen German cities endorsed the conclusions of the Paris conference and urged the Immediate adoption of a uniform monetary system for the empire, based on tbe single gold standard. In 1871 the German Parliament resolved to adopt that system and passed the lawß necessary to Inaugurate the change. This, then, was the situation In 1871. Fifty-fire years of experience had left the English government satisfied with her gold standard; Germany was In tbe act of adopting it; and all Europe was apparently on the eve of following her example. There were some able thinkers and economists on the other side, but the prevailing judgment of the commercial world wngvin favor of tbe gold standard. To ftdopt It was no immediate Inconvenience to us. It was a mere continuation by law of what we had had In fact for twenty years—since 1853. Germany was going to the tremendous sacrifice offcsubstitutlng gold for silver; we had no substitution to make, not a penny of expense to Incur. Now, when we take all these facts Into account, and In the light of them put ourselves back into the shoes of a member of Congress from ’7l to ’73, It Is plain that the law of 1873, so far from being a crime against light and knowledge, was an expression of the wisest and soundest Judgment which tt was possible to form at that time. Since then the discussion of tbe subject has gone on more actively than before, with some gain, I believe, on tbe side of bimetallism. But that Is not to be affirmed too confidently. While tbe bimetallists appear to have the best of the argument the drift of events is rather the other way. In 1874 tbe Scandinavian Union, formed by Denmark, Sweden and Norway, adopted tbe gold standard composite legal tender system. The same system came into force in Germany In 1873, although she still

retains a considerable amount of full legal tender sliver. It was this practical consolidation of all Northern Europe upon the gold standard that compelled the Latin Union In 1875 to suspend the free coinage of silver. It was either to do that or have their gold taken from them by their gold standard neighbors. At the present moment the nations of Europe which favor the double standard are doing just as we are—bolding fast to the silver they have, keeping it good by limiting its coinage and looking for an opportunity to promote international bimetallism. No nation in the world that uses gold Is coining sliver freely, and nowhere outside of the United States is it proposed to do so except upon the basis of international agreement.. INTERNATIONAL BIMETALLISM. It will be convenient to explain here my remark made a while ago to the effect that I consider international bimetallism a better monetary scheme than the gold standard composite legal tender. If all the nations in the world would unite on the plan of the Latin Union, agreeing to give free coinage to gold and silver at a prescribed ratio, and to receive one another’s coins at their treasuries, custom houses and banks, It seems to me that there would be, no room for the operation of Gresham’s law. The relative value of gold and silver being the same in all countries, there would be, as Sir Isaac Newton said In 1717, no temptation to export or import one metal rather than the other. I do not suppose, Indeed, that In order to accomplish this result It would be necessary to take the whole world Into the combination. But It would have to be large enough to control the bulk of the world's commerce. Of course this Is only a theoretical scheme so far. It has never been tried. But there seems every reason to believe that It would work and give to society the benefit of the free use of both metajs as money. The prospect of Its early adoption Is not flattering: nevertheless It is to this as file only possible way of attaining their object that the practical and real bimetallists of the world are looking. It Is to this that the Republican platform refers In the statement that It Is opposed to the free coinage of silver “except by International agreement with the leading commercial nations of the world, tvhich we pledge ourselves to promote.”' And It is to this that the-Ghicago platform refers as though It were a mere question of courage whether to adopt free sliver independently' and alone, or hold on to the gold and silver we have until we can form some such International union. In the same sense we may say that it Is a mere question of courage whether to go over Niagara in a tub or go round by the wagon road. It is no exhibition of courage to fight against the laws of hatui’e. Could all the men that were in the Chicago convention keep the Mississippi river from running down to the Gulf of Mexico? Would they prove their courage by saying that they proposed to do It? Can the Populist patty lift this side of the,Atlantic ocean an Inch higher than the other? It is not England that the free silverlsts are fighting against; It Is the laws of nature, as Irresistible in tlielr operation as the flow of the Mississippi, or the forces that hold the ocean to its level.

OUR MORE RECENT LEGISLATION. As I haTe told you, when the law of 1873 was passed the sliver In a silver dollar was worth three per cent, more than a gold dollar, so that there was no object'ln coining the sliver dollar to use as money, and nobody lost anything by dropping It out of the law. But the situation began to change very soon. The world’s production of silver which had been averaging about $50,000,000 per annum for two years prior to 1870, took a sudden Jump in 1874 and ’75 to $100,000,000 per annum, largely from the output of the bonanza mines in Nevada. The general movement toward the gold standard also tended to depress the price of silver, and by 1875 it was down to 10.58 to 1. Then the mining interests and the cheap money theorists became clamorous for immediate free coinage at the old ratio. Mr. Bland (the same whom the Chicago convention didn't nominate for the Presidency), introduced a bill for that purpose Into the House Nov. 5, 1877. But that was an unwise proposal. We were then Just preparing for the resumption of specie payment,, having had only paper money in use from the beginning of tho war. The act passed Jan. 14, 1875, fixed Jan. 1, 1879, as the day when the Treasury would begin to pay United States notes In coin. It was necessary to accumulate coin for that purpose. We were bound to know that we could not keep gold in circulation against free silver coined at 16 to 1, but worth less in the mnrket, as it was at that time. If the bill had passed In that form we would have beeri compelled to resume specie payment, if we could have done It at ajl, on a silver liasls.

THE BLAND-ALLISOX BILL. Mr. Bland's bill passed the House, but was amended in tbe Senate on motion of Mr. Alllpon to provide for the coinage by the government from silver purchased In tbe market of not less than two nor more than four million dollars per month. The bill also restored the unlimited legal tender function of the silver dollar. In that form it passed Feb. 28. 1878. From the standpoint of a bimetallist I hold that this was a wise law. It was a safe experiment If not pushed too far, and kept the matter within the control of Congress to be dealt with as future developments should Indicate. THE SHERMAN BILL.But tbe free sllverists wefe not satis.,, fled. Tbe price of silver Slid not advance. They said; “T'wtf 1 millions a month does not make a sdfflclent market; make It free and the priffe wHI go up.” And this sentiment was so atvoag In Congress that the passage of

a free silver bill was imminent. Then, as a compromise, the Sherman bill was passed, July 14, 1890, It provided for the purchase by the government In the market of 4,500,000 ounces of silver per month,'to be paid for by treasury notes redeemable in gold or silver coin, such notes to be legal tender for all debts, public and private. It directed .the coinage of $2,000,000 per month of the silver so purchased for a year, and after that of as much as should be necessary to provide for the notes isatred in purchase of the silver. The quantity of silver named In the bi 11—4,500,000 ounces per month, was supposed to be substantially equal to the output of the silver mines of the United States. The act repealed so much, and only so much of the Bland bill as required the purchase and coinage of from two to four million dollars per month. Under this law treasury ndtes to the amount of $155,000,000 were issued for the purchase of 168,000,000 ounces of silver. These are called “coin notes,” —and $129,000,000 are in use now". This experiment was a failure. Instead of going up the price of silver went down. In the summer of 1593 the mints of India werq to the free coinage of silver, followed by a silver panic and great fall in price. By that time we had over 350,000,000 silver dollars In the treasury and the gold reserve had run down to less than SIOO,000,000. The greenbacks and coin notes Issued for the purchase of silver, all redeemable on demand, amounted to nearly $500,000,000. It was clear that we could not go on in that direction very long without coming to a point at which the U. S. Treasury would have nothing to pay with but sliver 1 . And as the only thing that upheld silver was the credit of the government that meant silver monometallism at once. REPEAL OF PURCHASING CLAUSE OF THE SHERMAN LAW. In this critical situation Congress met In special session Aug. 7, 1893, and on Nov. 1, 1893, an act was passed repealing so much of the Sherman law as required the purchase. of 4,500,000 ounces of silver per month. It will be observed that the Bland-Allison law of 1878 and the Sherman law of 1890, are both still In force except tys to those parts of them relating to the purchase of specified amounts of silver. That part of the Bland-Allison law which made the silver dollar legal tender In unlimited amount? is*still In force. And that-part of the Sherman law which relates to the coinage of the silver purchased under It Is still in force, and by authority of ittheeoinage of silver dollars is still going on at the mints, but in comparatively small amounts. For the fiscal year just closed the number coined was 7.500,822.

* TUE GOVERNMENT'S PLEDGES. It Is so long since I mentioned It that -you maW-have forgotten that we are now considering what I have stated to be the greatest of all objections to free coinage on the Chicago plan, viz.: that it would be a breach of public faith. All that I have said since that statement contributes to the proof of It. The act of 1890 (the Sherman law) contains these words, after the provisions authorizing the purchase and coinage of silver and issue of treasury notes to pay for it. “It being the established policy of the United States to maintain the two metals on a parity with each other upon the present legal ratio or such ratio as may be provided by law.” And the act of Nov. 1, 1893, contains the following: “And it is hereby declared to he the policy of the United States to continue the use of both gold and silver as standard money, and to coin both gold and silver into money of equal intrinsic and interchangeable value, such equality to be secured through international agreement, or by such safeguards of legislation as will insure the maintenance of the parity in valne of the coins of the two metals and the equal power cf every dollar in the markets at all times and in the payment of debts.” Did you ever stop to think why It Is that silver dollars and gold dollars circulate upon an equality among us, notwithstanding the silver dollar Is Intrinsically worth only about half as much as the gold dollar? I have shown you the reason. It is because the government has promised that the silver dollar shall be kept as aood as the gold dollar. I have read you the promise, and I have traced for you the course of events which led to It. Let me recapitulate them briefly. In the beginning the government gave us the double standard. It was the Intention of the law that the silver should be as good as the gold. It proved not to be, and the gold left us. In 1834 Congress changed the ratio In order to bring back tbe gold, and K came. Tlien the silver left us. In 1853 a special ratio was adopted for fractional sliver which over-valued the colas. Then they stayed with us. In 1873 Congress made gold the legal standard of value. That part of that law has never l>een repealed. In 1878 the unlimited legal tender function of the stiver dollar was restored aud provision made for coining It under limitations. But gold was still the legal standard and It was Implied on the face of the law that the silver dollar was to be as gpod as gold. The law of 1890 provided for still larger use of stiver. I# the face of the conditions then existing it was pertinent to ask, Is tbe United States going to abandon the gold standard and go to silver? The law answered the question. It said, “No, these silver dollars shall be as good as gold.” Add whOn In 1893, the minds of,men were full Of distrust, the law said again the faith of the govern-, ment wa,s pledged to keep all the money of the sliver and pa fief, "of equal valhe. - Notv y on'-see why the silver dollar circulates et par when Its real value Is only fifty cents.

It is because the promise of the goT. eminent goes with it It is s sort of cross between a coin and a promissory note. Half of Its value i» In the metal contained In It; the othet half Is Uncle Sam’s guaranty. There never has been a time since 1792 when It has not been the purpose of the law to keep all the mosey of the people as good as gold. And we stand now upon the solemn and express covenant of the government that It _ghall be so and kept so, On the faith of that covenant we take what the government gives us and extend to ,'t our unquestioning confidence and trust. The government has not at frays been able to keep Its promise torthe letter. In Its life-or-death struggle with retoelInon, it gave us its notes for money and asked us to trust It awhile. .Those notes were not always as good as gold,' but It made them so as soon as It could So that even the .greenback money constitutes no-exception to my_ statement that it has always been the purpose ot the law to keep all the money of the people as good as gold. The saeredness Of a promise is not to be measured by the number or the form of its words, but by its meaning and the sense in which it is proposed and ac- * cepted. The promise of the government that the money which it issues shall be kept good Is an engagement with all the people and every one of them. It Is a promise to ever}’ depositor in assayings bank that his money shall not rol in the bank, but that he shall take out as good as he put in. It is a promise to every working man. who takes stock in a building and loan association that the association shall pay his '“’matured shares In money as good as it received from him. It is a promise to every child in the land that its dead father’! life insurance shall be paid in money as good as that which his living hand paid to the company. And this covenant, so vast, so beyond all statement in the Interests that hang on it, the free silveriets propose to break as though it were a rotten weed. They do not say so, any more than they say that they propose to banish gold from circulation, but the thing which they propose to do will do it as certainly as It will banish the gold. , It Is no part of the free silver pro* gram that the value of the silver coins shall be guaranteed by the government. It would be an impossible proposal if It were. It is practicable for a government to guarantee a limited amount of silver and keep Its guaranty good. The United States is doing It today, and so Is France, and all the other nations of the Latin Union, and several European powers besides. But an unlimited guaranty of the value of all the sliver In the world, or all that anybody and everybody should bring to the mints would be a preposterous and absurd undertaking. It would be Impossible to inspire cotifldencein sueh a guar—aiity. So that free silver coinage is o) necessity a flat repudiation of the government’s promise to keep the silver dollars good. The moment that step is taken the silver dollar must stand on its merits and it will be worth what the silver in it it worth, and no more. EVERYTHING WILL REST ON SILVER. Gold and silver being each and equally legal tender for all obligations, when gold retires from circulation everything will be lawfully payable In silver. If you take greenbacks jo the United States Treasury you will get silver; if you take bank notes to the bank for redemption you will get silver. The value of paper Is measured by the value of the money In which it is redeemed. So that, once on a silver basis, the value of all our money will be measured by the value of the silver dollar, and that will be worth the silver In it, and not a grain more. Now we can see the full meaning of the free coinage scheme. First, it will take away from us nearly one-third of our money by driving gold out of circulation, and then destroy half the value of the remainder by placing it on a silver basis.

THE FREE SILVER BICYLE. One of the jokes which free silver cartoonists are fond of Illustrating is to picture a gold standard rider wabbling about on a one-wheeled bicycle labeled “Gold,” whll. the free silverist Is riding serenely by on a two-wheeled “safety,” one wheel labeled “Gold” and the other “Silver” But the nShl Joke * Is on the artist. He ought to picture the free silverist on a bicycle with nothing to hold Its two wheels together—two separate wheels, each .running Independently of the other. And a little way down the road he should show tbe rider with nothing left but bis silver wheel, while his gold wheel Is running away In the distance. The guarantee of the government is what holds the two wheels together, and the only financial “safety” which there Is In the market Is the one we are riding now and which the republican party pledges itself to keep and keep In good order. Tbe point of this illustration is to emphasize the statement I made some time ago, that the free silver cohorts march under a false banner. Their pretence to be bimetallists Is a fraudulent one. To deal fairly with the people they ought to say, “We do uot want any gold money; we do not expect to have any; we Intend to place the country on a sliver basis.” HONEST MONEY. Our free silver friends take greiit' umbrage at the phrase "honest money” aud say, “Is not silver as honest as gold?” Certainly; all nature Is honest except when man puts a lie in her mouth. This subject was all threshed over In this country eighteen years ago. I remember taking a greenback from my pocket In tbe course of a speech In tbe campaign of 1878, as I now take this stiver dollar, and arguing In this fashton. “This old greenback Is an honest note; It says, the United States will pay tbe bearer Five Dollara;’ that la an honest promise; it was made to be kept. It can be kept, and It will be kspt. Uot

your bow fancied greenback will be a dishonest note from its birth; at-will 6ay, 'This Is Five Dollars;' or, If It contains T promise it will be one impossible to keep and not Intended to be kept. It will be dishonest money from the start." •- I say the same thing of this silver dollar. It is an honest coin. It says to you, «I am a dollar, not because the silver In me is worth a dollar, but because I bring with tne the guarantee of the United States that I shall be kept as good as gold." Tlie free coinage silver dollar will say, with the effrontery of Satan, “Nobody vouches for hie; I am what I am, and lam a dollar. - ’ And that will be a lie, for it will be only fifty cents. Will that be honest money? • *- ” -R w NOT NEW. Things like this have been done before. In bygone ages it was a common resource of kings who had wrung all the money they could but of the people by taxation todebnse the currency, to issue- coing of light, wejght or' loaded with cheap alloys, and compel the public to take them at face value. But these things are recorded in the annals of the past among the crimes of .tyrants—crimes perpetrated against weak, ignorant and helpless people. It will astonish the muse of historyto writedown that at this age of the world a free and Intelligent people deliberately, resurrected this old Instrument of plunder in order to defraud themselves.

AND FOR WIfAT? Why should we take such a step? Some one says "to make money plen-. tier." But how will free silver give us more money? -Its first effect will lie, as , I have pointed out, to take away nearly one-third of what we have by-driving the gold but of circulation. How shall we supply the place of it? The United ■ States mints as they now stand are not capable of coining more than 40,000,000 silver dollars per annum, if they were to do nothing else. At that rate it would take more than twelve years to coin silver enough to take the place Cf the gold which we would drive out in thirty days,—Of course we could build more mints, but what would we do in the meantime—in the two, or three, or more years which must elapse bet w n the election of Mr. Bryan and the time when we would have supplied the place of the gold with coined silver? We would have to issue some kind of paper, • or else suffer from a prolonged contraction of the currency. And if it is to be paper money, why go to silver for it? We can provide it now in any one of several ways, and have it as, good as gold instead of as good as silver. - PRICES. It is said that free silver will raise prices. How can it in any useful, beneficial sense? ,Will it make people eat more food, buy more clothes, furniture, books, or railroad tickets? Will it make work so plentiful that labor will be scarce and in demand? These arc the things that raise prices normally and healthfully. By cutting a dollar in two halves, and calling each half a dollar you can raise prices in the sense that you will state values in larger nuiubers. In the same sense you can double the productiveness of your farms .by passing a law that thirty pounds of wheat shall be a bushel. An increase of prices caused by diminishing the value of the money is fictitious, not real; it is a mere increase iu figures, not in facts. Think what it would cost to effect such a change. It would hav<j to reach everything alike. All price lists would have to be revised—wages, farm products, manufactures, freights, railroad fares, everything. What a fight that would make. It would be a period of universal disorganization, a general scramble, every one for himself and the devil for the last one. What quarrels it would breed between employers and employes, what strikes, lockouts, boycotts, and turmoils. And when we were through with it, what would we have gained? More dollars and smaller ones. A day’s work would buy no more than it docs now; a bushel of wheat would exchange for no more than it does now. >

DEBTS. It is said, however, that it would he easier to pay old debts; that the free silver dollar, although worth only half as much as the present dollar, and" capable of buying only half as much, would be a dollar by law ,und would pay d dollar on a mortgage as well as the present dollar. This is the mam argument of the free sHvcrists and it is addressed with special assiduity to a class of men who axe tp a distressed situation and to whom it comes with much seductive force. The farmer who la in debt is just now traveling a hard rood. Tlie prices of all the things which he produces for sale have gone all to pieces. This does hot httrt him so seriously if ffie owes no debts. His acred ""trill produce his food as they always , did. And while his surplus produces less cash than formerly that cash buys proportionally more things. Ilis burdens have been increased somewhat, like those of all the rest of us, by the altered manners and customs of tl).; times. We and our families all, want more things than we dreamed of a generation ago. But the farmer who is npt in debt, and Is content to live with something like old-time economy can enjoy all his old-time comfort and Independence. A great many farmers, however, are in debt, and their case is one which deserves* all tk-i consideration we can give it. WOULD IT BE RIGHT? The first question to speak of In respect to the easy way of paying dents which the free silverlsts profess to offer the former is, Would it be right? Nothing can be made right by law which is not right in fact. An honest man can not afford to vote t>o change the law so as to enable him to do A thing under color of law which he could not conscientiously do aside from the law. Let me put an illustration. The Mexican dollar has, I will

say, the same amount of silver In it as our silver dollar. You can buy them, I will say, for fifty cents apiece. Now suppose you owed a debt to a neighbor who was a simple-minded, credulous person, nd you had it in your power to" buy a bag of Mexican dollars and pay hfm with them, dollar for dollar. Couldyou do it a# an honest man? Much less could-you take hipr by the throat and force him to take his debt in Mexican dollars. How then can you vote for a law to compel him to take bis pay in Mexicanized United States dollars ? THE CREDITORS—WHO ARE THEY? Of course there can be no debtor without a creditor, and whatever the debtor may make by paying his debt in debased money the creditor must lose. And it is worth while to ask. Who are tlie creditors that are to staiulj-hls.lows.V Those mostly talked about in this.discussion are holders of mortgages on Western farms, and they, it is assumed, are monied corporations and capitalists of the East. We forget the millions of unreported, unrecorded debts between neighbor and neighbor, debts to mer chants for goods sold, to manufacturers for machinery- purchas'd, to administrators and guardians, to women for their little investments of savings or estate money, the sum total of which, if we could find it out, would far exceed the mortgages that fill so much larger a place in onr thoughts. But they woujd all be subject to the same sweeping horizontal cut, all payable in the same debased dollars. And if we think a minute we shall see that the larger part of the mortgage debts to Eastern lenders are in reality debts to individuals, many of whom are ourselves and our neighbors. Nine-tenths of the leans are from trust funds. Nearly all life insurance, for example, is now done on the mutual plan. .The company collects the premiums, invests-the money, and returns it to tlie beneficiaries under the policies, less the expenses of tlie business. So that the real creditor ill a mortgage to a life insurance company is not the great company about which we think and talk,Tint the women and children who are to receive the money. And these are a great multitude. I have taken the pains to obtuin from some of the ablest life insurance statisticians in the country the facts in reference to the magnitude of tlie business. Speaking in round numbers, there are 8,000,000 life insurance policies in force in the United States at this time,-covering £5,000,000,000 of-in-surance. The total, invested assets are reported at $1,142,000,000, of which 35 per cent., or $400,000,000, are in bonds and mortgages, and 40 per cent., or $45ff,000,000 i.s In State, municipal and railroad bonds. This includes only the regular or “level” premium insurance companies, not tlie co-operative or fraternal societies conducted on the assessment -plan, which really are to be included in this statement. For while they do not accumulate and invest funds, like tlie regular companies, the assessments which their nleinbers have been paying in years past take tlie place of premiums and- entitle their, families to the death benefits just as though the certificate of membership were a*regular policy. The only dif-ference-is that, instead of collecting and investing their insurance fund these societies let it remain in the hands of the members until it is needed. Tlie number of policies held in these societies is estimated at' 1,550,000. and the aggregate amount covered by thorn at $5,500,000,000. So that we have a grand total of ten million policies In force covering ten billion dollars of Insurance.

It is impossible to tell bow many perare interested in this insurance. It Is not uncommon for one naan to hold several policies. If we suppose the average to be two it will give us 5.000.000 as the number of lives insured. If we suppose the number of persons in the families of these policy-holders to average three, we shall have a total of fifteen million women and children for whom their husbands and fathers are* and have been making provision in the form of life insurance by payment of good money from month to month. And these women and children are the creditors the $400,000,000 of mortgages that are to be paid off in fifty-eent dollars under the free silver program. ' SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS. The savings banks of the United Stabs* holds $1,800,000,000 belonging to 4.800,000 depositors—an average of 371 dollars for each depositor. The bulk of this money has been saved out of'earnings In small sums—from ten cents up." and put in the bank for a rainy day—" all in good money. Here are nearly five million more creditors to l>e wronged by forcing them to take damaged money for good. BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS. There are reported 0,000 building find loan associations in the United States, into which their members have paid $500,000,000 in dues, all in good money, but to be paid back in inferior money If the free silver scheme goes through. There are nearly two million more creditors to be wronged by forcing them to take damaged money for good. TIU PROPERTT LOSS. Every debt now owing Is property. If we change the law; so as to compel the creditor to receive money of less value than that in which it is now pay able we destroy that much of its-value. To take away half the value of our money, by putting it on a silver basie will Itself be a great destruction of property, but It will be a small matter compared with the loss of property which will be caused by making all debts payable In depreciated money. Let me illustrate: Here is * man who has insured his life for $2,000 for the benefit of his family. The free silver policy goes into effect and the man dies. The widow receives the $2,000. We are promised that with free silver prices will go up. That is the lnduce-

ment held out to farmers, and the higher the better, so they are told. Suppose they have doubled. The widow’s $2,000 will only go as far in keeping the wolf from the door as SI,OOO goes now. Has not half of the value of that policy been destroyed? And tlie same would happen to all kinds of investrhents upon which people-are relying for support in the hour of need. Those I have mentioned are but samples. These are all property, and the most sacred kind of property—the product of thrift, frugality ami affoctk.n: tlie reliance Of age, infirmity and helpless childhood. Don’t accuse me of trying to make an oratorical display over these things. I am talking hard facts. I am utterly unable to state them With adequate emphasis. No figure of speech, no simile of fire, flood, pestilence, earthquake, or Avar will help us to any sufficient conception of the destruction of property which will follow the sudden and violent change in the value of money which the free silverists propose. . Do you not see now a deeper meaning than I - could express to you by mere statement in that solemn promise of tlie Government that the equal value of all money which it lias given to the people shall be maintained? It was like tlie promise of God when He set Ills bow in the sky that seed time and harvest shall not fail. And if govetninents are ordained of Him to carry out Ilis purposes among men, it was the promise of tlie highest authority which He has placed on earth to make and keep promises. How any God-fearing man can cast his vote to break that promise is a question for every voter to take home to ills conscience for serious consideration. I am considering now the argument that free silver will belli’ tlie fanner pay his debts. I have been trying to show what that proposal means. It means that the public faith is to Tje violated; tliat wrong is to be done to millions of innocent people; that billions qf dollars worth of property is to be destroyed, and the means of the people to buy and consume diminished for years to come, and that when at last the. farmer comes to pay his debts in dollars of diminished value lie will do an act under color and compulsion of law, which, if done outside tlie law he would himself pronounce to be dishonest.

WILL IT WOHK? Whatever a farmer may think of the right and wrong of the business it is -hardly imaginable—that he will vote, for free silver in order to pay his debts in little dollars unless he has good rea*m tcr-bcHeve that the plan will work. It will take time to do it. We must elect a President and Congress, change the law, make the new money, get it into circulation, force up prices, raise the stuff and sell It. In the meantime what about the debts? What good will it do a man to be entitled by Law to pay a dollar with fifty cents' worth of silver if he hasn't got the silver? 1 have given you the reasons why we cannot expect to go from the gold basis to a silver basis by any smooth and easy transition. It must be by a slump, a Jump, a crash.' In the midst of that crush, with factories closed, business suspended. everything in chaos, and no settled value for anything, where would the farmer find a high-priced market for hie products? He would lie'like a man who has tom down his old house before lie has the material to build a new one. He would be camping In the woods, shelterless from the storm. TIIK DEPRESSION OF AGRICULTURE. There is nothing the matter with agriculture except that prices of farm products are low and have brought down with them the price of land. The reason why is no mystery. Machinery and comjietition have done it, ns they have in the case of all other prices. With steamships carrying wheat a thousand miles for scarcely more than tiie farmer pan haul it to market, all parts of the world are alike to the European consumer. He can get his supplies from one quarter of the globe as well as another. With increasing area s under cultivation in all countries, every element of cost reduced by machinery, and aIJ the world competing, how could the price of wheat keep up? More than this, the electric car and bicycle are taking the place of horses at such a rate that they are scarcely worth as much as cows, and the prices of oats and corn suffer in consequence. That hurts tlie price of wheat. Again and further, the growing variety of onr modern food supply affects the price'of the great staple. With oatmeal, cheap meat, cheap sugar, and cheap fruits, man no longer lives by bread alone'. All these things count.

TUB APPRECIATION OP GOLD, Our free silver friends claim that the fall in prices is all due to the appreciation of gold. “Nothing has fallen,” they say, "gold has risen.” Let us consider that question. It is undoubtedly true •that no form of property in the world is absolutely uncluingeable in value. And this fact makes some kinds of change very difficult to detect. It has recently been discovered that a change of relative leveljjetween the Gulf of Mexico and the land at the mouth of the Mississippi River, amounting to about a foot, has taken place within a few years. Either the gulf lias risen, or the land has gone down; but which? And so of gold. Has it gone up, or have other things come down? What we need is some third standard of reference — something which we can safely say has not changed, or which has changed least of all things, with which we can compare gold on one side and other things on the other. There is such a third ctandard to which I shall refer in a moment. In discussing values we nsually look first at the conditions oC supply and demand. Bo far as these can be relied on 'they do not Indicate an appreciation in the value of gold. I have prepared a table showing the world's production of that octal for the present century, ar-

ranged in decades, and with the totals for the first half and the last half of the century added up separately. The production for the present decade Is eati-' mated from tli'e known production since 1800, which lias averaged $163,000,000 per annum. 1801-1810 $118,152;000 1811-1820 ...... J 78,003,000 1821-1830 04/479,000 1831-1840 134,841,000 1841-1850 . 303,028,000 Total for the half century. $787,463,000 1851-1800 $1,332,981,000 1801-1870 ... 1,208,015,000 1871-1880 1,150,814,000 ISBI-1800 , ,r. . 1,000,052,000 1801-2000, partly estimated 1,030,000,000 Total for the half century $0,436,805,000 As will be seen, the production for the fifty years just closing, is over eight times that of the preceding fifty. It would seem as though, no far as production has anything to do with it, that, gold ought to be getting cheaper instead of dearer. On the other side it Is to be said, however, and quite truly, that within the last fifty years there has beep a vast expansion of business throughout the world and so an increased,, use for gold as money. It is hard to measure this increase, but if the business were transacted at the present time by the same methods which were iu use during the first half of the century, perhaps we would need eight times as much money to do it wit«h. But that is not the case. More than ninety per cent, of the business of this country is transacted by checks, notes, drafts, credits and clearing house settlements without the use or handliiig of any money of any kind, either coin or paper. And it is measurably so throughout the world wherever the largest volumes of business are dona Hence the argument based on the increased amount of business to be provided fqr is fairly met by the filet of tlie increased facilities for doing it. It Is to be borne in mind, also, tliat this six billions of gold produced within fifty years has not been used up, ns the wheat and cotton produced within the same tlm£ have been, but is on hand today less tlie small natural diminution ‘by loss and-we-arv k There is one cause in operation tending distinctly to enhance the value of gbld as compared with silver; and that is tlie recent drift toward the gold standard throughout the world. And possibly that tendency may be effectual iu slight degree to enhance the value of gold as compared with other things. But upon the whole, all the facts relating to production, use and demand taken together, fair to afford any groundfor belief that the general fall in prices is due in any substantial degree to an appreciation in the value of gold.

THE WA«HS STANDARD. „ I said a moment ago that there wat? a third standard by means of which we could get some light on the question whether gold has risen or other things fallen. If it takes a man a day to make a chair, he ought to receive as wages the money necessary to buy a chair—neglecting for this illustration the profits of the middle man. If, by the introduction of machinery, his labor is made so much more efficient that lie can make two chairs fie ought to receive as wages the money necessary to buy two chairs. Now this does not mean that he ought to reeoivo twice us much money as before, but that he ought to receive the chairs at half the price he paid before. The only alisolutely just measure of a man’s wages is his proportionate share of the product of the labor of all. If a million men co-operating in all the pursuits of life, produce" a certain aggregate amount of food, clothing, furniture, books and houses, each man is entitled, upon an average, to one millionth part of the whole. Of course, I do not mean that the product of labor ought to be divided equally per capita. Each man’s share ought to be proportional to his effective contribution to the general aggregate of work done. But thatr.gives the average man an equal share it the result. If then by organisation and machinery this million men mal e their labor so much more effective that the aggregate product of It is twice as much food, clothing, fur niture, books and houses as were produced before, each man ought still to have, on an average, one millionth part of the whole. And that Would give lnm twice as many things. And to give him this it is not necessary to increase his wages in money. It accomplishes the same end to decrease the money price of the things. That is exactly what has bien going on before our eyes for twenty-five y**ars and more, aud is going on still. The decreasing price of com inddi ties represents the increasing efflciency of laUqr, the money standard remaining unchanged. We assume in all our transactions that money is an unchangeable thing. I borrow a thousand dollars for ten years upon the assumption that at the end of that time a thousand dollars will represent the same value that I' borrowed.. And it will represent the same value if it represents the same amount of human lnbor; otherwise not. All property except land and its natural appurtenances are the product of Labor. The real unit of value Is a day’s work. As long ns the money value of a day's work remains unchanged, the money itself le unchanged. A rise in the world round value of gold would mean a fall in the world round rate of wages. That this has not taken place, is- the highest possible evidence that gold has not risen in value. Other things have fallen and are continually falling because they represent less and less human labor. This must be so and must Continue, or society can not exist. As the countless army of machine* Invade one occupation after another what ate the displaced workmen to do? As the efficiency of labor increases wh«re

•b«n It film! its market? It must find one somewhere or else more and more persons most go unemployed. And when we come to the point that only half of the people can find employment, what will the other half do? There is but one answer to these questions. 4a the efficiency of labor increases the market must grow by increased consumption of the products of labor. We must all use more things, and more, and more and more. Ants how can we do that unless they grow cheaper, and cheaper, and cheaper? This the answer'that God Almighty' is giving us as he unrolls the scroll of time in our sight. The efficiency of labor is Increasing day by day; prices are falling day by day; we are using more tliiugs day by day. And we must go on in that way or society will go to pieces. We cannot stop the march of events; We cannot suppress Invention; we can not keep the machines out of the world. And we ought not to want to. That is the way onward and upApar. Tbntda-fhe-wayto distribute thelargest number of blessings among the largest number 1 of people. As ‘“things fall, moil rise.” You will understand, of course, that In those remarks I am faking a very broad view of the subject. When we come to consider the price of a particular thing at a particular time and place these general influences are subject to be modified by many particular circumstances. Thus, while machinery has made chairs generally very cheap, it has not made walnut clialrs very cheap, because walnut timber is scarce. While clothes generally are cheap, sealskin coats are not cheap because the Canucks have killed off the seals. The American farmer is at this time the sufferer from a combination of special circumstances of tlie kind referred to. The era of railroad extension has possod its climax In this country, but has not reached it in tlie tardily moving quart ere of the earth. The use of machinery and Improved methods of cultivation are showing their effect everywhere. 01. l Egypt, a country which we have been accustomed to think of only as a page of history—a mummy land, comas to tlie front this year, it Is said, with 1,500*000 balCs of cotton—-ono-elghth of a sufficiency to supply the whole world. That hurts not only the cotton fanneri of the South, but the whoat farmer of the North as welL For In the face of such prices ns confront him, the cotton farmer must change his methods; ho must take to raising his own food. lie is doing so now to n greater extent than ever before. Another unfavorable circumstance affecting the former Is tliat tne tmiigs which he has to sell are peculiarly sensitive to adverse conditions. They are perishable, costly to transport, and the market for them Is inelastic. When the world has food enough it has no use for any more. A surplus damages the price of the whole more injuriously than any other kind of surplus. Moreover, the farmer is unable to do anything for his own protection. In other crafts men unite for self defense. Workingmen organize to maintain their wages; manufacturers combine to hold up their prices; but the farmer Ims to take things us they come. And so at this particular juncture, with everything in the world seeming to be conspiring against him, the Suez Canal, the North Sea Ganal, the new ocean freighters, the expanding railroad systems of foreign lands, tlie universal introduction of machinery, tlie electric car, the bicycle, and tlie swarming into his business of millions of competitors all round the world, ail of which lie has to meet with a millstone of debt banging about his neck, it is no wonder tliat the American fanner is In a staW of mind bordering on desperation.

It was not always so. Twent) -five years og'o ho was the happiest of men—if he had known It. He was the first in the field under the new dispensation. He was the first to use the seed drill and the harvester. IJe was the first to have a railroad from his barn door to the sea. He was farming lands of virgin fertility which cost him little—in the far West nothing, and which grew in value while he slept. He did not stop to think—why should he—that these conditions could not last forever. He accustomed himself and his family to modes of life etfsy enough to maintain at the time aud contraeteff debts oasy enough to pay as things were. But things have changed. His turn will come again. The world depends on him for subsistence ns it always lias. He onu never be counted out And while in the round of economic changes continually going; on he may be pinched for a time, it cannot be for always, nor lntour own country for long. The population of the United States increases yearly; its acres of laud do not. They are practically all occupied. Their productiveness has passed Its maximum. The time iB coming—lt is bound to come—when it will be all he can do to feed his neighbors. and there will be no surplus to export I thought eight years ago that we would reach that point before this. I missed it in that expectation, but, ns I still believe, only as to the time; not as to the fact. The time may be long yet to an embarrassed debtor, but it will he short in the history of the nge. I know it is not mu eh comfort to say all this. Men In distress want relief now. And the free silver orator who offers if In his hand, who tells the larmers that nothing is necessary but ten lines of legislation to give them plenty of money to pay their debts is the man who* has the easy part in this campaign. Miae is a more thankless task. To prick so shining a bubble, to dash such alluring hopes, to expose the utter Impossibility of so inviting a scheme Is a duty to be performed; not a pleasure to be enjoyed. It Is I, npt these Don Quixotes who have enlisted to fight England, whose appeal Is truly to your courage, your patriotism, your Integrity. The noblest courage Is the

courage to do right. The truest patriotism Is that which holds alike In estimation the Just rights of all, the abiding welfare of all, and the sacred honor of thg government. THE RETCKN OF CONFIDENCE. While I have no such glittering promises to offer as those which aro sown broadcast by our free silver friends, I have that which seems to me to be better. It is the assurance of the return of, natural and wholesome business activity ns soon as we know for sure that thefalth of the government- Ip to be kept and the value of our money preserved. Eor years the frco silver movement has been an Impending threat to all business. The relations of parties to it have been such that no decisive settlement of it was possible mijil now. But now It is with our reach. A defeat of the Chicago ticket that will speak a judgment of condemnation against the free sliver scheme so clear and emphatic that It cannot be misunderstood will be a signal of emancipation. I do not say that the conditions will be perfect for the highest development of our resources. But the first condition—the condition without which all else Is vain—the possession of sound money, will be achieved. Confidence will ba restored. Millions of dollars no\y lying idle will seek employment in useful channels. With seventy millions of people within opr own borders to be fed, clothed and housed, with the most perfect, industrial arid social organization in the world, with railroads threading every part of tiro land, with shops built and machinery in place, there is nothing wanting to our reasonable happiness and prosperity but that we shall go to work cheerfully and hopefully and use the fruits of #ur labor wisely and economically. All of that we can do and will do as soon as we get our feet on the solid foundation of restored crodit and general confidence. In the blessings of this awakened activity every home and every farm will participate. By the natural and healthful expansion of trade It will Increase consumption, enlarge the market and stimulate prices wherever they are abnornrally' low. That it will at once solve all the difficulties that face us it would be foolish to pretend. But it will be a step toward that end by the only road that leads to It. I feel to the full the force of that pitiful, blind, despairing argument that comes at the end of the silver discussion arid nearly all other political discussions from thousands of men who know not what else to say that “there’s something wrong.” Yes, there Is something wrong, and a great deal that is wkmg, We founded this government on the declaration that all men are born equal and equally entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But we have not lived up to it. We liuve let that equality bo turned into inequality. We have not seen to it that the law shall secure to every man his oqual and Just opportunity. We have let the shrewd over-reAch the simple and the strong bear down the weak. The land is full to-day of organized Jbands of men who differ from the brigand? bands of old only In tfielrmethods of plunder. Millions are accumulated in hands that never earned them. The genius of the inventor and the skill of the artisan, which have made labor so efficient that its burdens ought to' bo abridged and its rewards multiplied, have tlioir first fruits confiscated by the sharp and the smart. We passed a law six years ago intended to thwart tho rapacity of trusts and combines. It has been effectual only to repress strikes.

Those who suffer most from these wrongs do not know how to remedy them. They listen to pleasing tales from demagogues who are as unworthy ns tlie plutocrats. They strike blindly at corporations, and employers, and the rich with blows that react on themselves. The great parties that hold in their hands tlio power aud their ranks tlie men who could deal with these questions do nothing. We are nil guilty aud our puntshmeut will come as surely as Justice lives. This very free silver movement is one of our warnings. It lias behind it many forces. Some of them rest on mere selfish greed which time will expose and which we can afford to despise. Some of them rest on innocent delusions which wo can regard with compassion and without grave apprehension. But upder and behind all is the ominous growl of discontent. The socialist supports it. The pnarchist supports it. It seems to all tlie unreasoning, sullen, dissatisfied elements of society to furnish an opportunity to strike a blow at the rich and the prospermia And we shall bo altogether wanting in the discharge of our duties If we are content merely to put down what some are pleased to call the ‘‘free silver graze.” The coufitry must be rescued from its Imminent danger. The honor of its government must be vindicated. and the purity of its life bloodtile money of its business, must be preserved. That is our first duty. But next will come the duty to give our thoughts and our energies as we have never given them before, to the greater work of bringing our laws and our institutions up to the level of our professions, and under and by means of them securing to the simple aud tlie weak and the poor that protection against the oppressions of th* crafty and the strong wbicli will alone give every man equal opportunity, according to the gifts with which his Maker has endowed him, to enjoy his equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hope and I believe that this deep lesson of tlie campaign of 1890 will not be lost on us. If it shall he so then we shall have another illustration following many In the world of the wonderful way* In which the wrath of man is mode to praise Qod. Bryan, and Altgeld, and Tillmaif will have served their day and generation well, though not os they intended.