The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1896-07-20

formular 81 25 grains 10 represents
she value OF the gold eagle and 81. %
grains 10 represents it when the change
was made in 1884 and 1887. In other
words the gold eagle, half and quarter
eagles were "deba6ed'' to the extent of
d per cent of their value to salts fly the
changed ratio of IS to 1.
obviously then Mr. SewGll means when
he demands that silver shall be restored
to It's former place in our currency, that
the minis shall be open to the coinage
OF 81 IA grains of pure silver into dol
lars, which demand seems to me both
reasonable and just.
S. W. II.
o. No doubt AIr. Sewan does not mean
that the mints shall be open 20 the
coinage of 371 ia grains of pure silver
into dollars, and rs he favors the ratio of
10 to he means that the gold dollar shall
remain as at present. This to be sure
IS return to the law of the later faith
ers, but it is a wide departure from the
policy that und4rlay all the coinage
laws of both the modern and the ancient
fathers. The fathers fixed the coinage
ratio close to the commercial ratio be-
tween the metals, and when the latter
changed they ohangea the form to CORE.
spond. Thus in 1884 when gold had dis
appeared from circulation by reason of
the fact that the Is to ratio fixed in
1899 had gradually resulted in an over
yaluing of silver coin. they changed the
ratio to l6 to !. Mr.. Sewall proposes
that no sort of attention be paid to the
commercial ratio between the two metals.
He is going to fix the arbitrary ratio of
10 to l, presumably because that was the
last ratio liked by our governments and
will yield dollar of the same weight
amt hneness as the dollar that was de-
monetized in 1878. This may be techni-
cally restoring the silver dollar to it's old
position in the currency, but only tech
nically. In 1881, 16 to l was close to
the commercial ratio between gold and
silver, today it is not within gun shot
OF 1t. The fathers never shut their eyes
to the commercial ratio between the
metals. But the Chicago convention
has practically taken the ground that
the commercial ratio is no sort of couse-
quenoe, and that the old silver dollar
ought to be restored just as it was with
out regard to the fact that the value of
the metal in it has deprecated one half.
We say that this demand is neither
reasonable nor just. 1t is neither reason-
able nor just that the man who has lent
gold dollar or its equivalent should be
compelled TO take his pay in silver dol
lar of little more than half the CONNER,
oial valup Rut this xuiJ1 In ,lJ prohobili
ty ba the effect of the governments uoin-i
ing all the silver that may be offered to.
them at the 1G to ratio, and making 1t.
legal tender to an unli mited amount.
1t is not reasonable or just that the labor
ing man who is today receiving gold
dollar or its equivalent for his days work
to be compelled as he practically will be
for sometime to come, if the free coinage
of silver il entered upon to take dollar
of half the gold dollars purchasing
power. 1t is not reasonable or just that
the wage-earner who last year deposited
one hundred gold dollars or dollars of
equivalent purchasing power in the saw
ings bank hould be compelled next year
TO accept in return for it one hundred
dollars of greatly diminished puTchas-
ing power. Even assuming as the silver
men do, that gold was appreciated by the
act of 1878 and that some people unduly
profted thereby, it is neither reasonable
nor just to attempt to get square with
these people by taking out of the differ
| emit people who had nothing to do with
the act and never profted by It,