The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1896-08-21
THE QUESTION AT ISSUE.

Bimetallism is not the question at
issue. Both parties have declared in
favor of the use of gold and silver as
money. The difference between them
is the difference between honest bl-
metallism and dishonest bimetallism.
Money is the international medium OF
exchange. The Democratic platform
has declared liz favor of the instant
repudiatIon of all the obligations
which are created by the existence OF
such an international medium. Lit
proposes to disregard the ties which
bind US to the other peoples of the CIV
ilized world, and without waiting for
the aid or consent of any other nation,
to reduce our money to about one
half of it's present value by the free
and unlimited coinage Of silver at the
false and arbitrary ratio of 16 to l..
The actual ratio is almost 30 to /. To
compel a creditor to take sixteen
ounces of silver in lieu of an ounce Of
gold is to deprive him of one-half of
that which justly belongs to him. A
falsehood by legislation is just as bad
as plain lie. The Democratic pro-
posal may be perfectly sincere, but it
is none the less unrighteous. The
Republican platform, on the contrary,
proposes as it's first aim the full and
square payment of every debt in mon
ey which shall be good all over the
civilized world, 1t proposes also to
seek such an agreement among ma
tions as shall secure the common coin
age of gold and silver alta fair and
firmly established ratio, so that a
white dollar shall be worth just as
much as a yellow one. The point at
issue between the Republicans and
the Democrats in the present contest
is as plain as a pikestaff. They may
be equally earnest and candid in their
contentious, but they are not equally
intelligent or equally just. The Re-
publicans put the national honor and
good faith first, and the coinage of
silver second. The Democrats
put the coinage Of silver
first, and overlook the question of fl
nancial integrity, altogether.
But this is not the only difference
between the two parties. The Dem
Gratis have embodied in their platform
a number of proposals which are d.
rectly dangerous to the strength and
stability of the national government.
1t has virtually declared that it must
never interfere to prevent disorder
violence, even when they amount to
insurrection and paralyze the indus
try and commerce of the nation. They
have expressed a purpose to revolu-
tionize the supreme court, and to
bring the administration of law, as
far as possible, under the control of
the popular elections. They have
aimed fatal blow at the principle of
civil service reform by protesting
against the life.tenure of any office.
These declarations point in the direc-
tion of disorder and anarchy. The
men who make them aver that their
intentions are good. But good inten-
lions do not sanctify evil counsel.ssSin-
cere fanatics have accomplished most
of the harm which has been done in
Uu6 WOTlu. AL dUUdCh upOu puUllC
order and security must be resisted,
no matter how pious and well-mean-
ing it's advocates may be.
But look for a moment at the spirit
and temper in which the Democrats
and their allies have conducted the
campaign thus far. Is it sober, seri-
Gus and reverent? Is it calculated to
inspire confidence and respect? The
speech by which their candidate for
the presidency won his nomination
contained a sentence in which the
crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ
was used as a groteque political meta
phor This irreverent piece of rheto-
ric was welcomed with wild enthusi-
asm, and the most sacred emblems of
religious faith, the cross and the
crown of thorns were degraded into
tho incionia of nartisan strife for q