Mexico weekly ledger., 1895-06-20
The St. Louis Republic On Silver

4 rom tue ~. 14bAit iSIE'ibh|+
Mr.. ]. o. Barbour of Fort Worth,
Tex, addresses to the Republic the
following inquiries, to which we APP
pend nswer in their order:
l. Are you in favor of the free and
unlimited coinage Of silver at 1G to 1?
We are not; and will not be until
the legislative branch of the Govern
ment takes the pains to study the SUBJ
iect and ascertains before it acts thati it
has the right ratio.
2. Are you in favor of the free and
unlimited coinage of silver at any
ratio?
We are; but at a ratio fixed by q
| Congress which has made a thorough
and judicial investigation.
8. Do you believe that this country
alone can maintain the parity of the
two metals at 16 to 1, or at any ratio
other than the relative commercial
value of the two metals?
Most certainly not. And, more than
that, we would not care whether this
country preserved a parity ornot. An
exact parity is impossible unless the
cheaper metal is sustained by being
made redeemable in the other Or by a
limitation of the coinage. That is not
a matter of belief, but an axiom of the
commonest knowledge. Free coinage
of both metals contemplates an alter
nate use of gold and silver, which will
inevitably make for the stability of
both as measures of value.
4. If this country should enact a
law for the free and unlimited coinage
of silver at 10 to 1, do you think it
would place us on a monometallic sill
Yer basis?
Undoubtedly it would, under present
circumstances.
8. If we are compelled to have a
single gold standard o. a single silver
standard, which of the two would you
favor?
As a general principle we believe, if
we must have a single standard, silver
would be better for the people OF this
country. If silver had been the money
of final redemption when we resumed
specie payments and had so continued,
we are convinced that the welfare OF
the agricultural states would have
been far in advance of what it has
been; and we are convinced also that
the old ratio would be satisfactory now
if the United States had enforced the
free coinage of silver all along. Any
variation in the commercial ratio
would have been gradual and would
have wrought no injustice. But the
United States did not resume with sill
yer and did not adopt free coinage in
1875, n 1856 or in 1890. And now the
nation stands with the whole volume
of public and private contracts based
on gold. Whether the policy was
right or wrong, the American people,
through their elected agent, the Gov
eminent at Washington, adopted the
policy and maintained it. The ques-
ton M in of the adjustments of
business and of the continued conf
dence of trade and enterprise. During
all the period since our resumption of
specie payments the coinage laws of
nations have been changing. First
Germany, then the Latin Union and
finally India dropped silver from the
privilege of free coinage. The COM
mercial ratio has been changed by these
laws, and perhaps by other circum-
stances, until now we must deal with
a price of about 50 cents an ounce in
stead of one of 81. 80. 1t is impossible
to ignore the great changes which
have occurred while we have been I'M
der the single gold standard. The
question of the ratio is too much af-
fected by these changes to be settled
arbitrarily without Congress looking
carefully into the market relation of
the money metals.