Birmingham state herald., 1896-03-15

ment. I hope he can. do not say that 1t Is unans~ersble. I simply say that Il am stating propositions which seem to me like axioms. and that if the gentleman who follows me can show am wrong hel will at least have made one convert from a most pernioious error.
 On this ohart tho production of silver in any given period covered by it Is taken as the space between tho zero line and the sill yer line (marked S) and the production of gold during the same period is indicated by the oolored ground. From this it will appear that from 1900 to 1910 about 82 per cent as much gold as silver was produced; from 1810 to 1890 about 82 per cent as much gold as silver; from 1920 to 1880 about 49 per cent as much gold as silver; from 1880 to 1940 about 55 per cent as much gold as silver; from 1s40 to 1850 about 121a per cent more gold than silver; from 1850 to 1855 about 2o0 per cent more gold than silver; from 1855 to 1860 about 250 per cent more gold than silver; from 1860 to 1865 about 1662s per cent more gold than silver; from 1865 to 1870 about 130 per cent more gold than silver; from 1870 to 1875 about Al per cent more gold than silver, from 1875 to 1880 about 1 per cent more gold than silver; from 1880 to 1885 about 83 per cent as much gold as silver and from 1885 to the present. time about 75 per cent as much gold as silver.
 This table also shows that from 1900 to 1920, when about one-third as much gold as silver was produced, but while there were in the world of coin and bullion from 33 to 33 tons (ounoes would do as well) of silver to one ton of gold, you could go into tho market and buy an ounce of gold for 15.55 ounces of silver, and that from 1920 to 1872 whila production osoillated as we have seen, and while the relative number of tons of silver in the world stock was all the time becoming less in proportion to the stock of gold, falling from 31.1 tons of silver to 1 of gold to about 22 tons of sill yer to of gold, still the market price re- mained closely by the ratio established by the open mlnts of France, but that when the onslaught on silver was commenced in 1873, and the mints were shut In it's face, notwithstanding that production has con tinued from that day to this nearer equal than at any time in 100 years, and though the bulk of the worlds stock of silver in tons has for years been almost exactly the old mint and market ratio-namely, from 18.6 to 10.1 tons of silver to 1 ton of gold, yet the market price of silver as measured in gold has constantly fallen until in De- cember, 1894, you could have bought for one ounce of gold 84 ounces of silver, and the market price today is about 82 to 1. No man can look that chart in the face and then say that 1t is the "enormous overproductiop of silver that has lowered the price," It Is legislation, foolish, all most criminal legislation, that has done this thing.
 Fall of Commodities.
 undertake to say that if this chart is true there should be an explanation forth coming from the geIitlsmen who have de- clared that oyerhroduction of silver is the reason of its fall in, price. And there is no explanation of this fact, of this colossal fact, of this to me inexplicable fact (ex- oept on one basis, which shall next men, tion) that during the period when the bulk ratio between silver and gold was rising from 82 to to 16 to 1 the market price fell from 16 to to 84 to l.
 The only explanation that I can give is this: That the open hints of France af forded channel through which the t 70 metals could and did equably flow. accord ing to the demands of trade, in this ulti- mate money, the one metal or the other predominating according to the demands .f commerce and exchange, making of the two metals one ultimate money substance of final redemption.
 Now, one word more, and I shall sit down, for have abused your patience. I wish to say only this in oonolusion-that the condition in which the suffering gold standard world today finds itself is one that In my opinion calls loudly for remedy, calls loudly upon the statesmanship of this