The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-05-18
SEVERAL SILVER BLUNDERs.

J OOl Z OVER SOllG OIL Inc I1GId1Q
in reference to the course pursued by
! the Tribune and its editor on the sill
yer question. 1t wants II know why
! The Herald takes delight in saying
such things, and goes on in the usual
sty:e of the assurnptive lump IF ig-
nOrance who poses as q. silver oracie.
to intimate that The Herald writer is
new convert to the silver doctrine,
ard that the remarks Of The Herald
were made to crafty personal spite.
Now as to personal spite, we invite
the arrogant editor who has made
nl)re egregious blunders OH finance
than any man in the west that pre-
tends to understand the subjecI, to go
back over the files of his own paper
and read his own spiteful personal
attacks aimed at somebody on The
Herald staff who, for all the Tribune
man knows, may have advocated sill
yer as long as the Tribune has.
No. The Herald has no spites to
crafty, but it has always some truths
TO tell. and is ready to use them
when they will do any good. And
when attacked by blunderer. who
poses as Sir Oracle and takes the at
titude that all silver wisdom is locked
up in his added pate, it proposes to
expose his eggregious errors.
Right in the same paper in which
his own spite and venom against The
Herald are manifested, there are sew
eral blunders on the silver question
which he imagines nobody under
stands but himself. In answer to a
question that is to decide bet, he
gravely informs his correspondent
that under the act of 1873:
1.-The silver coinage was restricted
to fractional quarters and dimes;
these are legal tender to the amount
of five dollars only but the unlimited
legal tender quality Of the silver dol
lar previously coinel was not taken
away and when the silver dollar coin
age was resumed under the act of 1873
rs free legal tende: power was pre-
served.
is that true? Let us see. The act
Of 1873 provided:
'HThe silver coins of the United
States shall be a legal tender at their
exceeding five dollars in any one pay
ment."
What were 1.-The silver coins Of the
United States under that act? Here
is what it says:
.'The silver coins of the United
States shall be a trade dollar, half
dollar or fifty cent piece, quarter
dollar or twenty-five cent piece.
dime, or ten-cent piece
Is it not clear, then, that under the
act of 1879, silver coinage was mot
restricted to fractional currency but
that the trade dollar was made part
of the silver coinage? Also that the
legal tender quality Of the silver dol
lar, as we'll as of the fractional cur
rency was limited to five dollars?
Why let ignorant assumption so to
the extent of attempting to decide
bet by errors that even "a new con-
vert" who can read is able to see
through?
1t is also untrue that in the act Of
1878 '.the full legal tender power was
preserved" 1t had been taken away
and by that act was restored, fact
that the same would-be oracle has
previously denied when it was pointed
out by The Herald. The title of the
act of 1873 was:
IAN act to authorize the coinage OF
the standard silver dollar and to re-
store it's legal tender character.
Three palpable plumbers are set
forth in that one short Tribune para
graph, written to decide bet! And
they come from the Il know-it-slP'
bunch of arrogance and conceit who
views correction of his fallacies as
an exhibition of spite.
Another similar untruth is that
set forth in the same columns. that
.'since 1878 all obligations unless other
wise specially stated are payable In
gold.'' The fact is that since 1878 all
debts and ues. public and private,
may be paid in silver unless it is
otherwise specified in the contract.
The law says so. Therefore Sir Ora
Gle has blundered again, and has the
truth reversed.
He flies to his old argument that
the OQlleQ SldlSS IlSdSUiS PNS oOA&
on demand when United States paper
is presented. That is not the ques-
ton. The whole thing turned on the
question of the payment of railroad
bonds in which there is no special
guaranty for payment in gold. In
answering that Sir Oracle also gave
the exact opposite of the law. Was
that ignorant assumption or wilful
Misrepresentation?
1t is not long since he claimed that
the silver dollar was not a legal ten
der for custom dues, but that in order
to get goods on which duty must be
paid, man with silver money only
would have to get it changed to gold
in order to pay those dues. Now,
since that blunder has been exposed |
by The Herald. he puts on airs and
says: 1--WE thought that matter was
all settled. 1t is true silver dollars are
a legal tender, and always have been
in this country"
Outside of the regular routine of
the silver arguments that has been
followed for many years, it is found
that the silver straddler is lamentably
and is as striking a fail
ure on financial questions as in help
ing to frame state constitution.
This is said not in spite but in pro-