The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1896-03-25

NOf Mistaken.
=. The Atlanta Constellation. in an edito-
rial article based on a statement in its
/ Washington correspondence 20 the effect
that the Morning News misunderstood or
Inexperienced the nature Of the state
ment recently made by Judge Crisp with
respect to the attitude Of Secretary Car
Isle toward silver. says: The News has
doubtless misapprehended the whole mat
ter. evidently regarding the secretary's
explanation as a denial"
With all due Difference 10 the Consti-
tuition aud its Washington correspondence
we do not think We have misunderstood
or misapprehended the matter under con-
sheraton. We think we can show that
what we have said i'm respect 10 Judge
Crisp's statement relative TO Secretary
Carlisle's attitude toward silver is exactly
correct. If there is any misunderstood
ing or misapprehension it is in the Office
OF the Constitution.
What was it that Judge Crisp undertook
TO impress upon the public minde II was
that there is "a settled, a fixed. a detcrm-
ined purpose TO discredit silver" In max
ing this statement we are sure we do not
do Judge Crisp injustice. because ne stated
on the floor of the House that such was
what he aimed to do. To accomplish that
object he quoted statement that Mr..
Carlisle had made before some committee,
viz: that in 1898 the treasury had refused
TO pay out silver for gold, and that in the
same year Sherman notes had been paid
in gold.
What Mr. Carlisle denied in his letter
of March Is is that any discrimination has
been. or is. made against silver. or any
effort made TO discredit it. He said: I'm
no instance has the least discrimination
been made against silver or its paper rep
resentatives." II this is not a denial
what is It? The Constitution says it is
an explanation of his treasury policy.
Judge Crisp said the practice of the sec
rotary was TO discredit silver. to discrim-
mate against it. Mr. Carlisle denies that
he has ever Disseminated against it or
that he has dons anything to discredit it.
Is not that Square denial? Does the
Constitution know the difference between
an explanation and a denial?
There is another phase of this matter
that is worthy of special notice 1t is
this To the statement of Judge Crisp that
Mr. Carlisle had refused to pay gold for
silver and yet had paid Sherman notes in
gold. Representative Turner. on the floor
of tlse House. replied as follows: THE sec
the occasion mentioned, because he had
no silver that he could use for that pur-
pose, and when he gave gold for Sher-
man notes it was TO protect the notes
under the established policy Of the treas
ury. SO far from there having been any
base. wicked effort in these transactions
to discredit silver the effort of the Secre-
tary Of the Treasury in the case cited was
to maintain silver, and to maintain the
honor and credit of the government at
the same time"
3 Did Judge Crisp make any reply to this
statement Of Mr. Turner? Hedid not. He
remained quietly in his seat. What could
he say? He attempted to create the i'm
preston that Mr. Carlisle was discrim-
mating against silver, trying to discredit
it, and in support Of his attempt he quoted
two transactions Of the treasury. Mr.
Turner showed that these transactions
were for the purpose of maintaining silver
and for maintaining at the same time the.
honor and credit Of the government.
The Constitution should be sure 1t has
the facts, and that it knows what the
facts mean before assuming that the Morn
ing News misunderstands them, or is la
boring under a Misrepresentation concern