Hutchinson gazette. [volume] (Hutchinson, Kan.) 1895-1902, 1896-09-03
lmeKlNLEY's ACCEPTANCE.

paper ever written by VIM. Mckinley,
is now before the American people for
their judgment, in the formOf his "let-
ter of acceptance. A criticism of its
contents is. therefore, now 10 order.
We wish to cast no unfair aspersions
for there are many smart and argu-
mentative people on that side, with
probably fair degree Of sincerity.
But In candOr, we cannot call this a
great paper. While it assumes a sort
of state dignity, it shows 10 spark of
originality or individuality. While it
may be that the author has more sim
;erity than Mr.. Carlisle, he is certainly
lacking in his ingenuity. A year ago
Mr.. Carlisle originated Ave theses on
silver using countries, which while fal-
lacious, they were so striking an argu-
ment that the republican goldbug
papers have ever since kept them at
the head of their columns. Not so
with this letter. There is nothing in
it that will be preserved or used here
after unless it is to show the weakness
of his argument. One thing that may
really be said in it's defense is that it
does not abound in Inconsistencies and
contradiction. However, his coaclu-
sions are singularly open, and palpa-
bly, erroneous. For example, he says
ut would mean the free use Of the
mints of the United states to those
who are the owners of bullion, but it
would make silver coin no freer to the
many who are engaged in other enter
prises."
If he presumes that the ''peOple en-.
gagged in other enterprises" cannot see
that opening the mints to owners of
bullion would make dollars more rlen-
tiful in the country, and that when
they are plentiful there is better
chance Tor such people to get hold of
them, he presumes upon an ignorance
of the people which does not exist.
For coined silver dollars are not good
to the bullion owner, no matter whether
he be millionaire or pauper, except
as he parts with them for other articles.
Again Of free coinage he says, at
seeks to introduce new measure of
value but would add no value to the
thing measured" If this statement
has in 1t what meaning it was evil
IDENTIFY intended to convey, why should
there come such a wall Of "repudia-
ton" out of Wall Street, If you es-
tablish a new standard Of value that
will raise prices on all sorts Of produce
so as to increase their power of pay
ing debts, taxes, freight tariffs, and
all other fixed charges, do you not
change the value of those articles?
He says ut would not start factory
or make an additional demand for a
days labor" Can it be that he pre-.
sumed us so blind as not to see that
under rising prices. boarded money
does not purchase so much and falls in
value; and that those who are now
boarding would then be scratching the
sands and the fields for a place Of in.
vestment where the property and Its
produce would get the benefit Of the
rise in prices and thus save their ba-
conf If so, he presumes on q lack of
perception of self-interest with which
the American people are, fortunately,
not encountered.
But here is something which really
appears to fall to the level Of petit
Jogging. He says, "The bullion owner
on the basis of present values, would
receive the silver dollar for ffty-three
cents worth of silver, and other people
would be required to receive it as a
full dollar in payment of debt. The
government would get nothing from
the transaction. 1t would bear the ex-
pense of coming the silver and the
community suffer tine loss" Can it be
that Mr.. Mckinley fails to discriminate
between free coinage and "gratuitous
coinage?" Under free coinage a
charge of one tenth for seigniorage
might be made or it might be as in a
bill introduced by Senator Vest, that
the depositor of bullion would receive
credit for his deposit only in proportion
to its commercial value, the difference
between commercial and coin value
accTuing to the state. The question
of gratuitOus coinage is not involved
in the discussion of the question at this
time.
But again, in the above quotation he
suggested a snap to the bullion owner,
and a hardship to the community,
which would get the cheap dollars.
1t could hardly be both. II the dol
lars after free coinage were only worth
ifty-three cents the bullion owner
would not be benefited. AS for the
community, it cares mighty little any.
way, whether there is fifty cents worth
or one hundred cents worth of metal
in 2 coin, so long as it PAYS debts and