Mexico weekly ledger., 1896-08-06
From the Kansas City Times.

aFaiidpIo 10 meet our foreign 1nueDt
edness. In addition to that we ex
ported during the same time of gol,
coin and gold bullion, SIS, 1856, 459, an
of silver bullion, S37, 1885, s1, which
added to the balance of trade in oul
favor ($102, sol ,923) makes au aggre
gate of S214, 4s2, 1868. And since June
20, 1896, large sums OF gold have beef
sent abroad.
This enormous sum was insufficient
to meet our matured foreign obliga
ton. If Mr.. McKinley's administra
ton SHOULD he be elected) issue NJ
government bonds in order to procure
gold, pray tell me, how we will be able
to maintain the gold standard in the
United States? To increase the duties
on imports will not add to our revenue
from that source. For an increase il
the duties will tend to discourage i'm
p%ortations, nor would a revenue tariff
adjusted on strict revenue principle
produce an amount sufficient to dis.
charge our current foreign indebted.
ness, and the expenses of the govern
ment.
We have not the means to maintain
the single gold standard, otherwise
than by the sale of government bonds
which is expressly denounced by
the platform on which Mr.. Mckinley
will be elected, should such a misfor-
tune befall this country. Now, let me
submit to you this question, Colonel,
would you prefer Mckinley under
protective tariff and single gold stand
ard platform, which denounces the
only means to maintain the single gold
standard, to Bryan, who, while he
favors the free coinage of silver,
favors a revenue tariff, is opposed to
the protective policy, and is a Demo-
crat?
The Democratic convention at Chi
cago did not denounce Cleveland; it
did not indorse his administration,
nor, believing, as the great majority
did, could they, without qualification,
while the Republican convention de-
nounced him, in unmeasured terms,
for restoring to the only NEAR at his
command to maintain the financial
policy which the Republicans declar-
cd for in their platform.
Is the free silver plank of the Chi
cago convention undemocratic? If
so, when did it become so? Bimetal-
lism was our financial system for 100
years; the single gold standard policy
was a new departure, only twenty
three years old, and originated In the
United States with John Sherman, a
Republican Senator. How can it be
said then that free coinage is undemo-
cratic, and that the single gold stand
ard policy is Democratic? Which one
of the founders of the Democratic
party ever wrote DR. uttered a word in
favor of that financial theory? Not
IL of them. Every Democratic plat
form for twelve years has substan-
TALLY demanded a return to bimetal-
lism, and not be found which
declared for the single gold standard.
Is that plank of the platform which
denounces arbitrary federal interfer-
ence in State affairs contrary to the
teachings of Jefferson? Is it more
emphatic on that subject than the
Kentucky resolutions of 1898, written
by Mr.. Jefferson himself d?
I frankly admit that there are some
things in the platform which I do not
indorse, but if every member of a
party feels at liberty, and exercises it,
to desert his party because he cannot
fully approve of its platform, or be-
cause some of the antecedents of the
are not to his liking, what
will become of the party organizations,
the necessity for which, in this coun-
try, it is too late to discuss.
/ appreciate the embarrassment of
your position, honestly believing, as
know you do, that the free coinage of
silver in this country will be disas-
trous, but have / not heard you de. |
ounce protection as ubiquitous and
Is there nothing of Dem.
ocracy but what is embraced in the
financial question? If so, for what
did we so earnestly contend with the
party before this financial
question ever came before the Amer |
lean people? Why, then, did you and
other able Democrats predict of Re-
publican success, ruin to the country. |
and declare that there was no saliva
ton for it but in Democratic vietory?
You know how I esteem you-my
regard for you personally would Sore
ly tempt me to vote for you if this
new party, which it is proposed to or
ganize, should nominate you for the
President of the United States. ri
probably would not, but it would be a
bitter duty to go to the polls and cast
my vote against you for any place or
position in the gift of the people of
the United States.
| write not in anger, but sorrow.
David did not love Jonathan more
than do you, and You know it, and I
would rather see 1000 Democrats 90
put OF b party than you I wish /
had the ability, If not to convince Won
of your error, at least to induce Won
sincerely to go over the entire ground
AGAIN, before yon take the final step
winch may lead you out of the party,
put never out of my affection-tbe
growth OF more than thirty years
which enabled me to appreciate your
,piendld intellect and generous nature.
Sincerely and truly yours,
JOHN w. HENRY.