The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1897-09-10
OHIO DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM
Its Assertions and Arguments Con-
sidered and Answered

Its Assertions and Arguments Con-
sidered and Answered.
hecosnizing that the money question is
paramount to all others at this time, we in
Hite attention TO the fact that the Constitu-
ton names silver and gold together as the
money metals of the United States.
1his statement is inaccurate and inten-
tionally misleading. The only place in
which the constitution names silver and
gold together" is where it declares that
no State shall make anything but gold
ana silver coin tender in payment of
debts 1t does not say that silver and
gold shall both be coined in an unlimited
manner or that either one or both shall be
coined at all, but specifically gives to Con-
gress the power to determine what the
coinage Of the United States shall be. both
as to the metals used and their relations,
by saying in explicit terms in section s:
1he Congress shall have power to coin
money and regulate the value thereof
II does not name silver and gold togeth-
er as the platform says, but names gold
and silver together. pontedly giving the
preference to gold by saying in section
10: No State shall make anything but
gold and silver coin payment for debts
II anything is to be inferred as to the re-
latlon which it intended that the two
metals should bear it is clearly that gold
was to be preferred. since it is first named
IN the only place where the metals are
mentioned. If the trainers of the platform
wanted to be frank. why did they not
follow the wording of the constitution in
their statement and say gold and silver
instead of reversing it and saying "silver
and gold?'
The first coinage law passed by Congress
under the Constitution made the silver dol
lar the money unit and admitted gold to free
coinage at n ratio bas sed upon the silver dol
lar unit.
The first coinage law clearly made gold
standard by first naming all the gold
CONS which. it said. should be of the
value of given number of units, and said
that the unit should be ''of the value of
Spanish miled dollar as the same is now
current, and to contain 416 grains of
standard silver" If the advocates of
silver insist that this act interpreted the
meaning of the constitution and that this
Interpretation must be followed. why do
they now insist upon standard silver dol
lar with only 1922 grains of silver in
stead of the 416 grains which the act
specifically names: BY their own propo-
sltion they demand violation of what
they claim is constitutional requirement.
This act which they claim is an interpre-
tauon of the constitution on this ques-
ton provides that every fifteen pounds
weight of pure silver shall be of equal
value ID all payments with one pound
weight of pure gold" If this is an inter
pretaton of the constitution why do these
sucklers for its observance propose to vio-
late it by saying that every sixteen
pounds weight of silver shall now be
equal to one pound of gold? Would there
not be equal authority for saving that
every seventeen or eighteen or twenty or
thirty pounds weight of silver shall be
equal to one pound weight of gold: BY
their own proposition to change the ratio
they admit that neither the constitution
nor the first act passed under it is binding
as to the future relations of gold and sill
yer as money. The fact that this act spe-
clhcally said that every fifteen pounds
weight of pure silver shall be of eunal
value with one pound weight of pure cold''
indicates that gold was intended TO be
the measure Of value. for had the trainers
of this act intended that silver should be
the measure they would have said that
one pound of gold should be equal in value
to fifteen pounds of silver. Alexander
dam'lton, who was one of the trainers of
the constitution and whose report to Con
gress was the basis of this act. said of
the alleged unit. the Spanish dollar. that
species of coin has never had any settled
or standard value while gold
has a fixed price by weight with an eve
to its fineness. This greater stability nf
the value of gold coins is an argument of
force for regarding the money unit as hav-
ing been hitherto virtually attached TO
gold rather than silver"
If the trainers of this platform insist
that the first COMA &c act passed under
the constitution is an exact Interpretation
OF the meaning of that instrument why
have they and their party always insisted
that protective tariff is a violation of the
constitution when they know that the
very first act passed under that constitu-
ton declared that the tariff duties which
1t levied were ''for the support of govern.
ment and the encouragement and protec.
ton of manufactures:
We declare that the act of 1873. demonetiz-
Ing silver without the knoniedge and an
proval of the American people, etc.
The act of 1873 did not demonetize sill
yer. as is claimed by this sentence of the
platform. The act itself says in specific
terms that this act shall not be con-
strued to affect any act done, right ac-
quired or penalty incurred under former
acts. but every such right is hereby saw
ed,' thus clearly stating that it DID not
demonetiZe any of the coins authorized
prior to that date, while every one of the
four hundred and fifty million standard
silver dollars coined since the passage of
that act is and has constantly been full
legal tender. and none of them is or has
been demonetiZed
The act of 1873 was not passed with
out the knowledge and approval of the
American people as the platform asserts
1t was submitted to Congress in April
1870, printed thirteen times, discussed at
intervals until Jan. /, 1873 (nearly three
years., the debates and discussions filling
144 pages of the Congressional Record.
which was published daily during the ses-
sions in which it was discussed. The
American people had ample opportunity
to know all Of its provisions, and that
there was no popular disapproval of it is
shown by the fact that 112 Of the mem
bers of the House which passed it were
reelected, many of them continuing to
serve in Congress to the end of their
4. H.