The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1878-09-19
The Anti-MOnoDolist.
NOW FOR THE PROOF.

There has not only been an actual
contraction Of the currency, but that
contraction was contemplated and de-
signed by the banks and carried out
by congress for the purpose of de-
stroying values and reducing the
price of property. and increasing the
value Of all Indebtedness, state, mu-
nicipal and United States, to the i'm
poverishment of all business and en-
richment of bondholders and
politicians, as will be seen by the
following, taken from McCulloch's
report for 1865. McCulloch's says:
''That contraction by reducing prices
would operate injuriously if not dis
astrously upon trade. and be quite
likely to precipitate a financial crisis.
All of which have become true.
Hence there must have been a con-
traction. Again he says: sit is urged
that contraction OF the currency
would reduce the public revenues.
1t is also urged that the proposed pol
icy would endanger the public credit,
and that it would compel the govern
ment and the people who are in debt
to pay in a dearer currency than that
in which their debts were contract
ed" Here in this extract from Nc
Culloch our readers will see the cause
Of the hard times in nut shell. We,
as people, ''are compelled to pay
our debts in dearer currency than
that in which our debts were con-
tracted.' because contraction has
reduced the price Of all property, eX-
cept bonds, debts, taxes and money.
The idle capital of the money chang
ers increases in value, while the
farmers property decreases. The
bondholders pay no taxes; the farmer
pays all; and the Lewiston Journal de-
tends the bondholder because its edi-
tor owns bonds. Dingley says there
has been no contraction. But McCul-
loch, in 1865, said if we contracted
the currency financial crisis would
follow. The crisis has come, now
what was the cause if there has been
no contraction. Will the Journal
please explains If it cannot, we
must conclude there has been a con-
traction. and Dingley has tried to
mislead the people. This is fair
question, now let it be answered If
not, our readers must conclude that
we are right and the Journal wrong.
| We should think Mr.. Dingley would
let the question of contraction alone
after failing to meet one Of the edi-
tors of the Chronicle on the subject
last winter. We fail to see wherein
he makes the first advancement in
proving his statements. Will he
please define his position! In the
above quotations we notice few
things rather peculiar. First, that
McCnllOch was told and expected
that contraction of the currency
would produce financial disaster;
that he received letters from all parts
Of the country warning him against
such an action. 1t is also fact that
many leading congressman and fnan-
ciers prophesied destruction to all
business by the proposed policy of
McCulloch. Yet in face of the warn
ings of all good and true men, McCul-
loch recommended contraction, and
congress passed the act April 18th,
1865. Now what does Dingley mean
by asserting that there has been no
contraction. and defending a party
that has wilfully and knowingly con-
tracted the currency, and thereby
ruined all business industries and
made Il large number of the people
paupers and slaves!