The Portland daily press., 1896-03-05

shall be. A double standard is the mos
childish deiusion in finance 81 can
not conceive of a double standard will
unlimited coinage of both metals" THAI
| is the kind of mono-metallistS we are
| Uncle George, who says that NINETY pei
cent of tho people of this country believe
| in the continued and concurrent use of sill
yer as the worlds standard of value" il
clearly wrong.
Will you tell me finest grave and rev
erend Seniors" what there is absurd OF
childish in double standard of value. i
You agree that Que metal, gold, shall bt
the standard of value for money, an6
/ then make silver also money at "a per
manent proportion"--I am carefully
using your very language-do you moi
make silver also standard Of value
What, if you please, do you mean by
standard, if you are using words in theil
dictionary sense? Is it not, as Webster
defines it. THAT which is tahlished by
sovereign power as rule OF measure, by
wni CHI others are to be adlustedP
If you adjust permanently the proper
ton" beteen gallon measure and a PITT
measure, between yard and o foot, SO
that one eigth and one third of one shall
be equivalent to the other, can you not
measure a pail of milk as accurately
with the pint rs with the gallon, and can
| you not measure your floor as correctly
with a foot rule as with yard stick?
And then do you not see how you give
your whole case away, when you talk
about using silver as money in per
manent proportion with gold? All, in
deed Then permanent proportion
| is practicable between gold and silver
coins. 1t is not that shifting, fluctuating
| thing controlled by the London bullion
market, and the law Of supply and de
mand; and all the talk about cheap dol
lars and fifty cent dollars, so far IS it is
applied to silver coins of the United
States, whoss proportion to gold has
been permanently fxed''-- as it only cal
be-by law, is childish and silly.
And If, as you say. it is both safe ane
desirable to use silver as money in @
permanent proportion" to gold, why dt
we not determine that permanent proper
ton, and if we have already done it, why
do we not treat the coins so endowed, al
money and as the legitimate medium o
ultimate and complete payment?
Senator Hoar may lie right in SAYING
that two per cent of the entire Republi
can party, and not ten Der cent of tn
people of the United States, are mad ant
reckless gold monOmetallists like Grove
Cleveland. If the great mass of the Re
publican party and nine tenths of TIN
people of the United States are in favor
of using ''ailver with gold in fixed pro
ttS ub0 SLanuHTQ .
value, they are allowing themselves t,
be duped and led by the nose by gnot O
men in the bank parlors and in editoria
b ureaus of leading journals, who maxi
no disguises of their purpose of destroy
lug the monetary value of the silver o
the United States, ana in the same &C
annihilating the private and publi
wealth they represent.
What are this irresistible majority o
intelligent people doing to get tho finan
oial ideas they believe in embodied il
laws? They do not like our methods
what are their methods? They think W,
cannot remonetize silver alone, forgetting
that it was domonetized step by step, ON,
nation acting after another, what are the,
doing or saying to bring about remoneti
cation in concert with other nations
What oyertures are they promoting TO re
niprocate the evidently more favorable feel
| ing towards bi-metnllism in both Ger.
many and Great Britain?
| If the Massachusetts Senator is right
the only difference between the GROVE
with which no stands, and the silverites
is that the latter have, as the former d.
not have, the courage of their convic
tions.
| G. +. TALBOT.