The Philipsburg mail. [volume] (Philipsburg, Mont.) 1887-current, 1894-01-04
SENHYOR CHHNDLKR
The New Hampshire Senator
Out for Free Coinage.
A NOVEL IDEA CONCERNING SILVER


Not Agree With IL, to Urge Sill
vcr NIOno-metalllsm Among
silver Using Countries.
Senator William E.. Chandler, of New
Hampshire, talked freely with the New
York Recorders representative last week
on the general situation in congress on
the eve Of the holidays. He takes view
of the silver question which is in strong
contrast with that Of the sterotyped par
tisiaDs on either side Of the great none
tary issue, and states it with great char
acteristic clearness and force. He is not
far from the Recorders own standpoint
on the subject, and, by reason Of his re-
cogn1zed rank among the leaders Of the
republican party in the senate, his out
spoken bl-metallism will command nat
ional attention.
"Will the silver question have an i'm
portant place in the near political fu-
ture ?" he was asked by the reporter.
''We are not through with the silver
problem, by any means, though there is
a temporary lull in the discussion. The
country was surfeited with silver argu-
ment for three months, and is no doubt
lndisposed to take the subject up again,
but it keeps coming up again like a jack
in-the box. There was a general expec
tation that something would be proposed
| by the president. He demanded uncon-
ditional repeal Of the Sherman act and
got it, and when congress met in regular
session everybody expected he would say
something and recommend something;
but he has evaded that expectation, ex-
cept that he says: wait, and perhaps
by and by an international conference
will do something So then we get no
lead from the president"
''What is the significance, Mr.. Senator,
of the new voorhees,. bill providing for
resumption OF silver purchases to the
extent Of $2,0O0,000 a month";"
~ really do not know whether Mr..
Voorhees, bill represents either the presi-
dent or the democratic majority. II NAV
be simply Mr.. Voorhees, own personal
panacea. But feel that the Republican
party. ought to have a policy Of bi-metal-
lism, if for no other reason than because
1t is pledged to bl-metallism in It's plat
form. ] start from the platform, which
| am bound to observe, unless see very
strong reasons for abandoning it, and I
do not see any such reason. Most stren-
uous efforts should be made to avoid gold
monometallism. The evil effects that
must flow from the striking out Of all the
silver OF the world as a measure of value
connot be overstated. 1t would lower
the prices of all property enormously,
excepting gold, Of course. It would put
burdens upon debtors which they could
not carry, and must sink under Wide
spread insolvency and financial ruin
would result. Archbishop Walsh, of Ire
land, has forciblY described the effects
which the single gold standard, univer-
sally established, would have upon that
numerous body Of tenants IN Ireland who
| have had their rents judicially fixed for
fifteen years under one statute, or who
have bought their lands under another
statute and are to pay for them by fixed
yearly installments spread over fifty
years. They would, as the archbishop
shows, be crushed absolutely beyond
hope if the single gold standard were
universally adopted"
I'm spite Of the great fall in the price
Of silver, to which the gold standard ad-
vocates constantly refer, do you believe
bi-metalllsm to be a practical policy r"
Certainly I do. I do not think the
fact that silver has gone down in price is
any argument against bi-metallism. It
has gone down in price because it has
been demonetized. It is not natural,
but an artificial depreciation. The b1-
metalllsts claim that If silver can be re-
monetized with the concensus of all ma
tions 1t will at once go up in price again.
They claim that the intrinsic value of
both gold and silver would be very low
1t neither OF them were money metals,
and that it is their use as money that
gives them their value. Now, then, if
the nations agree to a ratio, say of Is to
!, and agree to the free coinage Of both
metals at that ratio, silver never will 90
below the coinage value, nor will gold 90
above it. Nor, if there should be large
new discoveries Of gold, would that
metal 60 below the coinage value. Sec
retary Carlisle says he cannot conceive
OF two measures OF value any more than
ne can conceive OF two yardsticks of
different lengths, or two standard
pounds. That statement simply ignores
the principle Of bi-metallism, which is:
that the two metals are to be fastened to
SNSAA SoA1SA ~ 81 as~A1ClliOAlt w bll0
ratio Of coinage; that then there is to be
free coinage of both metals, and then the
privilege to the debtor of paying in the
least valuable metal will always keep the
two metals at a parity at the agreed
ratio. Those who deny the bi-metallic
principle say that because the nations
which most largely produce silver hap
pen TO have large increase in their pro-
ductlOn it is necessary to damnnatiza
that metal. I do not share that view.
New discoveries Of silver or gold are the
good luck of the nations that make them.
Suppose the gold d-producing nations
should suddenly make discoveries OF
large quantities of gold, would they be
willing to demonetize gold, or would
they claim the benefit of their luck? BIZ
metallism says that in each case the ma
ton making the new discoveries shall
get the benefit Of them, and that, in the
long run, no harm will he done ia oanyhof1y