The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-02-16
a MASS OF coNTRApTcr1oNs.

we were curious to see how our
wondrously wise neighbor would wrig-
gle out of that national bank currency
hole into which it dropped on Tuesday.
And this is how it manages the twist.
I'VE knew better all the time, and our
neighbor even now knows nothing
about the matter either way" Just
what we expected.
On Tuesday the Tribune made the
blunder. On Wednesday The Herald
pointed it out and explained the facts
On Thursday the Tribune admits it
made a mistake, but says it knew bet
ter all the time and the paper which
pointed out the error knows nothing
about it either way" Why did not the
Tribune correct its mistake on Wednes-
day. instead of waiting till it saw The
Herald's remarks? And if it knew
better all the time, why did it tumble
into the absurdity? Was it to enlighten
or to fool its readers?
Now as to the ''real money! ques-
ton. Our neighbor has tried to mud
die the public as to the status of sill
yer. 1t still insists that the Democ-
racy has killed silver. At the same
time, in a roundabout. weary waste of
words. it admits that silver was killed
in 1873 when the Republican party de
monetized" it. That is the contradic-
ton which the Tribune has repeated
and We have showed up scores of
times. But its explanation of the kill
ing is that silver is now mot money
of ultimate redemption: that it is
just the same as a greenback"; that
''ali the silver that is coined might as
we'll be paper"
Now suppose that is true-which it
is not-did not the Republican Con-
gress of 1873 put silver in that posi-
ton? And when the Democratic Con-
gress repealed the purchasing clause
of the Sherman act, did not leave the
money power of the silver dollar just
where it was before that repeal? It's
status as money was not changed in
the smallest degree by the act Of 1898
AS to ultimate redemption If
silver currency note for So is re-
deemed by the payment of five silver
dollars, is not that ultimate redemp-
ton? Does a silver dollar require or
call for redemption in gold or any
thing else? 1t is not true that it is
not money. 1t is just as much money
as a gold dollar is. 1t does not derive
it's money value or money quality
from gold. It is not promise to pay.
1t is payment itself, and in that re-
spect is on a level with gold. Our
neighbor is as badly muddled on that
question as it was on the national cur
rency question. But perhaps in this
case, while talking as it does, it knows
better all the time"
In the article to which The Herald
referred, the Tribune spoke of silver
as real money in contradistinction to
the dirty paper notes of the national
banks, and at the same time declared
that silver is not real money, as it does
now. That is another of it's blank con-
tradictions. But here is one more: The
Tribune speaks of the fall of silver
and the corresponding fall in wheat,
which it declares first has nothing
to do with either protection or free
trade, and then says that the fall
has not been greater is due to the
tariff" What next? Why this: After
speaking of the fall in silver, it says
"The ounce of silver buys just the
same as it did in 1873, the ounce of
silver in the rough bar, without any
means that the purchasing power of
silver is not changed, and then when
men think that by tariff or free trade
they can change an immutable law,
they are and always will be mistaken
as long as they cling to their heresy.''.
If that is true there has been no fall
in silver" 1t has not been KILLED.
in a mercantile sense nor in money
sense. An ounce of silver was worth
$1.29 in 1873; today it is worth about
half that amount. But if it will buy
just as much in the rough barr today
as it did in 1873, why should there be
any complaint about its decline? If
the purchasing power of an ounce of
silver is just the same as it was twenty
years ago, then the demonetizing act
of the Republican party has not in
jured silver nor. has the Democratic
party done it any harm.
Of course we shall be told by our
peculiar contemporary that we don't
know anything about it. And our very
neighbor will repeat its desire
for "a change of editors" But that
will not affect the question at all, and
the fact will remain that our neighbor
is still in a middle and if it knew
better all the time it ought not to
try to bewilder the public. We hope
the Tribune will not nave "a change
of editors It Is such good fun to
its present utterances from
day TO day. and show what a terrible
they make when brought
together. But we should not expose
them 50 much if that paper die rot
assume such profundity of knowledge
and announce that those who differ
from it know nothing about the mat
ter at all"
As 70 SEEMING.
The attention Of orr lnpisIafn is