The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1896-05-05
Do Not Meet Their Arguments.

Do Not Meet Their Arguments.
The democratic silver monometallists
seem 70 think they have proved
beyond a question OF doubt
that unlimited silver coinage Of
the ratio OF Is to l would be a good
thing for the country when they show
that some Of the strongest advocates OF
honest money were in favor Of unlimited
silver coinage a few years ago. About
the only reply Gov. Altgeld Of Illinois
attempted to make TO Mr.. Carlisle's great
speech in Chicago to the workmen Of that
city were quotations from some Of Mr..
Carlisle's speeches delivered many years
ago which leaned towards silver. In this
state some very bitter attacks are being
MADE on Judge Lawson Of the Eighth
congressional district because he spoke
in favor Of silver a number of years ago.
What does it matter what Mr.. Carlisle
or Judge Lawson thought in re-
spect TO silver ten or fifteen
years ago. or even five years ago? The
question is. what do they think now?
When they spoke favorably Of silver the
conditions might have been different. In
fact, they were different. and they might
have had reasons for thinking that by
throwing our minis open to silver the
commercial value of silver would increase
so much that gold and silver currency
would circulate on parity. They know
that now nothing could be done for silver
that would make it circulate on a parity
with gold, If its coinage were unlimited
They have doubtless studied the question
much more thoroughly than they had
when they made the declarations in behalf
of silver to which the silver monometal-
lists are continually referring. and have
become convinced they were wrong.
Is the charge made that Mr. Carlisle,
Judge Lawson and others who are the
subjects of attack by the silver monomet-
allists, are not honest? No there is no
such charge. Is it not admitted that they
are men Of conceded ability? 1t certainly
is. Have they anything to gain by op-
posing silver? AS far as anybody knows
they have not. 1t must be admitted.
therefore, that they are thoroughly sincere
in advocating sound money-that they are
IL
That being the case. what sense is there
in continually recalling what Mr.. Carlisle
and Judge Lawson said many years ago?
BY showing that they once favored silver
it doesn't follow that they are not now
sincere and right in opposing unlimited
silver coinage at the ratio of 16 TO /. There
fore to reply to their arguments by quoting
what they said in behalf of silver years
ago is no answer to their arguments To
meet their arguments in that way is simp-
~ to confess that their arguments cannot
be answered. And, as a matter of fact,
their arguments cannot be successfully
answered. If they could the silver mono
metallists would not, TO support their
cause, depend upon what was said years
ago in behalf Of silver by Mr. Carlisle ana
Judge Lawson, who practically admit,that
they have modified their views as condi-
tons have changed. What they thought
was possible at one time they do not
think is possible now.
Judge Lawson knows he is right now.
His arguments for honest money are los
ical and conclusive. If the silver monn-
metallists think they are not let them
point out in what respect they are err
roneous. Their inability to do that is
what forces them to adopt the pueriie
method of quoting what sound money
men said in behalf of silver when the
difference between gold and silver at the
existing ratio was very small.