Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-21
our ouestion Not Answered.

- -
Our Question Not Answered.
The Providence Jownalreplies to our
questions of few days ago as we ex-
pected it would. We anticipated mot
expected what its answer would be
when we added to our first questions
the following:
"If you say the greenbacks are re-
deemable in gold, we reply that they
are redeemable either in silver or gold,
and ask again, why not redeem the sill
yer dollar in gold?"
And here is the answer
ave deny that the greenbacks are
redeemable, in equity, by q debased sill
yer currency; and, further, we object
to redeeming the fraudulent silver dol
lars IN gold, because when they have
been cosrcively put in circulation at a
rate beyond their real value it would be
only the spectators who would benefit
by buying them up and demanding and
getting gold for them; and because it
would be incredible folly for the Govern
ment to put out seventy-nine cents and
buy them in with one hundred cents"
but no folly to put out greenback
dollar worth not one cent and buy it in
with one hundred cents.l
In using the phrase, in equity"
the Journal confesses by implication
that the greenbacks are by law redeem
able in silver coins. In other words,
while seeming to deny the Journal af-
firms just what we said on that point;
and we may dismiss it.
AS to the remainder Of the Journals
article we need not say much. If that
paper has read our articles on the SUBJ
ject Of silver coinage from 1878 to the
present time, it knows that we are no
silver lunatic. We have again and again
said that we were not at all afraid of
the results that would follow the sus-
pension Of compulsory silver coinage. In
1878 we advocated I'VE are not now sure
that we were right the coinage Of silver
dollars worth their face value. On the
other hand, we consider the gold mono
metallisss as the cause of all the pre-
sent and prospective troubles which
have resulted, or may result, from
the coinage of silver dollars
of 4l23 grains nine tenths
fine. 1t is preposterous, as we said
last week, for anybody to affect to be
afraid of the coinage Of silver dollars,
worth in bullion more than three
fourths of their nominal value, and not
at all afraid of the results Of issuing
greenbacks with absolutely nothing in
themselves, and having not single ele-
ment or ingredient Of real money in
their composition. And, we repeat,
whatever financial troubles may follow
from the coinage Of silver dollars will
be caused by the foolish clamor Of the
gold bugs.
But note the illogical arguments of
our Providence contemporary. ltsayS
as to the greenbacks:
IF the greenback is of the nominal
value of one dollar, the promise is to
pay a dollar. If the Government acts
in good faith, the promise will be re-
deemed by the payment of a dollar,
genuine dollar dollar intrinsically
worth one hundred cents, abating what
ever the Government may consider fair
charge for coinage. But silver dollar
worth only seventy-nine cents is not
promise to pay it is when delivered a
payment in full for one hundred cents.
The greenback, if the Government is
honest and solvent, is certificate for
the payment of its full face value; the
silver token is an open and compulsory
fraud"
Surely the Journal can see that its
argument is mere evasion Of the point
of our question. We will change the
form Of our interrogatory. Our con-
temporary's objection could easily be
removed. All the Government has to
do to avoid that objection is to make
the legend on the silver dollar "a
promise to pay dollar "a certif-
cate for the payment Of its full face
value" The silver dollar will then,
according to the Journals own argu-
ment, be no longer a mere silver
"token," nor ian open and compul-
sorry fraud" but certificate worth a
gold dollar" genuine dollar"
Our Providence contemporary is too
able and too honest to have to dodge a
fair question. What says it now?
Would it fear the results of the coinage
of such silver dollars, and yet not fear