The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-05-24
CARLISLE AGAINST CARLISLE.

peen TepheQ TO over and over again
and which are at complete variance
with his own arguments Of seventeen
years ago, as we have already shown
by quotations from his speeches dur
ing the debate on the Bland-Allison
coinage bill, when he strongly advo-
Gated the unlimited coinage of both
gold and silver. But we will call at
tention to a few of his statements: He
says:
ut is the metal that fixes the value
of the coin and not the coin that fixes
the value of the metal"
Is that true? Take the standard
silver dollar today. Is it not of the
value OF a dollar for all money pur-
poses in this country? What gives it
that value? Is it the metal? Accord
ing to Secretary Carlisle the metal in it
is only worth little less than fifty
cents. 1t is, then, the stamp of the
government upon it, authorized by law.
not?
Now suppose the law was so fixed
that silver was restored to its status
previous to 1873, and was coined in
unlimited quantities at the present
ratio with gold, would not the value
Of the metal appreciate until it reached
the coin value? Then would it not be
the coin that fixed the value of the
metal and not the metal that fixed
the value of the coin? The very re-
verse of the great financier's PROPOSE
ton is the truth.
He says further. after stating his in
ability ito understand what is really
means by a double standard"
eve have now practical bimetallism
the use of both metals as money; we
should have then practical monometal-
lism-the use of only one metal as
money. This is a conclusion based on
facts established by the experience of
all nations in all ages"
Is it possible that Mr.. Carlisle does
not understand the financial position
of this country previous to 1873? Gold
and silver were each freely coined
without limit, and though the silver
dollar was the monetary unit yet the
gold dollar was as much the practical
standard of values as the silver dollar
was. That was real bimetallism. That
is what bimetallists, sometimes called
silver men, want today. Does he mean
to say that we had practical mono
metallism previous to 1873?
He must know better, and therefore
exposes himself to the reflection that
he is talking against his own convic-
lions. The use of only one metal as
money is exactly what the bimetal-
lists, or silver men, desire to prevent.
Another singular statement he makes
is:
'iAIy own opinion is that after we
have passed a certain limit the more
silver dollars were coined the less they
would be worth, because the imitation
itself would still further diminish their
purchasing power"
Why will not the same notion apply
to gold! Has there ever been time
when the purchasing power of a law
full coin diminished according to the
increase of its coinage. If so, why
would not the principle work with q
gold coin as with a silver coin? But
here is another singular assertion:
''The attempt to coin the TWO Metals
without limit as to amount into full
legal tender money and keep both in
circulation at the same time has been
made by nearly every civilized 1.ation
in the world, and has failed in every
one of them. England persisted in the
for nearly 500 years and, not
severe penal statutes
against the expectation of coins or bull
lion, was at last forced to abandon the
effort and adopt the single standard
That is really Imaginable. First he
declares the attempt at unlimited
silver and gold coinage has always
been a failure, and then he admits
that England carried it on for five |
,enturiesI And that he designates IAN |
attempt and that he declares was a |
failure" Just the same kind of Sat
tempt" made in this country from 1892 |
20 1873, in which there was not any
more of failure" Both metals were
coined into money at the same time
0y the nations for ages, and it has
3nly been since the spectators in gold
nave obtained power over the legsila-
.ors of the nations. that silver has
aeen stricken from its time-honored
place.
Then he builds a long and specious
on this assertions:
zone of the most effective arguments
made by the advocates of free coinage
S that the people are in debt, and that
t is the duty of the government to
'elieve them by such legislation as will
enable them to procure cheap money
or the purpose of discharging their
In that Secretary Carlisle plays the
The term cheap money!
S an invention of the enemy. Bimetal-
lists do not want cheap money" or
dishonest money" or ''unsound
money" They demand the restoration
f silver, to be coined into money as
old is, without discrimination. Neither
Tould be cheap money or dear money
hen. They would be lawful money at
fixed legal ratio. One would be as
God IS the other. The people would
e relieved by the increase of full legal
ender money. The money lenders
you'd not be placed at such an i'm
1ense advantage as now.
Mr.. Carlisle denies that there is such
thing as 'a distinct debtor class"
nd makes the special plea that the
reditor class are also debtors, this
lerely making play in words. Does
e mean to say there is no class in the
yorld which make it their special bust
eSS to lend rnOneV2 And arc NOT |