The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1896-09-17
BARTINE TO M'klNLEY.



date of the Republican party upon a plat
form unequivocally committing you to the
policy of maintaining the gold standard In
this country until bimetallism can be secured
by international agreement. AS neither you
nor the party which you represent offers n
suggestion upon which we can ground a hope
of obtaining such an agreement, the finan-
cial plank of the platform upon which you
stand must be regarded as n declaration In
favor of permanently adhering to the present
gold system. In your letter of acceptance
you treat the money question as the fore
most issue, and discuss ii at considerable
length, giving to the present monetary pol
Icy of the Republican party your unqualified
Endorsement. 1t is scarcely necessary for me
to remind you that by such course you have
assumed u position quite different from the
one you occupied but a comparatively short
time ago.
That very able men may and do honestly
change their opinions upon questions of
wisdom and cxpediency, no fair-minded per-
son will deny; that when they do so change
their opinions, 1t is both their privilege and
their duty to shape their actions accordingly
Is beyond all controversy. But where the
subject Involves moral considerations, where
Ii Is simply question of right and wrong,
of honesty and dishonesty, the same princi..
pie cannot apply and the same latitude OF
change cannot be allowed. 1t is this distinc-
ton that has prompted me to address you
through the medium of an open letter.
No one can read your published accept
ance without being impressed that you re-
gard the maintaining of the gold standard
not merely as a wise and judicious policy,
but as absolutely essential to the preserva-
ton of our financial honor" You assert
that the free coinage of silver at the ratio
of 10 to l would at once lead to the 'debase-
ment'' of our currency to the level of a ''53-
cent dollar. impairng the obligations of ex-
listing contracts and bringing n long train
Of terrible calamities in Its wake. Through
out your entire discussion of the question,
the germinal idea is that parity with gold is
l,ai info foSt of In
that any currency cheaper than gold at Its
present appreciated value Is, of necessity,
dishonest.
You are certainly aware that the campaign
committee of the Republican party Is liter
nlly flooding the country with books, papers
and pamphlets, in which 1t Is broadly de-
clared that the financial issue, as now made,
Is simply a question of 'honest money" VS..
''dishonest money" There is no reason to
doubt that you are in perfect and harmonious
accord with your committee. Hence the con-
clusion comes irresistibly that you regard
the advocates of unrestricted silver coinage
as being deficient in personal integrity. and
as seeking to establish a monetary policy
that will dishonor the American name. Be
Ing one of those whose personal integrity Is
thus impugned, j make free to remind you
that In the year 1878, as a member Of the
House OF Representatives, you voted for the
famous "Bland BILL providing for the un-
restricted coinage of silver at the ratio Of
16 to /. AT that time the commercial value
of the bullion which you voted to coin into
a dollar was a little more than 90 cents. 1t
had been much lower. but at the time your
vote was cast 1t had risen considerably as
result of political agitation and prospective
free coinage. You will also remember. l
am sure. that the Bland bill was ut the time
denounced as ''repudiation" and frank dis
honesty" by many of the prominent finan-
GERS who are now giving you their earnest
support.
In view of these facts, would you regard 1t
as impertinent for me to request public
statement of your opinion as to whether or
not the Bland bill was dishonest" meas
ure calculated to "debase" our currency and
"dishonor" the country? If you answer in
the affirmative, In justice to yourself you
it. If your answer be in the negative, 1t
should be supplemented by an explanation
of how an act that was honest in 1878 can
be dishonest in 1896. 1t is true that the vote
In question was cast eighteen years ago, but
even then you were old enough to know the
difference between right and wrong. 1t Is
also true that silver was not at that time so
far below the gold level as it Is now; but In
this connection you will allow me to suggest
that there is no difference whatever in prin-
ciple, nor even in degree, SO far as the
question of dishonesty is concerned. Petty
larceny Involves the same moral oDilqulty
as grand larceny. If 1t is dishonest to coin
SO cents worth of silver into dollar, II Is
equally dishonest to coin 93 cents worth into
n dollar. But neither of these explanations
is available because of other highly slgnln,
You have probably not forgotten that you
were q member Of the Flfty-first Congress
and candidate for the Speakership or the
House. i am very certain that the RepuDi-
can members of that body from the far
West have not forgotten how anxious you
were for their support, and how earnestly
you reminded them that you had voted for
free silver nearly twelve years before. l
was one of those Western members. AT
that time QSS9), when silver bullion had
fallen to less than TJ cents on the dollar In
gold, you certainly never gave any token
that in your opinion Il law providing for the
free coinage of that metal would involve
financial dshonor."
All through the long session of the Fifty
first Congress you distinctly recognized the
fact that the decentralization of silver was
wrong; that the Bland-Allison law was too
narrow in Its scope; and that something
further must be done toward silver rcstora-
tion. Your utteranceS at the time plainly
showed that you We're prepared to go any
length in that direction, If the Republicans
in Congress would only keep you company.
You, of course, remember that there was a
very earnest demand throughout the coun-
try for silver legislation, and that there
was strong silver sentiment In the House
Of Representatives; that the Republican side
was Itself deeply tinctured with the free
silver" idea, and that nearly every mersfer
on that side conceded that some legislation
must be had. You will also recall the cir
cumstance that the Republicans In caucus
to frame Il bill upon which Republicans
could unite. That committee consisted of the
eight Republican members of the Coinage
Committee, of whom ] was one, and seven
leading Republicans of the House not men,
pers of the Coinage Committee, of whom you
were one; SO that you and | were, for the
limo being, colleagues In committee.
You pill not hesitate to admit that you
I-erc Cnc of the most active members of the
iommlttee, and that none was more earnest
than sou In the effort to formulate q measure
whi:h all Republicans, including those who
we.c strongly for free silver, might support.
Yea may not remember all that you said dur
Ing the debates In that committee, and
neither do /. But there is one statement
Ilade by you that have never for moment
forgotten. In emphasizing the necessity of
passing Il .'silver bill." In substance you
said: I'VE must pass Il silver bill; the coun-
try demands 1t; but we must pass 1t as a
party measure. / am prepared to support
any bill that we can unite upon. can accept
free coinage, or the 'Windom bill, or any
thing else upon which we can agree, but it
is imperative that we have silver BILL"
l grant that you showed preference for
some measure other than free coinage, and
that after some vacillation you threw your
vote in favorof what was called the "Windom
bill" l grant further that you may have
expressed your willingness to vote for free
coinage merely for effect, knowing that the
condition laid down was an impossible one,
and that the Republicans would never agree
upon such measure. Still, the fact Is that
you Sdlu IL, dHu tlltIt W = llo inconsistency
between that language and your previous
record. If majority of the Republicans
had declared in favor of free coinage bill
have no doubt that you would have kept
JOur word and voted for II. Therefore /
ask you the further question: Did you In
1890 regard the free coinage Of silver rs
meaning Financial dishonor.' and conse-
quently dishonesty in those who advocated
that policy? If not, the country Will no
'ioubt be greatly interested in reading your
elucldation OF the ethical difference between
free coinage in 1890 and free coinage in 1896.
Finally deem it proper TO remind you that
up to the very day of your nomi nation you
we're not the choice of the extreme gold
standard men. They looked upon your past
financial record with unqualified disfavOr,
and the somewhat uncertain language OF the