St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-07-08
NO PROTECTION FOR SILVER

a lengthy contribution from Hon. H.
c.. Stivers, of Brainerd, containing
a plan that he has thought out for
settling the disputed silver question.
We give it place because Mr.. Stivers
has thought earnestly and intelli-
gently on the subject. and his dis
cussion is free from the crudities
and defiances of human experience
that mark so much of current finan-
cial discussion. Such men have
right to a hearing, and all that is
said sincerely and plainly on the
question is educative. But we are
obliged to disagree totally with this
one as to the necessity or advisa-
bility of his plan. The first few
paragraphs show it briefly in its en-
tirety. 1t contemplates free coinage
of silver at the ratio of 16 to /, an
imposition Of heavy duties on all i'm
ports from gold standard countries,
the payment of customs in gold only,
and a declaration that all gold OBJ
legations" will be paid in that metal
when due.
The first and, it seems to US, the
conclusive objection to this plan is
that it is protection in its most I'M
disguised and odious shape. 1t is
worse than any item of Mckinley
ism. For this, when it wishes to
favor the manufacturer of, say, pearl
buttons, taxes the consumers of
pearl buttons for his benefit. The
people who do not use pearl buttons
escape. But Mr.. Stivers would tax
the consumers of every article that
we import for the benefit of a single
interest, and that one Of no great
consequence to the country. Our
prosperity will not be made or
n1arred whether given amount of
silver bullion is mined each year or
remains in the bowels of the earth.
But to ensure its production, though
that has increased far beyond the
demand for it, this plan would add
ports from gold standard countries
which are now taxed, and put % per
cent on all their products which are
now on the free list. AS these coun-
tries are the ones with which the
great part of our trading is done,
and as the added tax would fall on
the home consumer, the plan involves
more onerous burden than even
the protectionist has dared to coun-
sci upon our people for the sole ben
eft of the few persons who own sill
yer mines. 1t is the very quintes-
sence Of ultra protectionism, already
cautiously suggested by Mr.. Lodge
and Mr. Reed; and as such. Demo-
Gratis must reject it with an empha-
SIS that unites their objection to free
coinage and to the protective sys-
tenn, both on their own dement's.
Leaving this point, we have next
to ask, what is it all for? To what
end should any Democrat so sacri-
nee the principles of the party? The
only object is the free coinage of sill
yer at a ratio of 16 to l. Why should
we strike out into new and abhorrent
paths for that? There is nothing
sacred in this or any other ratio
between the two metals. The coin
age ratio has been changed time and
again, With view to make it ap-
proach the market ratio, at which
alone the two metals can circulate
concurrently in unlimited quantity.
why should We say now that this
process Of adjustment must stop
mere; that ratio which has obvi-
ously become practically impossible
by reason of market changes must
be preserved at the sacrifice of ey-
cry other interest and Of greater
party policies and principles? 1t is
IKE asking US to prohibit under cap
itai penalties the use of the bicycle.
because it depletes the earnings of
street railway companies. The end
In the next place, the argument of
Ear. StiVers seems to be based mostly
on the old mercantile theory"
which was supposed to be extinct.
This theory held that the PROSPERITY
of country is measured by the
amount of money which it possesses.
1t is the father of protective tariffs
and trade restrictions the world over.
ANA 1t is one great fallacy from be-
ginning to end. Mr.. Stivers stakes
everything on the balance of trade.
He says: 1.-THE balances of trade
with foreign nations have been so
much in our favor that our gold
could not go to foreign countries.
hence it had to remain here and cir
culate with silver. If the balances
of trade had been heavily against
us, so that our gold had been sent
abroad to make settlement, silver
dollars would long since have de-
preciated in value" How utterly
mistaken this notion is a brief ref
erence to trade statistics will show.
In the year 1892, the excess of our
exports over our imports was $780,
S75,6S6. This was a balance of trade
in our favor, and should, by the mer-
camille theory, have brought us that
much gold. The fact is that in the
same year our exports Of gold coin
and bullion were s495,S73 more than
our imports. In 1893 we lost SS7, $685.
463 of gold to foreign countries; yet
our excess of merchandise imports
was but SIS, 1877, 72S. In 1894 we again
sent abroad the enormous total of
1927, 145, $50 worth of goods more than
we purchased from other nations.