The Grange advance. [volume] (Red Wing, Minn.) 1873-1877, 1875-12-08
The Wrong Side.

The spectacle Of 4 rank inflationist
in the chair of republican Vice Pres
ident is an ugly commentary on the
party's claim to be the only hard money
organization.-Erchonge.
The author of the above seems to
be laboring under wrong impress
sion. Il is hardly true that the re-
publican party claims to be a hard
money party. That is the preten-
sion of the democratic party, and it
has professedly been democratic
doctrine for more than forty years.
The old whig party was bank-note
party, and one Of the strongest dis
tinctive differences between that
organization and the old democratic
party was, that while the former adj
vocated a national bank and paper
currency, the latter, SO far as its pro-
LESSONS were concerned, persisted
in strictly metallic currency. In
practice, however, the democrats
long ago proved the lmpracticability
of their theory, and because Of the
insufficient supply Of metallic cur
rency, they resorted to the expedlent
of irresponsible individual banks au-
thorized to issue currency. for, we
must remember, it was mainly under
their administration in the States
and nation that "shinplaster" cur
rency and the wildcat banking
fourished. The system Of State
banks was more properly modula-
ton of the prominent whig measure
and was due to the necessities of the
times.
The republican party inherited the
principles and platforms Of the wings
and to it the credit is due of issuing
the greenback treasury notes, an i'm
prOvement on the old national bank
system and the soundest paper de-
scription Of paper currency that the
wGrld ever saw. The present ma
tional bank currency system is an
obvious and outrageous swindle. It
was devised by New York and
Washington bankers, Of whom a
majority were democrats and prom
inent leaders Of that party. True,
it was inaugurated under the auspic-
es of congress in which there was
a republican majority, but it was
compromise scheme, for which lead
ing men OF both parties are equally
responsible, and the bill was ap-
proved by President Johnson, who
is claimed to have been a democratic
president, although elected as vice
president by republicans.
The recent contests in Ohio and
Pennsylvania cannot be regarded as
committing either party generally
upon tl.l> question. In fact, the re-
publican and democratic platforms
in those States differed but little
touching this issue. In neither in
stance was the republican platform
a declaration in favor of hard mon
ey; it merely omitted declaring pos
itively in favor Of any distinct sys-
tenn IF paper currency; while the
democrats Of those States did fully
commit themselves as champions Of
what appeared to be a new and un-
tried system.
But this democratic ~ doctrine
of Pennsylvania and Ohio was EN-
phatically repudiated by the party
in other States and by leading men
generally Of the party in those two
States. Under such circumstances,
is it not absurd to credit the demo.
cratic party with favoring any sys-
ITEM Of paper currency sustained by
The general government, or to at
tribute to the republican party the
championship of the hard money
policy. To do either is to disregard
the traditions of the parties.