San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1896-04-25

Nlc"sy u6 was dhAtOuS W bSll oil
the world about it, but these three
statesmen seem to be ashamed to
discuss the manner of their CONVEX
sion. Why did not Carlisle throw
a little Y light on this question?
"Second. All of these men now
denounce those people who are
opposed to the single gold stand
ard as being scoundrels and luna
tics. Yet they are only fol-
lowing the doctrines which
Carlisle & Co., preached. Are we
then to infer that Mr.. Carlisle and
his two cabinet associates were
scoundrels and lunatics until they
got to be old men and that the
tinsel of a cabinet position not on
ly made them honest but gave
them brains? IL not, then are we
to call their conduct honest,
courageous and patriotic? In the
absence of a statement some of us
might think they were honest
and patriotic when in the vigor of
their manhood they were standing
by wronged people that it Is the
latter end of their career that is
destitute Of honesty, intelligence
and patriotism. Carlisle should
have told us.
"Third. Mr.. Carlisle should
have explained why it was that for
200 years gold and silver held the
market ratio of about 10 1-2 to /.
The ratio fixed by law was 10 to l
in some counties; 10 1-2 to l in
most countries and for a while l6
to in our country. In other words
the market value as shown by the
table, remained practically the
same as the statutory ratio during
all that time. If the standard
metals cannot stand the ratio, now
how is it they did 1t without seri.
Gus fiuctuation for 200 years with
out change, Notwithstanding that
the annual production OF each
metal varied greatly from time to
time.
"Fourth. If only one Of the
metals can be a standard and
measure of the value Of all things
and If a combined standard Of,
both gold and silver, is as impos-
sible as it is to have two yard
sticks OF different lengths, why
was 1t that the greatest financiers
of the world, and particular Baron
Rothschild, stated in 1869, that it
was the sum of the two metals
taken together which formed the
measure of value of things. No
matter which metal might for
time predominant, nevertheless
the sum of the two taken together
was the measure of the value Of
all property. If the same coun-
tries had stricken down gold by
law and destroyed it for money
uses and made silver the sole
standard, would not silver have
gone up and the purchasing power
Of gold have gone down?
"Fifth. Mr.. Carlisle should have
explained why it was that in every
country where silver was stricken
down it was done by the arbitrary
act of the government and that
neither commerce nor business had
anything to do with it.
"Sixth. is it not a fundamental
law recognized by gold standard
financiers, except recent converts,
that when the volume OF money in
the world is reduced, the selling
prices Of all commodities go down
correspondingly? Therefore the
wiping out by law OF nearly half
the money of the world helped to
depreciate the selling price of COM
modities proportionally. Inas'
much as liabilities were not redu-
ced, interest not reduced, does not
MIR. Carlisle think just now, even
as he did in 1878, that great crime
was committed against the entire
debtor class and against the pro-
ducing class by bringing about
condition of affairs, by law which
compelled the debtor, the producer
and the laborer to sell twice as
much property or labor as was
formerly necessary to get the same
amount of money?
Seventh. II prices are so regu-
lated that it takes everything the
debtor can get together to pay his
fixed charges, and everything the
laborer can get together to buy
little coarse clothing or plain food
for his family, can either the debt
or or laborer spend much money
buying other articles ? And IL he
cannot, must not that result In the
destruction of that which once we
called our great home market?
II this is destroyed, so that our
factories are unable to dispose OF
their productions, must they not
shut down and throw the laborer