The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1895-05-10
WAS SILVER DEMoNETIzED.

| Knew lflai Tie bIii VI 1910 dtiioHCtiHCi
| silver Still we see declarations be-
ing made daily that it was an open
and notorious fact discussed every
| where at the time. Only last week d
| Kansas paper declared that the sena-
tors and members of the house taking
part in the discussion declared that
| there would be no more silver dollar
! legal tenders. And now comes Pro
| fessOr j. Lawrence Laughlin, in he Chi
| cago Times Herald, undertaking 10
evidence to the contrary, that dem0ne-
JiZation was not accomplished by
stealth, that the act which struck down
/ the money quality Of silver WAS an
| open and deliberate one. As the Eagle
| has heretofore stated the act itself
purported to be simply a law to regu-
| late the coinage at the minis. 1t was
| in the cunning wording of the bill that
| the deed was done. In fact many
members afterwards thought that the
said wording had been surreptitiously
! interpolated after the bill had been
! formally passed 1t was for this rea-
son that the act has been called the
crime of 1913. This Professor Laugh
lin, who claims to be an authority on
political economy, but who is an out
and out gold-bug, denies the truth of
history, denies that the American peO-
pie were robbed of one-haf their abil-
ity to pay their debts, to buy products
and TO hire labor. He says great
interest centerS in the act of 1873 only
because it was regarded a crime to
| demonetiZe silver, which act was said
by senator, to have gone through
congress like the silent tread of a cat"
but declares that such was not the
fact, that the bill was thoroughly dis
cussed and universally understood"
The Times-HeraId in an editorial at
tempts backing the professor by citing
the supposed fact that the bill was
first submitted by the secretary of
the treasury in 1870, April 25th, that
it was printed eighteen times within
the next three years and discussed to
the length Of IA columns of the Con-
gressional Globe.
As the professor of political economy
of the University of Chicago has gone
out of his way to pervert history, Il
university which is owned and con
trolled by John ID. Rockefeller, one
of the greatest and biggest gold-bugs
of the country, it might be well to
at once silence him and squelch his
cuckoo by quoting the recorded pub
lie declarations of several of the repre-
sentative men Of tn United States con-
gresS on that question. Senator Here
ford in the senate on February Is,
1878, said:
so that say that beyond the POSSIBLE
ity or doubt (and there is no disputing
it, that the bill which demonetized sill
Yer, as II passed, never was read, never
was discussed, and that the chairman of
the committee who reported it, who Of
fered the substitute, said to Mr.. Holman
when inquired of that it did not affect the
coinage in any way whatever. "-(Congres-
sional Record, volume Z, part l. Forty
fifth congress, second session, page 260)
Senator Thurman on Feb. u, 1878,
said
when the bill was pending in the SEN
ate we thought it was simply a bill to re-
form the mint, regulate coinage and fix
up one thing and another, and there is
not single man in the senate, l think,
unless a member of the committee from
which the bill came, who had the slightest
idea that it was even a squint toward de-
monetization."-(Con Congressional Record,
volume Z, part ?, Forty-fifth congress,
second session, page 1064)
On March 80, 1876, Senator Conkling
made the following pertinent inquiry
Of Senator Bogg:
"Will the senator allow me to ask him
or some other senator a question? Is IL
true that there is now by law no Ameri-
can dollar? And, if SO. is it true that
the effect of this bill is 10 make half
dollars and quarter dollars the only silver
coin which can be used as legal tender?"
Congressional Record, volume f, page
3. Forty-fourth congress, first session,
page 2062)
Senators Blaine and Voorhees, had
the following interesting cOlloquy on
Feb. 10, 1878:
Mr.. Voorhees, want TO ask my friend
from Maine whether l may call him as
one more witness to the fact that it was
not generally hHONn NnStneF SILVER was
demonetized. Did he know, as speaker
of the house, presiding AT that time. that
the silver dollar was demonetized in the
bill to which he alludes?
Mir. Blaine-I did not know anything
that was in the bill at all. As I have
before said. little was known or cared on
the subject Qaughter) and now / should
like to change the questions with the sen
ator from Indiana, who was then on the
floor and whose business il was, far more
than mine, to know, because by the desig-
nation of the house L was to put Ques-
tons: the senator from Indiana, then on
the floor of the house, with his power as
a DICTATOR was TO unfold them to the
house. Did he know?
Mr.. Voorhees, very frankly say that
/ did ot.-(Congressional Record. volume
:. part .. Forty-fifth congress, second ses-
sion. page 1881
Senator Beck said in the senate on
Jan. 10, 1878:
1T Che bill demonetizing silver never
was understood by either house of con-
gress. l say that with full knowledge of
the facts. No newspaper reporter-and
they are the most vigilant men l ever saw
IN obtaining information-disCover that
il had been done."-(Congressio Record
volume :. part l. Forty-fifth congress,
second session, page 26e)
EX-President Garfield in 4 speech
At Springfield. O.. in 1917, said:
Perhaps 1 ought to be ashamed 10 say
so. but il is the truth 10 say that /. at
that time being chairman OF the commit
tee on appropriations, and having my
hands overfull during all that time with
work. ! never read the bill. I took it
upon the faith of a prominent Demo
crat and a prominent Republican. and
do not know that l voted al all There
was no call for yeas ard nays and no.