People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1893-06-09
A TWENTY-FIvE-CENT DOLLAR.
A Dollar is Unit of Account Contain
ing One Hundred Cents and Measures
IFS Own VaIua

Its Own Value.
The Topeka Advocate, replying to the Times
question asked Of the AtchisOn Champion, says
the government can make dollar OF 3 cents
worth of silver, and tina: II it should do so, this
S5-cent dollar would purchase "luSt as much Of
any commodity as gold dollar" We are no:
surprised that the Advocate, that defended the
populist theory that fiftyeight was more than
sixty-seven, should argue that twenty-five is
equal TO one hundred But the fat money
theory, like the fiat house theory, was exploded
long ego, and to discuss it now is a waste OF
valuable space. II the Advocate believes what
II says, why does it not advocate the coinage OF
the 25-cent dollar; Surely such dollar would
be much more convenient than the present g.
cent cart-wheel dollar The Advocate pro-
fesses to be fighting TO relieve the burdens Of
the people and 10 secure more money Here is
its chance The 25-eent dollar would be far less
burdensome than the Bland dollar, and three
or four times as many Of them could be made
from the same amount Of silver.-Leavenwort
Times May 49,
The above is an example of the most
nonsensical pettifogging. Without
touching the questions at issue, it seeks
simply to throw dust in the eyes of the
reader.
Referring to the insinuation that the
Advocate defends the theory that fifty
eight is more than sixty-seven," we
have only to remark that this smart
expression is but another republican
makeshift to avoid meeting an issue
squarely. The Advocate holds that Bill
Higgins certificates do not count against
the votes of the people in the election
of representatives; and when the people
have another opportunity to express
themselves, they will satisfy even the
Times that this THEORY is correct.
But this has nothing to do with the
point at issue. The Advocate holds
that if the government should put its
stamp upon twenty-five cents worth of
silver, declaring it to be dollar. it
would be dollar and buy just as much
of any commodity as gold dollar. As
proof of this we refer the Times to
the greenback. 1t contains not the
smallest fractional part of a cents
worth of what the Times would recog-
nize as intrinsic value" and yeti will
buy as much of any product or pay as
much debt or taxes as any gold dollar
The supreme court of the United States
has decided that congress is fully au-
thorized by the constitution to coin pa
per into dollars and make those dollars
legal tender-equal in all respects to
gold. These are the plain facts, and
the Times knows such to be the case.
In short, it is not the amount or kind
ofmaterial of which money is composed,
but the stamp of the sovereign author
ity of the government upon that mate
rial, that makes money. Gold is not
mOney,and were it deprived of the priv
ilege of free coinage. as silver is, and
thrown upon the market solely as a
commodity, its commercial value would
decline as much as silver has declined
from the same cause. The Times may
kick up all the dust it pleases. 1t will
fail to deceive anybody upon this ques-
ton. The people are getting their eyes
open, and such twaddle as the Times is
giving them upon ia" silver question
will only serve 10 make it ridiculous
among intelligent readers Why does
not the times meet the issue presented
squarely? There are just two ques-
tons involved in this controversy. The
first is that money does not necessarily
consist of any particular material. The
stamp of the government upon any ma
terial makes it money. The highest
judicial tribunal in the land has so de-
clared, and the Times, which pretends
so much regard for the decisions of re-
publican courts, must accept this de-
ciSion.
The second point is that silver was
at premium of three per cent. above
gold at the present ratio of 16 to when
it was demonetized, and every iota of
decline in its commercial value from
that day to this is owing solely to re-
publican discriminating legislation
against it and in favor of gold. If this
discriminating legislation, depriving
silver of its equal privilege with gold
before the law, is responsible for this
decline, it is unfair now for those who
have profted by this discrimination to
ask that the amount of silver in the
dollar shall be increased to compensate
for the decline which, without this
legislation, would never have taken
place. These are the two propositions
involved in this controversy. The
Times may evade them, as it probably
will. but the people understand them,
and will not be deceived by such sense
less twaddle as it is now indulging in
upon this subject.-Topeka Kan. eAd-