Smyrna times., 1896-08-19
SOMETHING FOR FARMERS TO READ.

An Ohio farmer writes to the New
York Evening Post, to the following
effect:
L am an Ohio farmer, a believer in
sound money, and therefore believer
in a currency that has gold for its basis.
I have lot of neighbors, however, who
are enthusiastic advocates of the free
coinage of silver. They say that when
we had free coinage we got a dollar
bushel for wheat, so that a thousand
bushels would pay off thousand-dol-
lar mortgage. Now, influenced by the
''crime of '73, wheat is but fifty cents
bushel, and it takes two thousand
bushels to pay off q thousand-dOllar
mortgage. If we have free coinage
again, they insist, wheat will again go
to dollar bushel, so that their last
state will be much better than the first.
1t is of no use for me to argue that
the law of supply and demand regu-
lates prices. tell them that in spite
of the "crime of '73" wheat went to a
dollar bushel in 1891, and may go
there again, free coinage or no free
coinage, but the argument is lost on
them. They say, Free coinage, a
dollar bushel; no free coinage, fifty
cents bushel"
1 want to make converts of them.
Can you suggest to me how L can do
it?
In reply, the Post recommends the
inquirer to the following leafet by j.
Selwin TAFT of New York, as the best
it has seen on the subject:
The silver men have made much CAPT
tai out of the statement, circulated
everywhere by their writer's, that the
prices of wheat and silver begin to fall
in 1S73-when the gold standard was
adopted by this county-and have
fallen continuously ever since; and they
have stated positively that the price 0.
silver dragged the price of wheat down
with it, step by step. This claim OF
the silver men, manufactured withou
scruple to gain the ear of the farmer
is in every respect false and unwar
ranted.
Reference to the files of the Chicago
stock market will show that wheat, in
stead of beginning to fall in price il
1878, did not commence to fall unit
1888; on the contrary, in 1882 it wa
several points higher than i'll 1874-7
and 1876, and in 1881 it was highe
than it had been at any time durin
the previous years, with one exception
During the same period, when whea
;; was keeping its price andfrequently ri'
ing, silver fell more than 12 per cen
thus showing that there was no cor
nectiOn between the two.
During the crisis of 1884-85 wheat fe
l considerably, there beng a drop of
per cent in its compared with ia
of per cent in silver.
Omitting exceptional years like thi
0 of the Hutchinson wheat corner, whei
e went up to a somewhat higher averas
e until 1889, while silver was steadily g
S ing downwards. In 1890 silver rose
. per cent by reason of the government
. large purchase of silver bullion, viii
q wheat remained stationary. The fo
lowing year silver fell 8 per cent. whi
wheat rose II per cent. In 1892 whe
was about the same price as it was
T. 1884, while silver was very much low
2 than it had been at that time.
IS These figures prove beyond all dOu
% that there is no sympathetic mOveme
l. between the two articles, but that t
le results shown in their respective NOV
re ments were due to causes which ,
D. fected each separately, and were wit
l. out connection the one with the otht
le Here in Delaware it is the favori
b. argument of the silver cranks thi
"The price of silver bullion regulat
le the price of wheat; the demonetizati
le of silver reduced the bullion value
is silver, wheat went down with it, a
ic the farmers suffer accordingly" De.
at ware farmers, by reading the abO7
as can readily perceive the fallacy of IL
IN kind of reasoning.