The true northerner., 1896-10-21
THE PROPOSITION IS NOT MERELY TO REMON-
ETIZE SILVER

ETIZE SILVER.
Now, Mr. Bryan and his populistic friends
very often pretend that is the question-n fact,
they always conduct this discussion though it
merely proposition to remonetize silver.
Now, that is proposition which, If it were made
and were all that was involved in this canvass,
would present a very different question from the
called upon to decide at this election.
You see, my friends, the function of money is
merely to measure values. 1t is medium OF ex
change because it is a measure OF value. 1t is a
measure of value because it is medium of
change. If there were proposition before the
American people to change their standard of value,
it would of itself present nothing more serious
than the proposition to change the standard of
lnea measure. But that is not the populists
proposition. You See my friends, if we had be-
fore suggestion that the state of Michi-
gan change the yard measure from thirty-siX
inches to eighteen inches, it would be a question
of convenience. 1t would not involve any moral
question If it applied merely to future contracts
and law should be adopted. when any of you
wanted to buy cloth for a suit of clothes, you
would buy twice as many yards as you had before,
but you would get the same quantity of cloth and
you would pay the same price for it. If the legis
ature should enact that hereafter the yard measure
should consist of seventy two inches then when
you wanted to buy your suit of clothes you would
buy half as many yards as you do now, but you
would get the same quantity of cloth and you
would pay the same price for It, So, if the con-
greSS of the United States should provide that
hereafter 4129 grains of silver nine e-tenths fine,
should constitute dollar and that silver were
actually worth about fifty CENTS and it should be
provided that the law would go into effect say a
year from nov or six months from now, we could
all shape contracts to the changed standard.
There would be question of policy. There
would be question of convenience, and very
grave one; but there would not be any moral
question: because if we undertook to hire ourselves
out we would insist on getting twice as many dol
lars get If undertook to contract
for tables would contract for them on the basis
that should have two dollars for each dollar of
the existing standard. But that is not the problem
here The problem and the proposition is to
change the standard of value not to future
debts, but to existing debts. To understand
just how that would operate you have but to follow
out the analogy which l have made for instance,
that the legislature should provide that Is inches
should hereafter constitute yard, and then should
provide that all existing contracts should be
settled on the basis of the new standard, and had
paid so for ten yards of cloth; why. if the new
measure We're to apply to the cloth when it was
delivered, l would get but half the quantity for
which l had paid. l would have been cheated out
of half my dues. So if | make contract now,
and am a creditor for 81, 600. or | am labor
creditor at the end of the week for SO, and the
change in the standard of value should be affected,
l would be paid with dollar worth but 30 cents
and would be cheated out of half my dues.
This is the issue in this canvass. This is not
question of policy. This is not question of
economics. This is not question which political
conventions decide for an honest man. 1t is
an issue which honest men cannot differ. 1t is
an issue which must be decided in the forum of
conscience. in the presence of our God.
Bourhe Cochran, (Dem).
SSSSssSyMSgSy NSNSSSS&SS