Kansas agitator. [volume] (Garnett, Kan.) 1890-1905, 1896-05-08

nalr on the outer euSeS.
Correct.
The same authority photographs
Mr.. Smith as "a smooth shaver, we'll
kept looking gentleman, with face as
round as the full MOON"
Correct.
The "old gentleman with the bald
head" opened the debate with pal
petto fan and a misstatement.
He said that the decline in values
commenced Immediately after the
decentralization of silver in 1878. This
is not true for two reasons:
1st. Silver was not "demonetized"
till 1894
End. Because the decline in values
commenced several years previous to
1S73-as several middle-aged men in
America ought to know.
The moon faced gentleman" how
ever, did not seem to be posted upon
this point, and he let the misstatement
pass unchallenged.
1t is a strange thing to us that Free
Silver debaters will base their discus
sions upon so false foundation. I'm
less they are willing to commit them
selves to the principle of Fiat money"
they have no case at all.
The only sound and unanswerable
portions of Mr.. Crisp's argument are
those which sustain the Populists in
theory of money.
Once you say that the Governments
mandate can arbitrarily make the ratio
16 to 1, you might as we'll say 1t can
make it 20 to /, or 10 to l. Mr.. Smith
puts this with great force and Mr.. Crisp
did not even try to answer.
If the Commercial value OF silver
cuts no figure in deciding coinage ratio,
then it is the Governments say-so
which fixes it. And if the Govern
ment's say-so can fix it, Independent OF
Commercial value, the '16 to T. stand
ard becomes a mere matter of conven-
fence. 1t involves no principle at all.
It is true that Mr.. Crisp can justly
claim that our past experience proves
that our government can make q sue
CGSS VI luc lO W L ldliO. IL ulu ~ PiiOi
to 1873, and could do it again.
Certainly; but the success was due
to the Fiat money" principle, and not
10 the commercial value of the silver
out of which the dollar was made. This
was shown by the fact that the trade
dollar, which contained more pure
silver than the standard dollar, was at
q heavy discount, while the standard
silver dollar was at par. The trade
dollar was not full legal tender-did
not have behind it the fiat of the law.
1t had to go mainly upon its value as
mere silver. 1t had little worth eX-
cept it's commodity or commercial
value.
The smaller standard silver dollar,
on the contrary, had behind it the
mandate of the law; it was full legal
tender. 1t cancelled all debts dollar for
dollar, not because the creditor wanted
it to do so, but because the Government
said it must do so.
Therefore everybody took as dollar
the smaller amount of silver which was
in the standard dollar, while nobody
would take, as a dollar, the larger
amount of silver which was in the trade
dollar. Nobody would accept it for
more than eighty-fve cents.
BY act Of congress the large trade
dollar had to be melted up and coined
into smaller legal tender dollars before
they would circulate.
Mr.. Smith must know all this, yet
he did not dare to use it. Why? Be-
cause it proves too much for demo-
crat-no matter whether he be gold
bug or free-silverite. 1t proves that the
populists are right in saying that the
legal tender quality is that which lifts
silver and gold and copper and paper
into the dignity and power of money.
The unanswerable portion of Mr..
Crisp's speech is that in which he
argues the case for More Money" On
that point Mr.. Smith fails entirely to
meet the argument.
But the reply lies right upon the
surface, and the average Populist will
see it at glance.
Mr.. Smith could have replied that
to issue more Money" does not neces-
sarily mean more silver. If commercial
values cut no figure, the argument for
more Money" would rest as firmly up
on copper as upon silver. Every rea-
son which Mr. Crisp urged for the
issue of more Money" would apply
Just as forcibly to the issuance Of ire
deemable treasury notes as to silver.
If the governments say so creates
dollars, why use silver when paper is
so light, so convenient and so cheap?
1t is this weakness in the logic Of
free silver Democrats which is so ap-
parent to everybody except themselves.
When they claim that the govern
ment's fiat does not fix the value of a
dollar, they should candidly concede
that the market value should do 1t.
If ttey admit that it is the govern
ment's fiat which fixes the value of the
dollar, then they should frankly con-
fess that any other material would an
swer the purpose az we'll as silver.