The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1893-11-08

1OOOs
one we have followed since the Sher-
man bill took effect.
Now let us consider the editors
reply.
1. He claims that 'sthe secretary
of the treasury could not have done
otherwise under the provisions of the
Sherman law" than pay for silver
bullion in gold" If the editor had
taken the trouble to examine the
Sherman act, passed June 80, 1890, he
would have seen that he is thous-
and miles off the track. Sec. l of
that act provides for the purchase of
4, 500,0O ounces of silver, in each
month, "and to issue in payment of
such purchases of silver bullion,
treasury notes of the United States"
etc. So that if, as the editor alleges,
the Secretary of the Treasury paid in
gold, he directly violated the act.
Sec. 2 provides that these notes
''shall be redeemed, on demand, in
coin" mot gold, but coin, which in
cludes, under the constitution of the
United States, silver as we'll as gold).
The treasury notes so issued for the
purchase of silver, are made legal
tender for all debts public and priv
ate. The same section of the act
provides, as follows:
"That upon demand of the holder
of any of the treasury notes herein
provided for the secretary of the
treasury shall, under such regula-
tions as he may prescribe, redeem
such notes in gold or silver coin, at his
discretion, it being the established
policy of the United States 10 main
tain the too metals on a parity soith each
other, upon the present legal ratio, or such
ratio as may be provided By las0.
Now instead of redeeming these
notes in gold or silver the present
democratic administration and it's
republican predecessor, purposely dis
credited silver by redeeming the
notes only in gold; and thus silver be-
came prescribed and secondary
metal; and thus it was not maintain
ed at parity" II the government
had said to it's creditors:-we are
pledged.to keep these two metals on
an equality;-the law places them on
an equality; and silver is just as good
and valuable as gold, it is legal ten
der; and you must take your pay all
in silver or half in silver, that would
be but fair play. Suppose there was
another Catholic newspaper in St..
Paul, and the Archbishop had
pledged himself to treat them both
alike, and keep them ION a parity"
would he do so by pushing the rival
paper out to every one who wanted
to subscribe and keep our friends pa
per in the back ground? Would not
our friend conclude that there was a
conspiracy somewhere about head
quarters to smash his paper? And
what would he think if the Arch
bishop used his own argument and
said, why, see how highly think of
your paper; am keeping it on a par
ity by getting the faithful to SUBJ
scribe for the other fellows journal.
l rank him away up, and l rank you
on level with him. See?" We
don't know the editor of the Chroni-
such logic.
And our worthy friend thinks that
greenbacks are not money. But the
supreme court of the United States
has decided otherwise, and that in
stitution out-ranks him government
ally if not theologically Will the
editor refuse a greenback subscrip-
tion to the Chronicle because the
greenback is not money? And will
anybody he owes refuse to take green
backs from him at their face value?
Anything that bears the stamp of
the nation and is legal tender, is
money, whether made of gold, silver,
paper, copper, zinc, tin. or leather. 1t
is the debt-paying power that consti-
tutes money; and that can only be
conferred by the fiat of government.
And the Chronicle denies that it
has denounced the free coinage of
silver. Has it ever said one word for
#? But it has advocated the repeal
of the Sherman act of 1890, the only
act on the statute books which pro-
vides for the coinage of silver into