Chariton courier. (Keytesville, Chariton County, Mo.) 1878-current, 1895-10-11
NUMBERl3 81.

| to sa tisfy some of his own constituents for
after returning TO his delegation, he arose at
the conclusion of Mr.. Tarsney's.. speech and
said that If he had been understood in his re-
marks az not indorsing free and unlimited
coinage at a ratio of 16 to l, he desired to
make himself plain. That was what he was
in favor OF the platform saying"
When reminded yos, during your speech
in Salisbury last Saturday night, that 1 had
heard you make such a declaration before
the Kansas City convention, you endeavored
to justify your attitude in those days, by
explaining that silver was not SO low in
price then as now; that the commercial ratio
at that time was % to I whereas it is now
about 80 to 1. Now, as a matter OF fact, sill
Yer is worth over three cents per ounce more
to-day on the markets than at the time of
the Kansas City incident. The st. Louis
Republics market report shows tha. on May
18th, 1894, bar silver was. quoted in New
York at 63 3-4 cts. per ounce, and to-day at
&c rs cents per ounce. That is to say, the
commercial ratio was then about So 1-2 to
1, while now it is little less than 81 to L.
So we see the reason you assigl for this
change in your position is utterly ground
in Nay, 1894. Hence, either you were wrong
then or you are wrong now. Yet you at
tempt to justify both positions. W hich way
shall follow you?
You beg the question when you complain
that some of your constituents are severely
taking you to task for these glaring incon-
sistencies in your record. 1t is not sufficient
for you to say that the question at issue is
moi what you have advocated and now ad.
vocate, but whether the United States can
adopt free and unlimited coinage at 1s to 1.
How can we decide this question from your
presentation OF it? You would have us be-
lieve you now, be instructed by you, and told
by you that We are wrong in our: views. and
yet when We ask you to tell us why, you have
changed your position in regard to it, you
orsr us reason not based upon the facts.
No, sir! We have right to aaaliss your
record as well as swallow down::this new set
of sophistries. We have a right to sift You
to see whether the charges are true that
your real purpose in this matter is to divide
the silver elements of the Democratic party
on the ratio, in order that the gold standard
men may step in and capture the national
convention next year.
But, to return to your Salisbury speech
Assuming that you we're correct in regard to
the commercial alto, when you favored 16
to 1, asked you if you still believed that
the United States might have adopted free
and unlimited coinage at 16 to 1, when the
commercial ratio vas % TO L, and you re-
piled that you did. Now this admission ON
this point is, in itself. complete answer and
refutation OF your whole stock OF arguments
against 16 to /.
You attempted to establish, by misappiy3
| ing some of the old statements OF sffsrson and
Benton, that any nation which should pre-
sume.to coin these metals at any o othsr than
the commercial ratio would at once pInuge
to disaster and ruin. But what 10 the use of
trying to make US believe this east-iron doe
trine, after already having denied appli.
cation to case in points
And again: By elaborate quotation OF
statistics, (some of them false, az We remind
cd you at the time) you set up claim that
it was IL great nations, other. than tte
United States. which, by quitting the coiD-
age OF silver. have debased it, and lowered
its price; and that the United States by No
law could change its condition. Let me re-
mind you that every one of these same IL
great nations were not coming silver 1S
months ago, when you we're as big 16 to
man as anybody.
You will pardon me for saying 1 cen not
believe you sincerely favor the free and un-
limited coinage of silver at any rate. al
though you claim to be the truest and lest
friend OF silver. and vehemently denouncs the
act OF 1873 as a crime. For if the other IA
tions OF the earth opposed to silver have
prostrated it, when this government was
doing all it could for it. as you assert how
can We know, in our view, that these other
nations might not continue to press down
and down the value of silver below any ratio
We may adopt? The fact is, your arguments
oonstitu to the common stock of gold stand
ard arguments from beginning 70 end, aad it
is not strange that We, who seek the true So
luton of this question with patriotic motives
are confused to hear you use them as 4 friend
OF silver.
Why do you not turn your batteries loose
on the common enemy, the gold money
kings. and point out way of correcting the
blighting law Of 1873?
Here is a foe in reality. already in exist
ence, and yet, with a zeal worthy a nobler
cause. you devote your time and energies
going about in every nook and corner, fight
ing the time-honored principles Of cur faith.
ers;principles which are net embodied in law.
and which, thanks to the tyranical, blood
sapping money power and federal patren-
age. may never be.
Why do We not hear of you debating
this question with John Sherman and his
ilk? Why do you array yourself only against
old reliable Democrats, who are simply and
consistently standing for what Democracy
has Away stood for?
/ do not seek your personal disadvantage;