The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-07-23
Each Accused the Other of
Willfully Misstating
Facts.
FEW HEARD THEIR ARGUMENT.
When the Debate Was Resumed
There We're but Fifty-Three
Listeners.
copyright, 1895. by Azel F. Hatch.I

CHICAGO, I'LL, July 22.-Although the
weather was cool and pleasant to-day, the
attendance at the Horr-Harvey debate
dwindled down very perceptlbly. There
were Just fifty-three persons present when
Mr.. Horn reopened the discussion, for the
first time since the beginning Of the de-
bate reading from manuscript. During
the nineteenth century all the great coun-
tries had gold standard, he asserted, but
had not discarded silver. However, none
of them had opened their minis to silver
He dipped into the history OF finance in
France and was still talking of it when in
terrupted by the bell.
Mr. Harvey said he had many requests
to put into the record, the utterances of
ingalls,, Blackburn and other. on the SUBJ
ject of finance, but owing to the limited
number of words at his disposal, he could
not promise to do so. However, he would
probably mention them in his 2500-word
summary at the end OF his part of the de-
bate. An attack on Senator Morrill, fol-
lowed.
He was not very careful of the truth"
said Mr.. Harvey, when he stated that no
silver dollars had been coined for many
years pricr to 1873"
Copies of the mint reports for several
years previous to 1873 were here submitted,
showing that several millions of silver dol
lars had been coined in those periods.
Now" said the author of "Coin," eff
Senator Morrill, could not tell the truth in
one particular, 1 have a right to assume
that he could not tell it in another"
Mr. Horr warmly defended Senator Nor
rill. He said:
"When Senator Morrill, made the asser-
ton that there had been no silver dollars
coined for many years prior to 1873, he did
not mean to be taken literally. He meant
that in comparison to the amount OF gold
coined there had been practically no silver
coined. and that is true. Mr.. Harvey has
a way I do not like of trying to smirch
the character of everybody who differs
from him. Mr.. Harvey admits that he
made one bad misstatement in his book,
and, according to his method OF argument,
l have a right to assume that he is wrong
in everything"
Mr.. Horn quoted from Mr.. Harvey's
book that "the objection to independent
bimetallism is that the parity between the
two metals cannot be maintained at our
ratio of Is to 1; that is, the gold q 3-10th
grains in the gold dollar will be worth
more than the silver Biz grains in the
silver dollar; and, with silver remone-
tized and just and equitable standard of
values, we can, if necessary, by act of
Congress, reduce the number of grains in
a gold dollar till it is the same value as the
silver dollar. We can legislate the
premium out of gold"
"What becomes of Mr.. Harvey's ratio of
16 to II" he asked. "Here is what he
virtually says: The gold dollar may be
cut down if need be, SO that the ratio shall
be 16 to ~ His mathematics, however,
are as defective as his veracity. Mathe-
matieally, 16 to u is the same as 80 to /, so
it is not the ratio he cares about"
Mr.. Harvey-Mr. Horn says that l deny
that the two metals can be kept in circula-
ton at a fixed ratio. l have not said that,
for they can be, as they have been in this
country. 1 know they have attempted to
make you believe that there was no gold
in circulation in this country, or seeking
the minis, after 1850 but both were mlsrep-
reservations. Mr.. Horn flies in the face of
history when he says that silver was not
used prior to 1873 as measure of value.
Silver was the unit to that coinage system
regulating the size of the gold coins, but
the two together we're the measure of
values, and that is what we mean by the
double standard.
Now, in 1873, you doubted the length of
the yard-stick. Applause. Suppose one
half of the gold in the world were destroyed
tomorrow beyond recovery, would not the
gold dollars that were left be twice as
valuable a, they were before? Mr.. Horr is
not bad pupil and shakes his head. So
that when you destroyed one-half of the
redemption in 1873, you doubled the value
of the money that was left. You can see
no harm in destroying the price of mans
property, cutting the price of his property
half in two, but your eyes are wide open
when any man proposes to even up with
you by proposing to cut the gold dollar
half in two. We don't wish to do that
either; we wish to put back in the coinage
system the money that you demonetized
in 1873" [Applause,l
Mr.. Horr-It is possible that Mr. Har-
vey believes that the act of 1873, when it
demonetized silver, cut the price of the
property of the world in two and that the
prices Immediately dropped 30 per cent.
was around the world in 1873 and know
that didn't take place and he knows it.
You destroy one-half of the wheat in the
world and the chances are you Will in
crease the value of wheat probably four
times; but wheat is an article that we con-
sumo from year to year. or after short
time. Gold has been accommodating for
ages and if you should destroy the pri-
mary money quality or half the gold in
the world you would not change the price
of the metal one.half. AS soon as the
price would go up there is an enormous
store laid away all over the entire world
that is not being used for money purposes
that would at once seek the channels and
be coined into money and take the place
OF the money that has been destroyed.
Referring to his previous quotations from
Mr.. Haryey's book, Mr.. Horn said he read
them for the purpose of getting at what
the author desired to reach by the free
coinage of silver, and said that what
"Coin" was really after was cheap dollar
He would reduce the value of the money
unit IN this country one-half. Mr.. Horn
protested against the whole scheme, be-
cause it is an effort to cheaper labor. The