The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-07-11
BimetaIlism and Protection.

To the Editor OF the Indianapolis Journal:
In the Journal of July 6 editorial com
ment is made upon my former communities
ton. l understand that Senator Sherman
has recently reiterated that he regarded
the law which bears his name as q tempo
rar5 expedient to prevent the passage OF q
free coinage law; but the Congressional Rec
ord and our party papers will be examined
in vain for such q statement at the tim OF
the passage Of the Law On the contrary.
it was then announced as q substitute fox
free coinage, aud it was claimed for it and
defended as q measure that would utilize
all the product Of American mines. Boards
of trade of several of the larger
cities and business mems meet.
ings also commended the measure
as wise and patriotic" for the reason that
il would utilize the entire American prod
uot of silver. The first effect of the law
was to boom silver. but 1t seems that the
secondary effect does not meet with the re-
lolclng OF those who wish further cOntrac-
tlon and shrinking of money values. With
due Difference to tho Journal, / do not IN
derstand that General Harrison has. at
least In published interviews. made any
statements In regard to the sherman law,
except 10 state, as he Is reported to have
done In New York, that he thought too
much had been laid at the door OF that law.
VI the other point made. that there 10
now a duty on silver ore. it does
not measure up to the requirements OF pro-
lection In other matters. Tin, iron and
other things are protected not only in the
ore. but a larger measure 10 given for pig
metal and manufactured articles. and why
not. therefore, give to silver q protection
to ore. bullion and coins, 30 as to keep the
American market for American silver. not
alone for coin AS q basis of currency. but
for all kinds of silver utensilsf The Jour-
nal says TO furnish protection and a mar
ket are very radically different things. l
really have thought that the chief
virtue of protection. was that 1t
furnished q home market fox American
products. If my education. which has
largely been received from the Journal.
upon the doctrine of protection 10 not cor
rect. then what Is protection, or what docs
it meant Does 1t make any difference
whether the government accOmplishes the
protection directly or Indirectly; in ether
words. does 1T change the principle for the
government to create the market directly,
by purchases which are used as q basis of
lega! tender currency. instead OF keeping
out foreign products and making the peO-
pie thus make the home market betterf
The illustration as to the annual product
of the hen cOops, 1t seems to me.
is hardly mp to the usual stand.
ard OF ability and fairness of
the Journal, and therefore gives evidence
of haste. The government has never coined
either eggs or chickens and made them q
legal tenoer even so @ limited extent; or
used them as material for subsidiary coins.
while 1T hos used silver as q currency and
the basis of currency ever since it has been
a government. The egg illustration might
do as illustrating the stability of State
bank Issue, which is usually good only
when very new and fresh. but requires q
cold storage" if kept any length of time.
and as l understand 1t, the Democratic
party now wants to return to that
fragile and easily decayinR system.
1t will be time enough for the hen owner"
and wheat grower" to make the demand
suggested when the government has. for
more than q century. Utilized their prod
ucts as a ooIn and legal tender, and We
leave to future generations. when such con-
tingeDcies arise, the solution of that
conundrum.
Nh. Kennedy's articles exhibit research,
thought and nerve. and they deserve. as l
no doubt nave had. general reading by
the Journals many readers and friends.
Mr.. X. has evidently not lost his head in
these trying imes. He Is my kind of q
Republican. A. G. PICKETT.
INDIANAPOLIS. July 10.