The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-04-18
SELF-CONDENNED.

SELF-CONDEMNED.
The ST. Paul Globe criticises the presi-
dent because the three international monetary
blmetallism commissioners are not men more
pronounced upon the side of the gold advo-
Gates.
On this score we are inclined to the opinion
mat the U is somewhat inconsistent.
Inc OBJECT OF the commission is to bring about
II possible, international bimetalIism.
II the commissioners were all gold standard
advocates they would not be in harmony with
the object to be attained. Yet there is little
nope that with the present commission it can
lnduce england to change her present none
tary policy to conform to the requirements OF
this Recommendations Herald.
We do not think that our esteemed
contemporary can find any inconsis-
tency in the position Of the G l o e
upon this question. Without resurrect-
ing here the arguments for or against
the two financial systems that met
in deadly combat last November. we
think it perfectly fair and right to say
that President Mckinley has recorded
the just condemnation of himself and
his administration by the act referred
to. If ''the object Of the commission
is to bring about, if possible, interna-
tional bimetallism," then, as the
G o b e has already said, that end
can be best promoted by sending to
1t as our representatives men of moder-
ate views, prepared to make necessary
concessions. To man who reads the
history of recent conferences of this
kind it will appear that they came to
naught principally because Of the ex-
IRENE views held by representatives
of the opposing schools. Between
Great Britain standing at one end with
the flag of unqualified gold monometaI-
lism flying, and the United States at
the other under the banner of unquali-
fed silver monometallism, no middle
ground could be discovered One may
read in the report of the last confer
ence the speech with which Senator
Jones, of Nevada, consumed the better
part of the session and be impressed at
once with the idea that if a man Just
as friendly to silver as he, but more
moderate in thought and in manner
had stood in his place, something prac-
teal might have resulted. France and
Germany have usually been willing,
and are, we believe, now, to take some
steps toward an international agree
ment for bimetallism. They are not
more hindered by the stubborn posi-
ton of Great Britain on the one
hand than they are by the equally IN
conditional obstinacy Of the United
States on the other.
SO it is not the idea Of the Clio b e
for one monument that it would have
been proper to constitute this commits
sion Of solid gold standard advocates.
1t would not have been in accord with
the desires Of our people or even with
that platform which Mr.. Mckinley has
definitely abandoned Our esteemed
contemporary should not practice the
common vice of passing from one ex-
IRENE to its opposite without finding
any middle ground. What the G1ob e
says Is, first, that a representation
from the United States at the confer
ence having majority of believers in
the. free coinage Of silver at the ratio
of Is to L is not helpful to the cause Of
bimetallism; and, second, that his action
stamps President Mckinley with the
brand Of insincerity, of falsity to
platform pledges and of treachery to
the people who elected him.
We think a simple. comparison will
make this very clear. There was one
issue and only one in the last cam
paign that commanded the attention o
the people. Whether wisely or not,
the gold standard system prevailed as
against the silver standard system.
Surely, with the sacrifices that were
made and the efforts that were put
forth in that campaign, the will of the
people, as finally expressed on this
great question, ought to be put into
effect. Suppose, now, that Mr.. Bryan
had been elected president Under the
provision that both parties should be
represented on this commission, what
would he have done? He must have
appointed as it's members two free
silver Democrats and one gold stand
ard Republican. Mr.. Mckinley has
assigned his appointments on the main
issue in exactly the same proportion
We have, therefore, a tremendous con-
f1ict for naught, and the position of
the administration on the issue
submitted to the people last year
made precisely the same under Repub-
lican success that it would have been
under Democratic.
We say that this is not merely dis
appointing, but dishonest. We say
that it must necessarily destroy any
faith that credulous people put in Re-
publican promises last fall, and de-
termine every Democrat who was fool
ish enough at that time to support