The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1875-09-30
aHonest Monex-.-.A Dishonest speech.

Carl Schurz'S speech at CIuclnnaJl, Mon
day night, ia entitled "HOnest Money" but
1t was a dishonest spssch. With all the
grace and suavity of culture, he prefices
his rem arks with Justification OF his sp-
pearance in she pending canvass. He Is 8
patriot, he has surveyed the political situa.
ton, he describes storm cloud arising,
ruin is impending, and he throws himself
into the front, and would deliver the couu-
try by teaching deluded Democrats political
wisdom, and point out to them their duty.
He has nothing to gain but the public
good. He pays his own expenses in his
tramp through Ohio. and this gives him
the license TO explain political economy and
teach the true doc, rines of finance.
This is speeious, it is benevolent, and 1t
was necessary for Mr.. Schurz to say some
thing like this to dissipate from the minds
of men the well founded impression that
ar. Schurz speaks as the paid advocate Of
the bond holders and money power OF the
East People have memories, and they very
we'll know that even while enjoying the in
come of place in former years, only set
price could bring him before the people
upon the stump. His influence with his
own coui try men was supposed to be i'm
mense. He knew this, and that infu-
ence could be utilized. Republicans very
well know this. They can not fail to re.
member. His demands were met when he
went before the people. He now goes
through Ohio, and the purpose is plsip. He
goes to deliver over the German vote to the
money power party. But can he do il? Is
not the very fact that Schurz was fastened
home from Europe and brought to Ohio
an insult 70 one whole German population.
They can not DO deceived thus. If Mr.
Schuiz, Hessisn like can assume purchase
| able position himself to forward the inter
ests of tbs bondholders, he can not deliver
over all OF his own nationality.
The speech of Mr. SchuTz is the effort Of q
lawyer pleading his case. 1t lacks every
| thing of a broad statesmanlike discussion OF
the question Of finance. The argument is Of
the adj csptandun sort stating the position OF
tbs Democracy as its enemies define it, and
then showing that the position falsely
attributed TO the Democracy was untenable;
and while doing this, puts forth the appeal
that his hearers should put aside jugglery
and listen to plain and candid
argument. And what is his plain and
candid argument2 He says that the
Democracy demands uulimited expansion
Is that candid? He says that the banks
are now full of money, as an argument in
favor of contraction, when no very well
knows that the reason the banks are full Of
money Is because the possibility of further
| contraction renders borrowers too cautious
to invest with the resumption ect staring
them in the face. Mr.. Schurz very well
knows that however full the banks are oil
money, the banks will not loan 1t on Iona
time. Business enterprise viii not be ven
tured while ruin threatens. Is it candid in
Mr.. Schurz. then, to use the money in the
banks as a plea for contractionf
| Again, Mr.. Schurz speaks of the methods
Of getting money into circulation. as IL any
body ever thought of getting it in by other
than the legitimate way. What IS money
useful for excepting as g representative
Of value. Nobody had any thought of IL,
circulation in any other way. The CONVEX.
sion OF bonds into greenbacks would not dc
any good except the circulation went further
than into the pockets or banks OF the pres
ent bondholders. TIE question, therefore
as to how the people are to get the money is
mere trifling. They get it by giving value
for it, their labor, and that Is the only way
the party that favors a sufficiency of cur.
rency will measure the volume Of cur
rency necessarily. Whatever legitimate
| trade and commerce demands, whatever
| money is necessary for the development