The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1896-10-03
The nebtors R,x,,,


Mr.. L. G. Poorman. who was secretary
Of state under Mckinley in Ohio, IN the
Chicago Record says:
In the Record several weeks ago Mr..
J,J. Russei, the author OF the ammend-
ment to the silver plank OF the Chicago
convention platform relating to "exist-
ing contract" undertook to give an
object lesson" to illustrate how free
silver coinage would work as repudi-
alton or violation Of existing circum-
stances. He discloses one.sided
view OF the case, from my standpoint
that makes his "object lesson" very
inappropriate.
Let us examine his wheat proposition:
T. d. Armour is the owner OF wheat
storage elevator. lie receives 1000
bushels of wheat, 90 pounds to the
bushel, from farmer. A demand is
made by the farmer for his wheat and
MIR. Armour, on the strength OF tho law
offers him only half as much wheat as
was delivered for storage. Mr.. Russel
seems to think this a parallel case 10
one where an individual agreed TO pay
another $1,000 in money and afterward
proposed to pay him in dollars not
having the same value in purchasing
power. He admits that the Illinois
Legislature has no authority to pass
such law II passed it could not be
enforced, and thus agrees that it is not
an applicable illustration. There is no
doubt but that this farmer is entitled to
tht exact amount OF wheat he delivered
to Mr.. Armour, bushel for buslel, but
does not MIR. Russell pretend to say that
II, when that wheat was delivered to
MIR Armour, it was worth $1,000. and by
reason OF fall of price it was worth only
$500. Mr. Armour would be required in
law or morals to make good the loss in
value or deliver the farmer 1000 bushel
of wheat.
all contracts made in dollars are
payable in dollars. Dollars are the
creature Of law. A given number of
grains Of gold or silver constitutes a
dollar; 37l1 grains Of pure silver is q
dollar in The United States. 1t is
divided into halves, quarters, dimes
nlckels and cents, hundred cents
constituting dollar, This dollar was
a legal tender dollar, without Limitation
until, in 1880. the words, except where
otherwise provided in the contract
were added to the legal tender clause in
the Sherman silver purchase law
Dollars are subject to the same fiuctua-
tions in value or purchasing power
measured in the products OF toll, that
the products Of toll themselves are sub.
ject too, and the man who huys or sells
or deals in them, must take the same
risk as to their future value. Is, OF
should anybody be required to guarantee
the stability Of dollars more than
other products? The value OF dollar
like the value OF q bushel OF wheat, or
any other commodity. Is governed by
the relation that the quantity bears te
the demand.
That money has greatly aud frequent.
iy changed in value is well known
Jeyons. a recognized authority, says
gold appreciated in value. l4O per cent
from 1900 to 1Sl9. and that 1t deprecated
45 per cent from 1849 to 1860 and that il
has greatly appreciated since 1873 NJ
reputable writer on the monetary
question will deny. AS long as money
IS appreciating in value no creditor
complains, and wnen the change Ia due
to natural or ordinary supply and
demand causes the debtor makes M
complaint, but when 1T is due to lpga
enactments that oyertnrn or nullify the
action Of the laws Of supply and
demand. and are made apparently t
encbance the value Of money to tt,
injury Of the great producing classea
there is just cause for complaint. WheI
gold was made the sole standard d
value and silver was dsfhroned as it,
4 equal, and at the same time silver wa,
robbed Of its equal coinage privileges
Mr.. Russell will hardly deny that thil