The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-08-09
cessive profit and heavy loss. Prosper
ity can seldom be long, continued
where this is the rule.
READ THE ARTICLE.

READ THE ARTICLE.
To the Editor of the Globe.
Your editorial of Aug. Q. 1896. entitled
Blackguard or Bribe-Taker?" may be brief,
summarized as follows:
1. Under free coinage the silver dollar will
be 5O-cent dollar.
2. The owners of silver mines have a ner.
cenafy motive In procuring free coinage be-
cause they can then convert so cents worth
of silver into 81.
:. The heavy capitalists have no mercenary
interest IN the RESULT Of the present conflict
between the gold and silver forces.
:. IN the event of free coinage, the prop
erty values OF this class would be cut in two
tney would De practically ruined.
,ng 1o St.t WOULD you reconcile these conflict
ing staIements!{ Eric L. Winnie.
Duluth. Mimi, Aug, 6. 1896.
The first and principal answer to the
questions asked above. as to many
others that come to us, is an earnest
admonition to our correspondent to turn
to the files Of the G o b e and read
the article in question. If he does SO
carefully, he will. find that his inquiries
need not have been made. To begin
with, we must emphatically and to-
tally disclaim and deny the assertion
made In his statement number two.
Instead of asserting that the owners
OF silver mines had mercenary mo-
tive in procuring free coinage, the
whole purpose of the article was to
brand as unworthy of decent and hon
orable men such charges on either side
without proof positive to back them.
What the article proposed to do, and
did, was to show that there would be
a great gain resulting to one side and
none directly to the other; and, there
fore, that it ill behooved the former
to bring charges of a corrupt motive
against the latter
Taking up his third and fourth
statements, we will simply quote from
the article referred to-
There is not one owner CT capital, be he
money shark or laree-hearted philan hropist.
VINO can be shown to have the slightest con-
celvabie individual interest in the defeat of
free coinage, except as saving him from a
possible and frightful loss. They all believe
tnat their possessions, in common with those
or the poorest laboring man, would be cut in
two by free coinage if they were not absolute
ly lost in the ensuing dissolution in business
and trade. They are doing their best to prevent
what they regard as frightfnl calamity.
but Dy no possibility and no force of argu-
ment can 1t be shown that if they succeed
they would be the gamer in pocket by the
fraction of dollar.1
In these words we covered explicitly
the point raised It should need no
further elucidatien. Our correspond
ent will certainly understand that
there is wide difference between the
effect of a law which should transfer
one-half of his possessions without
recompense to- a neighbor, and a law
which should traisfer one-half of his
neighbours possessions without recon-
pense to him. We think that he would
be very actiye. AID would be justified
in making a hot fight to prevent the
former; whereas he would be open to
the deepest and Mackest reproach for
endeaVOring to cohsummate the latter
The case stated simply, is, this. We
do not consider itias mercenary motive
when a man eIideAEors to prevent the
confiscation of his and other peoples
property by legisfation. But, how
ever that nlayabeI the question which
we asked originally is "how he would
be in purse the filter if free coinage
is defeated" Thit is to say, if free
coinage is enacted we. ican see where
certain men would have power to en-
large their fortunfs by many million
dollars at the EXPENSE of others. If
free coinage is DEBATED, we cannot see
where a single dollar would be added
to any mans previously existing for
tunes. Therefore, the motive so fire.
quently ascribed by reckless speakers
and writers to the advocates of the
gold standard does not exist The de-
sire to escape from threatened loss,
like the instinct of self-preservat alton, of
which it is a part, is common to all
mankind, whatever their views about
money, and cannot be ruled out of the
case. The moral argument remains the
same, in any event. and it has received
thinking men. 1t is worth while to
repeat 1t here; and that is that the
man, whether goldbag, sflverite or UNI
conditional f1atist, who, without evil
dence to back his assertion, accuses a
political opponent of acting from in
terested and corrupt motives, is him
self either a blackguard or a bribe-
taker"