Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1896-09-17

debtor, and only that of gold left with
in his reach. This was the meat in the
cacoa-nut, and if Mr.. Sherman had
been disposed to deal fairly with this
historical record, he would have
acknowledged and stated it instead of
strenuously endeavoring to obscure
and conceal it.
practically demonitized by the act of
1884 and that of 1852 Is it anything
less than deliberate misrepresenta-
tion with the purpose to deceive those
whom he was addressing? What does
he mean by practical demonstration?
Evidently something different from
real and actual demonstration, but in
what does the difference consist?
How could there be characterization
of any sort, practical or otherwise, or
anything,which in any form resembled
demonetizatioD, when by the terms of
statutory law from 1892 continually
until 1873, silver coins, without any
change of pure silver weight, were at
all times authorized to be struck freely
and without Limitation at the mint and
clothed during the entire period with
full legaI-tender quality equal with
gold.
There is one single fact which of it
! self is more conclusive than all other
that characterization of silver was not
4 accomplished until by the act of 1878,
and that is the historical fact that,
during the years 1871 and 1872 there
were coined at our mint So ,235, ,7S6 of
| standard full legal tender silver dol
/ lars. The assertion By Mr.. Sherman is
that by the act of 1884 or 1853 or both
together, silver was practically de-
monetiZed." Between 1853 and 1878
there was admittedly no legislation on
| the subject. How is it then that in
those two years, 1871 and 1872, silver
bullion was received at the mint and
in a larger amount than in any two
years previous coined into standard
silver dollars in every respect on an
equality with gold? IVill Mr.. Sherman
answer this question? Viii any gold
standard republican who is a special
admirer of his great {?) truth and
veracity, attempt to reconcile this fac1
, with his assertion
If this bullion was received and its
coinage executed in accordance with
: existing law at that time. No one viii
; have the hardihood to dispute it, and il
, SO what becomes of all Mr. Sherman ::
| talk about the executive order of 1906
3 and the legislation of 1884 and 1858?
It is somewhat curious that Mr.
] Sherman, while citing the act of 1S34
> ia which silver is not even mentioned
, and Of which the only important pro
vision is diminution in the amount o.
gold in coins of that metal, should have
: omitted 20 refer to the act of 1887, only
7 three years later, in which the genera
r provisions regarding coinage are care
fully revised. By this act of 1887 tb.
t continued free coinage of the silver
: dollar of the standard weight of 412.
grains is expressly provided for, ant
, that silver dollar explicitly in a separ
, ate section made full legal-tender fol
r all purposes. Now, in view of Senator
Sherman's statement that silver wa,
demonetized prior to 1878, and as tn.
; laws relating to coinage does not beal
E out in any manner the trnth of sucl
} assertion, believe L am justified il
, saying shat nobody but "a trickster, ane
7 aiming to impose upon his auditors
and the people generally, could, il
what purposed to be an historical re-
: view, have cited the act of 1884 in order
to draw from it an inference which
J was absolutely refuted by an act thre,
: years later. of which he omits to max.
| any mention.
Senator Sherman has the ability Il
present the truth on the money ques
ton, and this year above all others tn
people will accept nothing less. N.
} amount of lying or juggling with fact.
r will deceive the people into the BELIEF
, that silver was demonetized prior t.
1873, and no one who desires to b,
: truthful will make any such statement
, Mr.. Sherman therefore stands charged