The Goodland republic. [volume] (Goodland, Kan.) 1891-1907, 1896-10-09
sTRA!eHT TALks ro voTeRs.
The Mckinley BIZ Di,cuased-Ths Gold
Standard Admitted Bad,

Weuld cause raise IN prices, ana gnab /
the gold standard is not good thing
to keep on hand. To prove this asser-
ton it is only necessary to point to the
several party platforms. The difference
between them is simply whether or not |
this nation is capable of eRRcting a |
bimetalliG law without the aid Of
Europe. The silver forces say it is
the gOldites claim it is not. The re- !
publicans point to the inability of the !
Sherman act to keep the value Of silver |
bullion at par with its coinage value as |
proof Of their argument, but an analy- |
sis OF the workings of that act will fail |
to find a single element that would |
have served to raise the price Of bull
lion above that which London brokers
were willing to pay for it, as the United !
States treasurer purchased all silver
bought under that act at the London |
price. If a man would come to Good |
land and offer to buy two cars of wheat !
per day at regular Chicago quotations
it would not raise the price of that
cereal, but if he offered to buy all that |
was brought to him at certain specific |
price, wheat might go above it, but
could never go below. Apply this same |
line of reasoning TO the Sherman act,
and the republican argument eXplOdes. |
1t is law of trade that the surplus of |
a certain production fixes the value of
the whole, and under the ruling of this
law the Sherman act was perfOrce a |
failure. Then, too, the republicans
profess to fear a food of silver, but as
our ratio is sixteen to one and Europe's
fifteen and fifteen one-half to one, this
won't wash. But admit for
the sake of argument that the entire
silver of the world, available for money
uses, was to come in one year to the
United States, what would be done
with it? The owners would have to
buy something, and that surely is not
a thing to be dreaded. Furthermore,
the agricultural products of the United |
States alone could consume every dol
lars worth of the entire stock of silver
in the world, and have q surplus to
sell for gold. Next year the foreigner
would find himself out of flooding ma
terial and would have to come to US to
get silver and pay our price, too. There
would not be any more than enough /
money to do a cash business on even
should this happy event occur, about
$50 per capita. Is there any man who
thinks himself incapable of caring for
that amount?
Then they say that our gold will
leave US. Experience proves other
wise, but for the sake of argument |
it does. Where would it go?
Would the owners of it invest it in
England, in Germany, in Spain, in
Egypt, in Turkey or in Italy? No!
England and Germany have money to
invest in foreign countries, proving
that the home investments are over
done, and in the other countries named
the profits of investments are so slight |
as to be almost nothing. Where would
it go? There is only one way it could |
leave the United States and that is to
apply it on foreign Indebtedness, and, |
if it we're at a premium, it would pay,
just that more debt, as the debts of
the United States are payable in dol
lars, either gold OF silver, and the
debtor would not pay in silver without
the premium was allowed on gOld-if !
there were a premium. So no harm |
could come even from this state of
affairs. Under the workings Of the |
Bland bill, which was almost free coin
age, the United States treasury had |
more gold on hand than it ever has had |
since and bonds were not issued to get |
it, either. Now what is there left on
the gold standard argument that eX-
perience and history does not prove to
be false?
~
j. Bruce Lynch, speaking Friday
evening at the court house as a union
labor man and as a laboringman, said
that times never was as prosperous as
in 1892, and President Harrison has
said the same. Let union men ask
themselves this question: SIN what
year occurred the Homestead strike
against a reduction of wages, in what
year occurred the Buffalo switchmens'
strike for the same reason, in what
year occurred the strike of the Tenn
essee coal miners against a lowering of
pay, and in what year occurred the
strike of the COur-de-Aiene silver and
gold miners for the same reasOn?"
Wasn't it in 1892? Why Of course.
Here were four mammoth labor battles,
all in different sections of the country
and embracing different industries, all
striking against a reduction of wages
under high protection laws and in that
most prosperous ~ year Of 1892.
~
Furthermore he said that labor had
raised its own wages by the aid of its
unions. 1t is a wonder he did not
claim that it had been done by the re-
publican party. Labor raised its wages
by aid Of its unions and will be COM
PEELED to maintain them in the same
way, and right now would be a good
time to ask railroad men, in particular,
how they could hope to win a strike
against a reduction of wages when it is
the policy of the republicans to follow
the precedent of Cleveland and by
federal for3e compel engineers, fire.
men and tTainmen to operate trains at
the point Of the bayonet as was done
during the A. r. U. strike of 1894? 1t
must be remembered that wages we're
| forced up in periods when the ciTculat-
ing medium was increasing, now that it
is decreasing is it not reasonable to ex-
pect an attempt will be made to cut
wages down?
~
The speaker that followed Mr. Lynch
had a good deal to say of the Mckinley
law. How many have ever read that
bill or even seen it? It is safe to say that
half the speakers who go about prais-
ing it could not quote its caption, and
that thousands Of people who are
, shouting themselves hOarse for its re-
turn could not even give an outline Of
its provisions. In the first place that
bill was tan act to reduce revenue"
Funny, isn't it, that it should now be
pointed to as an act to raise revenuef
| And is II not mcmillan that the Me.