Alma record. (Alma, Mich.) 1878-1928, 1895-03-22

sidered,' that the changes proposed
were "merely formal etc. is il To- be
wondered that the bill was passed with.
out close attention of senators? and
more especially since the principal part
of The time was tatcn up in discussing
mere triilcs as 10 the eagle, whether
there should Ice "a ,eignioraee. and how
much loss by abrasion should be
at the expense of the government. The
nature Of that senate debate would
have deceived the most alert and care
ful senator when thrown of guard and
not expecting a trap.
We did not look mp the house debate
As carefully, bat looking mp all refer
ences to the bill from the index, we
Judge that it could not have taken
much if any more time. 1t is fact
any man can see by examining the
record that the act of '73 VAS "done in
a corner and so trivial was it regarded
that scarcely mention can be found
of it in the files of the newspapers of
the time, and a few short references of Il
few lines, announcing that such bill
had been passed, are all that we have
ever seen quoted.
Bat they say it was 'bcfore congress
for three years" One might be led to
think from this statement that it was
up and frequently discussed. Such is
not the fact. II is true that Mr.. Hoop.
er OF Massachusetts introduced the bill
in the list congress in December, Il,
if our memory is correct, Chese dates
we did not put DOWN and it was
reached in debate some time in April,
70. The debate was somewhat more
full here. and still it was not "A long de-
bate-very short, indeed. 1t might all
have been in two or three hours at
most. Mr.. Hooper, who introduced the
bill, explained its provisions rs he went
along; and if he did not lie deliberately
he most terribly warped the truth. He
refers in his speech to Mr.. Seyd of Lon
don and says the committee was in
debted to him for many of his sugges-
tons which had been incorporated in
the bill. If any of Mr.. Seyd'S Sugges-
tons were followed, the one which he
most earnestly pressed was disrcgarded;
namely, that urging the committee not
to establish the single gold standard. We
have copy of that letter to Mr. Hoop
or, and in it he shows the disastrous
consequences to the middle, artisan and
lower classes of England, produced by
her abandonment of silver coinage in
1916, and makes dire prophecies of
what will be the effect if the United
States and other countries abandon sill
ver This most urgent portion of Mr..
Seyds letter is not mentioned or re-
ferred to in debate.
Another statement of Mr.. Hooper in
the House was well calculated to de-
ceive and throw congressman of their
guard as to the real intent of the bill
1t is where he explains the object of
disseminating the coinage of the silver
dollar. He explained that there had
always been difficulty in keeping sill
yer in circulation because its value was
about - cents higher on the dollar
than gold, and that the coins were
gathered up and shipped abroad for the
margin of premium. This he explained
further was because the bullion value
of silver was in the market higher than
the coming value. This was all true,
but he neglected to explain further that
the premium on the market was because
Europe was coming at the ratio of
l5l TO /, while our coinage was Is To l.
IL - easy W II uIt Oul tllhI ll' ulhNi-
ence between European coinage and
ours is 1928 per cent, just about what
Mr.. Hooper claimed, and the difficulty
could easily have been remedIed 10y
changing our coinage from lG To l
TO l54 to |, to conform TO their higher
valuation of silver. As no one pointeG out
the real cause of the premium and the
deportation of silver, Mr.. Hooper's rem
edy was accepted. If Mr.. Hooper was
dishonest enough to ignore protest
against decentralization of silver, by 50
able finaucier AZ Ernest Seyd,
making, as far as we observed,
no reference to it, though the pro-
test was expressed in about 10000
words, it would be only fair to suppose
that Mr.. Hooper knew the vital clause
of the bill and attempted to allay sus-