The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1896-10-28
McCLEARY'S STATISTICS.
Contradicted by Man Who Did Business Pre-
vious to 1649.

Contradicted by Man Who Did Business Pre-
vious to 1649.
Editor Representative:
Prof. McCleary uses the following Ian
guage in his speech, which he has repeated
over and over again in various parts of the
state:
Now. we have seen that with the free
coinage of both metals, one would be sure
to retire. At the ratio of Is to the silver
went to the minis and gold was retired and
under the second ratio gold went into cir
culation and silver went out. Thus you
will see that at first we had silver mono
metallism and then gold monometalsm.
In 1S49 congress. to remedy this matter, or
dered the coinage of one dollar gold
pieces. They did this to help make change.
as silver had entirely retired"
Now, I wish to say that younger men
than myself might believe the above state
ment and accept it as historical facts.
But am not deceived by such misstate-
ment of the real truth Of the matter. The
facts are, that at no time had we either
silver monometallism or gold monometal-
ism. but bimetallism pure and simple and
all the time. Both gold and silver circu-
lated freely among the people. with equal
and unvarying purchasing power. A dollar
of silver or of gold was always the same in
payment of taxes and debts or in ordinary
business matters among the people.
Neither had "silver entirely retired" in
1S49, as stated by Prof. McCleary. 1 speak
whereof know. From 1915 to 1850 I was
hauling wheat to Milwaukee and selling for
other parties. And at all times during
those years could get silver for my loads
whenever I desired it. 1t was fully as
abundant as any other kind of money
After 1850 we had more gold, caused by
lne discovery of gold in California. But
the volume Of silver remained the same in
use, yet in comparison with gold it was
less, and continued thus until the war Of
the rebellion. when both disappeared.
If Professor McCleary wanted to give a
true history of the matter, why did he not
tell his hearers that we were all those
years using foreign coin of all nations
nearly, both gold and silver. at fixed rates
established by congress, and that said coin
were legal tender at those rates; that
those coins circulated among the people in
excess of our own coins, which rendered 1t
unnecessary for us to coin very largely,
and that that fact in part explains why
we did not coin more. Why did he not
tell his hearers that when our silver dol
lars in part disappeared from circulation,
that they went TO the french mint ana
came back to us in five franc pieces Oh,
no, that would never do, it would explode
his SOPHISTICATED structure and let light
shine through and his hearers would see
the deception. 1t is very evident that he
has not studied the question except the
mintage part of it and taken it for granted
that that represented all there was worth
knowing about it. 1t matters not whether
we coined much or little Of both or either
metals since we had the full benefit OF
free coinage and bimetallism. All old men
whose memory has not failed them will
substantiate what I have stated. Oh, 1t
is truly disgusting to see a man in his
position so grossly misrepresenting history.
ID. 0. Gates
Mantorville, MINI.