New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-07-07
MORE DEMOCRATIC BLCyDERIyG.

MORE DEMOCRATIC BLCNDERING.
II is thoroughly characteristic that the sill
yer men in the House have determined 10
mt through the Senate Silver bill as quickly
as they can without amendment. though they
are convinced that the bill is fatally detective
from their own point Of view. II repeats inc
Act of 1890, by which the issue Of new Treas
ury notes was authorized and these notes were
clothed with egal-tender power. This. 1t Is
argued. would leave those notes in clrclla-
ton. but no longer a legal tender for the pay
ment Of any debt. In sense, the Democratic
LAWYERS assert this would be reputation OF
the contract made when these notes were
placed in circulation. But the Democratic
statesmen care less for this than for the fact
that. as they reason, it must cause the speedy
redemption and retirement of these notes, ana
thus contract the circulation most danger
ouslv. II is not necessary to argue mere
whether these views are correct. Inc TACT
that they are held by the Democratic leaders
who have nevertheless resolved to pass the
bill. is sufficient. They rely, it Is stated. upon
later remedial legislation TO preserve the legal
fender character of the new Treasury notes.
but want the Senate bill passed without delay
President will have to veto the bill, and it
will then be In the power OF the Democrats
10 appeal to the silver states against him.
II is the old story Democratic leaders seem
70 think the voters are fools. II Is calculated
that if President Harrison should stop this
bill on account Of its nferentlal reputation
of the ncw Treasury notes the voters would
not look behind the fact that Free-Coinagc
bill had been vetoed, and would pay no atten-
flor 70 the exposure which the President
would be able to make of the absurd lncom-
petency of Democratic lawmakers. II is prob
able that. even among Jealous advocates of
silver coinage, this exposure would greatly
damage the Democrats and it would be held
that the President had only discharged his
duty. provided the Democratic construction
of the pending bill should be adopted by him
as correct.
1t is quite likely that the President would
be glad to have this bill passed and sent TO
him. that it might become his official duty
TO appeal to the country against measure So
foolish and so dangerous. II he should choose
that course he might show that the measure
would 90 far to prevent the success Of nego-
tiatons for the settlement of the silver qucS-
ton by international agreement. He might
pont out the violent contraction Of loans and
the disturbance of confidence which such
measure would cause, since II is certainly
dreaded as extremely dangerous by investors
bankers and capitalists generally, with or
without reason He might then show that II
would prove Dead Sea fruit to the silver
producers themselves. since il could not ad
m 81
value of silver no one can say how far. If
the Democratic leaders think such an appeal
to the people would have no effect they may
learn their mistake.
There could hardly be a stronger lustra-
ton of the incapacity OF Democratic lcglS-
lators than this measure and their treatment
of it offer. In the Senate they talked about
il long enough. if their talk had been capable
and intelgently directed, to bring ont all lis
virtues and defects, but instead they were
making buncombc speeches for home con
sumption. The foremost men Of the party
passed this bill without once stopping 70 think
what its practical effect would be. day or
two after they were suddenly amazed to find,
according to the opinion of some of their best
lawyers that they had left in force no pro-
vision under which silver certificates, silver
Treasury notes. or any other form of paper
currency. could be issued Then Mr.. Bland
raised the distressing question whether the
new Treasury notes would not be deprived Of
the legal tender quality and So virtually re
pudiatcd. if the bill should be passed and the
great Democratic lawyers Of the House suS-
tain his objection. 1t does not seem to occur
TO them that the outstanding silver certificates
have in like manner lost their legal tender
quality if this construction OF the law is cor
rect, since the Act Of 1873, which authorized
the certificates and made them legal tender,
was repealed by the Act of 1890. Have these
certificates also been repudiated? If they
have. does it hurt a certificate to have its
legal tender quality taken from it, since the
silver certificates circulate now just as freely
AZ they did before the Act Of $50 was passed
Or are the Democratic lawmakers altogether
incompetent to understand what their own
bills mean?