Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1895-12-03
standing between us: Don'1
forget the 2 per cent. G. J.

forget the 2 per. cent. G. J..
WHY SIXTEEN TO ONE?
THE REASONS WHY WE DEMAND
f. THE FREE COINAGE OF SILVER
AND GOLD AT THATRATIO.
The opponent of bimetalism is
seldom so we'll pleased as when
attacking the ratio of Is to i.
Men who never in their lives be-
slowed an hour of intelligent and
consecutive thought on the sub.
ject will assume alook of superior
wisdom and ask why that partic-
ular ratio, rather than some other?
Why not eight to one, or one to
one? Very sagely they remark
that if the United States can open
it's minis to both metals and
make 16 OF. of silver equal to 1
ounce of gold in the coinage,
there is no good reason why one
ounce of silver cannot be made
the equal of one ounce of gold.
Having thus learnedly (?) dis
posed of the is to 1 proposition,
they proceed to say that if silver
is to be coined at all, it should be
at the market price" which re-
presents a ratio of something
like 80 tot.
In a former issue comment WAS
made upon Judge Aldredge's
ridiculous claim that the farmer
is now better off with so cent
wheat than he formerly was with
his wheat at a dollar. We ven
tured to suggest that if a drop to
50 cents had improved the farm
er's condition. a drop to Is cents
would improve it still more.
A correspondent writing to the
National Bi-metallist attempts to
apply the same line Of criticism
to the question of ratio. He asks,
if Is to l is a good thing, why
would not 10 to l be better? In
this way he seeks to show the
fallacy of the ratio of 16 to I.
The weakness of such reason
ing lies in the assumption of an
analogy where none exists.
1t is as clear as light that the
farmer has not been benefited by
a fall of so per cent in the price
of his wheat, but it does not
follow that because it would be a
good thing to coin silver at $1.29
per ounce, it would be still better
to coin it at$2 or So or $40 or 20.
Our correspondent s conclusion
would be sound, if the bi-me tallic
idea were merely to increase the
volume of money, indefinitely
and without limit. In that case
1 to 1 would be Is times as good
as Is to /. The use of whole
mountains of paper would be
still better.
But the bi-metallist seeks to
do nothing of the kind. His pur-
pose is merely to restore the
monetary system that was sub
verified in 1873, and utilize the
two metals in the best and most
equitable way.
In fixing ratio between them
for money use, all the elements
which would naturally affect the
value of each for that purpose,
should be taken into considera,
ton.
This is exactly what the Amer
lean bi-metallist does in advocat-
ing the ratio of 16 to 1. He is
not leaping blindly in the dark
and demanding a purely arbi.
trary ratio, wholly regardless Of
existlng conditions.
There are three excellent rea.
sons why bi-metallists in this
county have generally fixed upon
the ratio of 16 to /. First,-Be
that was the legal ratio existing
from 1884 until the demonetizine
act Of 1873. There was nothing
wrong with that ratio in itself
but as France and the Other
states of the Latin Union coined
at 15}, silver was given a valua
ton in Europe about 8 per cent
higher than we gave it. Hence
but little was coined at our mint
| But the minis of the Latin Union
being now closed to silver, there
would be no conflict of ratios
and it is believed that our mint
rate would control the relative
value of gold and silver every
where.
Second. Many bi-metallist<
believe that ISL would be the
more logical ratio. because the
full'legal tender silver of Europe
is generally coined at that rate
But monometallists have pro
fessed to fear that if our min
, were opened, European countrie!
would at once seize the opportu
nifty and get rid of their coin b,
exchanging it for American
gold.
) The fear rests upon no sub
j stantial basis, because European
governments are not anxious t,
get rid of their silver. Eve1
Germany, who took the lead il