The San Francisco call., 1895-07-18


in London and Paris, and very few were
included among those who understood its
ultimate effect. A good deal of diplomacy,
concealment and misrepresentation was
practlced IN securing the cooperation of
polltclans IN Germany, France and the
United States. The subject was discussed
without disclosing the ultimate aim OF
those who directed the conference.
Following his trip to London and Paris,
Mr.. Sherman introduced bill in 1868 that
on It's face intended to establish the gold
standard. Senator Morgan of New York
jumped on it, in the face of the committee
with 'all fours," and Sherman saw that
Morgan understood genuine bimetallism,
and this bill died that day and was never
heard of again.
Senator Morgan's term of office expired
IN 1869, and at the very next session
another bill made its appearance. Those
VINO took an open and avowed interest in
the new measure were Mr.. Linderman,
Director of the Mint, and Mr.. Knox, the
Comptroller of the Treasury, who at the
end of his term of Office became president
OF National bank in New York: John
Sherman in the Senate, and Representa-
tives Hooper of Massachusetts, and Slough
ton of Michigan in the House.
The bill this time went to committee,
in which the second attempt to leave out
the silver dollar was again discovered and
it was inserted at the ratio of 15k to 1,
which was the French ratio. This pro-
vided for dollar of 384 grains. This was
the equivalent of the French tive-franc
piece.
To knock this dollar out surreptitiously
at the last moment then became the plan
of the conspirators. The only question
they would have to fight would be the
change of the unit of value from silver to
gold and OH this they could depend by
representing that gold was virtually then
the standard by common consent of ma
tions, that it had been rendered so by the
large production OF gold and by other spe-
cific arguments asserted by special infiu-
ences. Thus it became bill innocent on
its face as to demonetizing silver.
Demonstration consists principally in
closing the mints to a specified metal, thus
cutting off the coinage demand for it and
leaving it only a commercial value.
Mr.. Horr-You will excuse me, Mr.. Har-
vey, but previous to commencing my dis
tention to a passage on page in your
book, because you have already announced
here to-day that you propose to convince
me that what this book says is absolutely
true and that am wrong about it. You
say that prior to 1873 there was sos, ,O00,-
600 of silver coined by the United States
and sS, 600 of this was silver dollars.
Mr.. Harvey-You refer to the amounts
for which the Spanish coin of such name
is received in American money and the
Mexican coin for so much, the British coin
for so much, meaning to tell the American
people how much they could pass that
coin for as expressed in our money. That
is not necessary in order TO establish the
principle I was stating that foreign silver
was legal tender in this country. The
point is this: Our mints tested these foreign
coins and valued the silver that was in
then. The alloy of much of that coin was
different from our alloy, so it was neees-
sary to assay those foreign coins and see
how much they were worth in our money.
This the mints did, and Congress put
into that act how much a certain foreign
coin was worth in our money. That is
stated in the statute that he accuses ME of
leaving out what was unnecessary for me
to state in establishing that our laws made
foreign silver legal tender. [Applause.l
Horr-When you left out the very fact
which showed that number of foreign
coins were not a legal tender be-
cept they came up to certain
standard. But away on ahead you speak
of 1873. Now up to 1878 you said that they
made all of these legal tender. Did you
think so? Here is the low of 1857 passed
upon that same subject, when they de-
clared that none of them should be legal
tender and required the mints of the
country to melt them up and recoin them
all, and repeated the very law that he has
been talking about. [Applause.] That is
the fact about it.
Mr. Harvey-Mr. Horr accuses me of
Misrepresentation. Now never have at
tempted yet in dealing with the public or
any one else to mislead them, and in deal
ing with this financial question 1 have
looked at both sides of the question TO
Judge it from its merits. But will settle
one question of Misrepresentation that
am charged with right here, because it set
ties several at once and will leave Mr.. Horr
to explain something. In reading this
section that | quoted in the book as to
foreign coin, he asks why did not put
gold in along with silver and said that the
statute so read, gold and silver, and that
l had stated gold. Now, 1 call Mr.. Horr's
attention to the statute that quoted, and
gold is not in it. 1t says silver only. ZAP
plause.
A man is not guilty of Misrepresentation
every time somebody accuses him of it.
On that same page it was said that the
statement made by the gold advocates that
only $1,000, 900 of silver was in circulation
prior to 1873 was not true and that instead
OF SIS, 100000 in silver being in circulation
prior TO 1873 there was S1O5. 100000 in silver
in circulation prior to that time coined at
our own mints.
Now he says that $105, 100000 was not
correct. What is the correction2 / did
make mistake. The Treasurer had made
mistake in the book that copied it from.
When he corrected the mistake six months
atterward it read $143, 600, 600. Applause.
That IS the only Misrepresentation that
the book is accused of. We underestimate