St. Paul daily globe., 1895-07-01

ldnu set himSelf IN opposition to 1t.
He and Secretary Carlisle proposed
a return to Democratic currency
methods, a enforcement of the ma
tional government from banking; a
retirement of its current obligations;
the substitution of bank notes is
sued under federal supervision. 1t
was a policy based on principle
rather than one based on temporary
eXpediency. Congress-its Republi-
cans with enough Democrats to con-
trol-rejected the measures submit
ted. Months have elapsed, bringing
their demonstration that again the
president is right. The free coinage
movement reached it's height in
Democratic ranks when Hinrich-
sens aggregation at Springfield met,
denounced the president, joined the
Populists and adjourned. A move
ment that needed for its support
the condemnation of the only Dem
ocratic president the party has seat
ed since 1856 could not have the
countenance of Democrats. Put to
the test in Kentucky by a proffered
resolution of censure, it ingloriously
failed. The committees of state otter
state refused to follow the Illinois
lead. Even Missouri, Bland-ridden
as it has been, refused by vote of
two to one to enter on that path of
temporary and dangerous expedi-
ency"
This is the present condition in the
party. 1t should convince any Dem
ocrat that, as a mere matter of
policy, disregarding the principle,
the advocacy of free coinage is in
expedient. This becomes clearer
when a wider range of observation
is taken. What gave our party the
mastery in 1892? Was it not because
we had taken bold stand for prin-
ciple and the right? Who gave us
that sweeping victory? Was it not
our former opponents whom we have
convinced of the rightfulness of our
cause? Applying this to the cur
rency question, is not our situation
the same as it was in and prior to
1892? Is not the position of the pres
ident on the currency commanding
support from the same sources that
our position on the tariff command
ed? When men like Senator Mel
son and Gov. Merriam advocate the
policies and support the principles
Of finance proposed by the president
and the secretary of the treasury;
when from the leading papers of their
party comes approval of their po-
sition, does it not indicate even to
the seekers after the expedient that
the presidents is the strong posi-
ton to take?
Did we doubt our tariff policy
when it drew to us the support of
eminent Republicans? Should we
discard a policy now that commands
general approval? But it is the
Republican position also" Is it?
What prominent man in that party,
what leader, has taken it? Where
is Reed or Harrison, Mckinley or
Allison? Why was the national con-
vention of their clubs, accustomed
to blaze the path for the party, silent
il it is the policy of that party? 1t
is not. The existing currency sys-
tenn is theirs. Papers like the New
York Tribune and leaders like Sher-
man insist on it's being maintained.
Business men like Merriam insist
that it be abandoned and the presi-
dents Democratic policy adopted.
Cannot our politicians see the i'm
mense strength of this position; its
vote-getting capacity?
With the Republican party organ
ization, and the leaders from whom
it must select its presidential can
didate, abandoning the currency
question; with leading papers of
that party approving the abandon
ment; with the administration hold
ing one that is right measured by
any Democratic principle and Win
ming the cordial approval of the best
Republican sentiment, is any Dem
ocrat so blind as not to see that, on
the mere ground OF opportunism, the
administration has seized upon a
financial policy and a tariff policy
that must be winners if adhered to
in the coming national campaigne