St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-08-07
COIN HARVEYIZED
THE GOLD AND SILVER CHAM
PIONS SUM UP THEIR ARGU-
MENTS.
HARVEY SELF-CONVICTED.
HORR POINTS OUT HIS RANK IN
CONSISTENCY AND EMPTY
CLAIMS.
SILVER MAN RECAPITULATEs.
lie Contends That Every One of
His Arguments Was Fully
Established.

CHICAGO, Aug 6.-Following is the
summing up of the Horr-Harvey de-
bate made by the principals them
selves
1.-The object of this debate was to de-
termine if it would be wise for our
nation to throw open its minis to the
free coinage of silver at the ratio of
16 to l, when the civilized nations of
the world refuse to join in such ac-
ton My opponent proposed to prove
that such course is advisab BILE, and I'M
dertook to do it on the lines laid down
in Coins Financial School, 1 denied
the advisability of such action, and
attacked the teachings of that book
from the title page to its close. The
debate is finished, and how does the
case stand? Mr.. Harvey admits that
the book is pure fiction. He repudiateS
its motto by declaring that it does not
mean what it says. His sta tement that
primary money only is the measure
of value he has not even attempted to
sustain, though his proof has been
called for repeatedly. His statement
that the people of the fifteenth and six
teenth centuries were in the most de
graded condition of serfdom and slav-
cry on account of the lack of metallic
money, has been completely demol-
on the proposition that the silver dol
lar was in 1892 made the only unit or
measure of value. 1 have shown con-
clusively that our forefathers attempt
ed to establish bimetallism and pro-
Vided for two units of value, one Of
gold and one of silver, always naming
gold first, and that up to 1884 the silver
standard alone was used; that after
that the gold standard came into use,
and that since that the silver dollar
has never for day been used as the
measures of values in the United
States. No nation has ever succeeded
in actually using two standards at the
same time.
CONTRADICTED HIMSELF.
''AIr. Harvey next based his case
upon the assumption that the law of
1873 was crime, and stated that it had
its origin in fraud and it's birth
through bribery and corruption. He
planted himself upon four propositions
to prove his case: First, he claimed
that the congress of the United States
was purchased; that the passage of the
bill was procured by the money of
capitalists of this and other nations.
Secondly, he stated that the bill passed
both houses all right, and was changed
by some clerk in its enrolment. He
next claimed that it was not changed
by clerk, but that the dirty work
was done in conference committee He
then showed that none of his other
statements are true, but that the work
was done by passing a substitute bill
He introduced no evidence in support
OF either proposition, and he stands
convicted of making every one of those
charges without any proof that would
-. be received in any ordinary court of
justice. If the congress of the United
States was bribed to pass a bad bill.
then the bill must have first passed in
bad shape. Now, if that be true. then
there would be no need of clerk to
do the dirty work. If it was done by
the enrolling clerk, then it follows that
congress passed the bill as it ought to
have been, and consequently they could
not have what he says they were bribed
to Again, if congress passed the
bill all right and the enrolling clerk en-
rolled it correctly, then the bribery
: could apply only to the members of
the conference committee. All these
V1llalnfeS are then abandoned when he
claims that the whole thing was ac-
complished by means of a substitute
bill He introduced no evidence of any
one of the those positions Thus he
stands convicted by his own statements
of an effort to deceive the people l
submit that such conflicting allega-
tons demonstrate beyond a question
that Mr.. Harvey has attempted to sus-
tain his position in regard to the law of
1873 by pure fiction, and without call
ing to his aid a single established fact
1t is conclusive that if he had proof of
any one of his four propositions he
never would have introduced the other
, three, 1t is useless then to spend more
g words upon a matter which is mani
testify SO absurd.
,s1.. BUT ONE STANDARD.
''Mr. Harvey's statement that free
coinage creates unlimited demand is
not true. because there can be an I'M
limited demand for no human produc-
tions. His assertion that the option
of the debtor to pay in either metal
causes the cheaper metal to be used, is
true. But such option does not re-
store its relative commercial value.