The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-09
ANOTHER SILVERITE TRIES TO
EXPLAIN.


Congressman Bailey, of Texas, Demo-
cratic leader in the present Congress, has
written letter of some length, in which he
tries to bolster up the failing cause of free
silver, and pays particular attention to the
divergence in value of silver and wheat.
That the Democratic leaders are greatly
worried over the simultaneous rise in wheat
and fall in silver is evidenced by the fact
that from Bryan down they are all engaged
in trying to explain it, There is no accuser
like a guilty conscience They evidently
realize that if they hal not been so clamor
Gus in asserting that wheat and silver were
indissolubly bound together and that the
farmers need never expect rise in wheat
under the gold standard they would not
now be put on the defensive to explain why
wheat and silver have parted company.
Mr.. Bryan's recent syndicate letter was
largely devoted to this explanation, and
now Congressman Bailey tries his hand.
He begins by saying that those who think
the recent rise in the price of wheat has
refuted the argument for the free coinage
of silver take very superficial view of the
question. I'VE have never contended," he
rise in the price of commodities impossible;
but our contention is that it keeps the aver
age price of all commodities below what ii
ought to be, and prevents the rises which
do occur from going as high as they would
under a system of bimetallism." This is an
entire change of base. The Bryanites did
contend last year that the low price of
wheat and other farm products was due
to the characterization of silver and it's con-
sequent depression in value, and that no
material advance in prices could be ex-
pected until silver was, to their phrase,
restored to its rightful place." Now they
say the recent advance in the price of
wheat is in spite of the gold standard, and
that with free silver the advance would
have been much greater Continuing, Mr.
Bailey says:
Our gold-standard friends ought to in
vestigate the question before they conclude
that the recent rise in the price of wheat
disproveS our assertion that money has
been appreciating since 1873. The records
are accessible to all, and these records
show that the average price of wheat on
the farms in the United States in 1873 was
$1.25 per bushel while the average farm
price this year Will not exceed Is Cents per e
bushel. If the value of money had not
changed the price of wheat would be great
because the wheat crop of the world out
side of the United States approaches nearer
to complete failure than it has in thirty
years.
If money" by which Mr.. Bailey evil
IDENTIFY means gold, has been approaching
ever since 1873, then prices of all farm
products should have steadily declined, in
stead of which they have undergone great
fluctuations, rising and falling through a
wide range. 1t is not true, as Mr.. Bailey
says that "the average price of wheat on
the farms in the United States in 1873 was
SIPS per bushel." Statistics show that it
was $1.15 bushel, and that when gold was
worth IA per cent premium. Wheat has
been higher in many years since 1873 than
it was that year. IF the value of money
has not changed" says Mr.. Bailey, 1.-The
price of wheat would be greater now than
it was twenty-four years ago. That asser-
ton is unauthorized and incapable of
proof. Perhaps it should be said, rather,
that it begs the question by assuming that
gold has greatly appreciated in value in
the last twenty-four years. Measured by |
labor which is the fairest standard, it has
not appreciated. The gold dollar will not
it did fifteen or twenty years ago, or in
more recent times. A days labor commands |
more money now than it did in 1873 before |
silver was demonetzed, and more than it |
did in 1879, when gold payments by the gov
eminent were restored. If gold has ma |
terially appreciated in value in the last |
twenty-five years then wages should have |
deprecated. Instead of that they have adj |
vanced.
AS intimated above the Democratic lead |
ers have themselves to thank for the pre- |
dicament in which they are now placed of |
having to explain the divergence of wheat |
and silver The Republicans had no part |
in the mock marriage between them, and |
even now they do not claim that the rise |
in wheat is due to anything but natural |
causes No party and no legislation can |
control the worlds crop or prices, but Re- |
publicans have a right to congratulate |
themselves that the present rise in the |
price of wheat and other farm products
has come during Republican administra-
ton and in such way as to completely |
disprove the wheat-silver doctrine preached |
by the Bryanites last year