The Louisiana populist., 1897-12-17
AS REGARDS PARITY.
A QUESTION BETWEEN cREDI-
TORS AND DEBTORS.
why the Goldbpgs Look With Horror
Upon the. Present Legal Ratio of
Sixteen to One--Would Release Their
lngotten Gains.


1lgotten Gains.
IN the silver controversy nothing has
been or is SO irritating to the manager
Tor gold standard as the insistence
upon the ratio Of 16 to /. They can
tolerate expressions friendly to silver.
Ihey are willing even to approve
national or international provision for
| some larger use of silver. Most OF
them will say that something should
IN some way be done for silver. They
90 not oppose bimetallism, provided
only that their definition of the term
pe accepted. They raise no objection
to silver as part of monetary sys-
TEN, provided it is assigned its proper
position and placed in salutary, judi
clous subordination. 1t is the definite,
rigid claim. for free coinage at the
present ratio which shocks their moral
sensibility and arouses their virtuous
Indignation. Kind words for silver
may be spoken and heard without Of
tense, but clean cut declaration for
ratio OF 16 to 1 which cannot be mis-
construed or avoided sets the whole
goldbug faculty in search of epithets
1or denunciation. The explanation OF
thls Is very simple. The ratio is the
keystone Of the arch of bimetallism.
A restitution of silver coinage with an
lndeterminate ratio or with any sub
stantially different ratio from the
present would be of no considerable
| value to those in whose interests it is
demanded. Primarily the silver con-
troversy is a question between creditors
and debtors. Shall debtors be required
to lind gold or it's equivalent for the
discharge of their obligations or shall
they be granted an option to pay their
debts in either silver or gold? This is
the essence of the issue. But the op-
rlon is of no value if the amount of
silver required for payment is inde-
terminate or fixed upon a scale with
any reference to the relative market
value OF silver and gold. Unless a
restoration Of the double standard
means restoration of the ratio it has
no significance. The material question
Is not whether silver may be used for
discharging obligations, but how much
silver will be required for satisfying
existing obligations. The concession
| OF a movable ratio is surrender of
the whole argument for silver restora-
ton. AS long as silver has any market
value, as much per ton as coal even,
the most extortionate bondholder,
European or American, will not object
to receiving for interest or principal
silver at the price for which it can
be exchanged for gold. Let the inter-
est extorters fix the ratio and contro-
versy, at least all serious or acrimon-
ious controversy, will cease. The gold
advocates never discuss the honesty of
the silver dollar. They simply full
inmate against the dishonesty Of any
dollar which is not the equivalent of
gold. They never discuss the relation
between debtor and creditor. but dog
matically assume that any debtor who
seeks to discharge his indebtedness in
money, not the equivalent of gold, is
attempting to repudiate his obligations
and cheat his creditors. You may
search the Congressional Record and
the editorials Of the metropolitan
dailies for the last twenty years for
any attempt at giving reason why
a silver dollar is not honest money for
satisfying debts, and you will search
in vain. You will find only a constant
ly reiterated assertion that because sill
yer at the presen. ratio and under
present conditions is cheaper than gold
therefore it cannot honestly be used in
payment Of debts. Their argument, or
rather their substitution for argument,
Is an assumption that the dearest
money, no matter by what accident or
device it has been made dearer, is al
ways and necessarily the only honest
money. The only means for discharg-
ing debts are property and labor. No
one has suggested, or can suggest. any
other instrumentality for the payment
of debts than the wages Of labor and
the sale of its products. 1t follows log
ically and indisputably that the oues-
ton of equity between creditor and
debtors is a question of prices 80 far
as they are influenced by legislation
fixing money standard. Yet can any
one point to gold orator or editor by
whom discussion Of this question has
been even attempted. They never dis
cuss it, and they dare not discuss it.
They go around it, ignore it, get above
1t or below it, but never face it. They
talk about parity and the moral neces-
sity that silver must be measured by
gold. They tell us that Europe has
/ fixed the standard of money in which