The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1896-11-11
BUT ONE BIMETALLlSM.
he Editor of the Eagle

10 me ECltOT Oh the Eagle
The campaign being now closed, would it
not be well for US to know what has been
decided by the people in regard to bimetal-
ism?
The word ''bimetallism" has been defin-
ed by several different terms. but Mt. Bry-
an defined it as The concurrent use of both
gold and silver at ratio of Is TO so far
as this country is concerned.
1t appears to me that there is a miscon-
ception of what the so-called bimetallism
means. The real question before the peo-
pie was the change from the gold standard
to the silver standard.
In order that We can have practical bi-
metallism, as understood by the people.
the intrinsic value OF silver dollar must
be equal to the intrinsic value of dollar
in gold. If the silver in silver dollar be
worth only two cents more than the gold in
a gold dollar, we would have gold mono
metallism, with the unlimited coinage Of
Soth; and if the gold in sold dollar is
worth two cents more than the silver In a
silver dollar. under the unlimited coinage
of both metals. we would have silver mo-
nometallism.
That is, the dearer coin would pass at Its
bullion value, and prices would be gagged
by the cheaper coin in all our dealings.
No law can change this result when We
have the free and unlimited coinage OF
both metals
If we restrict the coinage Of the cheaper
metal and coin it on the governmental ac-
count, thus making it subservient to the
dearer metal then We have one standard,
and the only practical bimetallism, as we
row have in the United States, which IS
the gold standard. with practical bimetal-
ism.
So long as it takes 80 ounces Of silver TO
equal, in intrinsic value. one ounce of gold,
the free and unlimited coinage of both
metals would necessarily result in one of
two things: either the silver dollar would
be so-cent dollar or the gold dollar would
be oOo-cent dollar. Some people object to
these terms. nevertheless the result would
be inevitable.
As to which standard is the better for
the United States separate and apart from
other nations to adopt is a serious ques-
ton, but ii ought not to be hidden under
the gu;se of a double standard. but should
be clearly understood TO be either the sill
yer standard or the gold standard
Under existing circumstances there are
many seemingly sourd arguments In FAVOR
of each standard Should We adopt the
silver standard, it might be that by Great
ing large demand for the coinage OF sill
yer that in ten or fifteen pears the price OF
silver would materially advance. as meas
ured by gold, and the United States being
a very large producer of silver might be
the gamer in that respect; but in that
case due regard should be had to the good
faith of the government as to its past in
debtedness, that no stain OF dishonor
should be left on its fair name
People could adjust themselves to the sill
yer standard in probably two or three
years For time the currency would be
contracted, unless provision by law be
made for the government to issue paper
money redeemsble IN silver.
The only people that could be injured by
the change to q silver standard would be,
for the time being. the }aboIer; persons
having money at interest and persons hav-
ing fixed incomes. The honor OF the ma
ton could be provided for so that by the
time the bonds became due the government
might pay Off its Indebtedness IN gold
without loss IL the silver advanced In price.
SIS the advocates Of free silver seem to
think it would. In that case they would
have no objection to paying In gold
1t would require some time, however,
before the wages of the laborer would De
so that q Gays labor would purchase as
much as II now does.
The real question decided In the cam
paign just closed is that the people do not
think il wise ar this time to change from
o. gold standard to a silver standard.
REPUBLICAN.