Mexico weekly ledger., 1895-09-05
Why Not Is to II

why not 10 to 1" and argues that De-
cause the true ratio between gold and
silver was once 16 to / that it should
be again. Let us examine such an
argument q little. The price of wheat
was once $1.5o per bushel. Why
should it not be that again? Does any
farmer expect it? The price of corn
was last fall forty to fifty cents a
bushel. Why should it not be the
same this fall? Does any farmer ex-
pect it? If he does he will be griev-
ously disappointed.
The fact is, things have changed;
circumstances have changed. We
once paid s4 per barrel for salt. Do
you ever expect to pay half of that
again?
From 1892 to 1884 the legal coinage
ratio in this country between silver
and gold was Is to /. Why not de-
mand that we go back to Is to L?
The same arguments that are used for
16 to 1 will equally apply to Is to L.
The one is as logical as the other.
The fact is there was a time less
than $50 years ago when IA ounce of
silver were worth as much as I ounce
of gold; then in 1892 it took 10 ounces
Of silver to be worth l ounce of gold;
then in 1884 it took &c of silver to be
worth l of gold, o it takes so of sill
e to be worth l of gold. The two
metals have been getting farther and
farther apart, even when the minis
were wide open to both alike and it
matters not whether you say silver
has gone down or gold has gone up.
The fact probably is gold has appre-
ciated and silver depreciated. We
may kick at this, but to some extent
we r powerless to help it.
The article says if coinage cannot be
maintained at 10 to / there is no as
surapce that it can be maintained at
any ratio. In 1884, Jackson, Benton
and all the Democratic statesmen of
that generation found they could not
maintain the coinage of both gold and
silver at 10 to / as the law was from
1892 to that time. Suppose they had
said, "Well, if we cannot maintain
coinage at Is to 1 there is no assur-
nee that it can be maintained at any
other ~ratio;n then the Is to 1 ratio
never would have been heard of. This
shows the folly of such an argument.
The article continues: "For this
reason we consider the most danger
our enemy of silver to be the pre-
tended friend who fights this ratio; he
is the soldier who betrays to the enemy
the secrets of his commander" This
means Ewe propose to drive and force
people to say 16 to 1 or we shall call
them traitors" Pray what secrets
are there in your camp to be betray-
ed? Please explain what you mean
by betraying secrets? Tell us how any
man who advocates unlimited silver
coinage can be an enemy to such
coinage. Tell us how it is that the
ratio of Is to 1 is sc sacred. Tell us
how it can be that a man must shout
Is to 1 with the crowd else he is an
enemy to silver. Tell us if you think
all independence of thought is to be
destroyed by threats. If you think it
can be thus stamped out.
We who stand squarely upon the
Democratic record and platforms have
no secrets to be betrayed. Why should
you have?
The writer of that article is mis-
taken in the men who oppose the at
tempt to stampede the Democratic
party off it's time honored bimetallic
platform and into false and dangerous
positions. They have not determined
to resist the bowling tide without
counting the cost. They are for BIZ
metaIlism from principle, and not be-
cause it is popular.
We firmly believe these men who
shout 1G to 1 or nothing are as much
the enemies of bimetallism as are the
gold standard men. Their course is
simply calculated to drive the country
through calamity and panic to silver
monometaIlism. We tell them they
cannot, they shall not do this. If they
can show that Is to / is the right ratio
then we are with them. But this they
cannot do. They really do no. attempt
to do SO. Until they a do this we
oppose any radical change, which
must mean a great financial crash.
1