Marshall County independent. (Plymouth, Marshall County, Ind.) 1894-1895, 1895-06-07
MADE By LAW.


question. These articles We propose to
give without comment, leaving the peO-
pie to judge the arguments put forth
for themselves. The following is from
a Marshall county man, who will de
bate the question with any single stand
ard advocate. Mr.. j. Wickizer, of Ar
Cos, is the writer, and the following ar
ticle appeared IN the Patriot Phalanx,
of indianapolis. May Both.
The absorbing question now agitat-
ing the minds Of cur people, as we'll as
the minds of the other gold standard
nations, is: Which IS the greater evil,
continue the single gold standard or so
back to bimetalism as we had It before
1873?
The writer has carefully, earnestly
and prayerfully studied every feature
of the questions involved in a return to
bimetallism, and firmly believes such
return is the thing for the government
to do, and too, without waiting for the
cooperation or consent of any other ma
ton.
by his conscientious study Of the
question he has been irresistably driven
to the conclusion that only two forces
or elements oppose the reconciliation
and unrestricted coinage of silver on an
equal footing with gold. 10 TO /; one is
ignorant and the other dishonest.
\ writer in the Patriot PhaIanx OF
May 18th, says:
ON the other hand, with free coinage
of silver at Is 10 1, it would be impos-
sible for our government to maintain
its parity with gold
Now we have NJ doubt this was
written believing 1t TO be true; but lie
ignored what the experience of al COM
mercial nations has taught. lie ignores
the fact that the United States main
tanned a parity of values between gold
and silver on ratio, first from 1892 to
1851 of - to 1, and from 1891 to 1873 on
ratio of Ii to |, by free coinage of the
two metals. There has never been
known any other plan by which parity
of value could be maintained between
the two.
Our government has tried two plans:
One the plan of statesmen and patriots,
as practiced from 1892 to 1873 THE plan
of full legal-tender powers and unre-
stricted coinage Of both metals. In other
words the plan was to give them par
ity of values by giving them parity
of legal treatment. This plan was a
complete success. The other, our pres
ent plan stealthily forced on the copn-
try by those who obtained power by
their proficiency in building janus-faced
when in power they shamefully de
ceived the people by imposing on them
janus faced statutes. This plan was to
rob silver of its legal tender powers and
of free coinage while continuing these
to gold. This was to change our money
system from double to a single stand
ard.
This change, in some way, stranger
than fiction, was brought about by the
plutCcrats of the world, that they could
pluck the agricultural, producing and
laboring masses at their leisure, as the
eagle swoops down on its prey when
hungry. But the question is not as to
the motive, but what was the nature of
the change and how it has worked.
The new plan was substantially to
continue one metal gold with unre-
stricted coinage and as full legal tender
iinal-payment money, while the other
metal silver was denied free coinage
and full legal tender powers and was
reduced to commodity, and its coin a
token TO be redeemable or exchangeabe
in the coin of the favored metal, in or
der to maintain parity of value. This
has proved a costly experiment and
monumental failure.
''Now it is history that free coinage
or equal treatment, or parity of lega
treatment, maintained parity of value
as long as continued eighty years.
at is again history, that the expert
ment of maintaining parity of value
without parity of legal treatment, ha:
proved an ignominous failure. The at
tempt to maintain two metals OH par
ity OF value, one to receive its valu,
from statute law, the other to receive
its value from an entirely different law
that of supply and demand was simpl,
idiotic.
The former plan payar failad tho 10