The herald., 1897-07-06

stead of his. If the burning was by
accident, the man would say "how for
| tunate we were that 1t was our wnead
that was saved and the other wneat
| that was burned" But suppose the
fellow actually burned the other wheat
| in order to make his own wheat more
valuable? You would send him to the
penitentiary on the charge OF arson.
THE ILLUSTRATION APPLIED.
Apply that illustration to the money
question. Here you have two piles OF
money. a gold pile and silver pile.
They are about the same in value
measured at existing ratios. Inc
| world has labored for six thousand
years to find gold and silver, has con-
| verted gold and silver into money anu
has saved the money, and yet after an
| their toll and saving the world has Just
about as much of coined silver as II
has of coined gold. Here are the Two
great piles of money. Under bimetal-
! ism they furnish the foundation OF
| the worlds commerce. Suppose you
destroy one pile of the money. Wape
| it out of existence as standard money
| no matter whether it be by ACCIDENT OF
| sinks into the sea, or by law Is denied
| monetary use, you annihilate II as
| standard money. you compel the Woriu
| to do dts business with the gold alone.
| What is the result? Why in the first
place. you learn that every dollar in
money will rise in value. When wheat
arose in value each bushel Of wheat
brought more money. When money
rises in value, each dollar Of money
buys more wheat. What is the second
thing you learn? Why the man who
owns the money profits by the rise. He
has the same number of dollars. His
| dollars increase in purchasing power.
He profits by the rise. Instead of
| owning money he owns contracts pay
able in dollars; he provides also In his
contracts for the same NUMBER OF
dollars and those dollars are Of higher
purchasing power. What is the third
thing you learn? Why that man is
| very apt to be glad that money rose
in value instead Of falling. But, my
friends if it is accidental. If the money
| rises in value without his volition,
then he is simply fortunate that his
property has raised instead of falling.
| But suppose the owners of money and
holders of fixed investments get
together and destroy. half the
make the other half rise in value.
where is the difference between arson
in burning the wheat and patriotism IN
making the dollar dearer? II men
legislate for that purpose and the
proposition is to raise the value or the
dollars which they hold and the notes
which they hold, I want to ask you,
my friend, where in morals, is the
difference between taking the money
outright by force, or by fraud, and the
greed of the legislation that transfers
into the pockets of the money-owning
and the money changing classes the
fruits of the toll of the millions Of the
world who are suffering from falling
prices, while the owners of fixed invest
ments have proflted by the rise in the
value of money? I think, my friends.
that the illustrations which I give you
explain the effect of legislation and
also explain who is benefited by the
gold standard. But lest some may
doubt, I want to add the reason and
authority of three men whose names
you will all recognize.
WHAT SHERMAN SAID.
Mr.. Sherman, now Secreary of State,
made a speech in the Senate OF the
United States in 1869, in which he
stated that the contraction of the cur
rency meant more distress than the
Senators generally supposed. He said
that to every one except the capitalists
| out of debt, the Salaried officer and the
annuitants it was a period causing
suspension of enterprise and bank
| ruptcy? And who are exempt? The CAPT
talist out of debt the salaried officer
and the annuitant. Why? Because as
prices fall the capitalist out Of debt,
the salaried officer and the annuitant
draw in the same amount Of money,
and as their money arose in value they
profted instead of suffering.
Mr. Blaine spoke on this subject in
1878. and he said that the destruction
of silver as money, and the establish
ing of gold as the sole unit of value
would have a ruinous effect upon all
| forms of property except-except what?
| Except from investments which yield
a fixed return in money. These he
said would be enormously enhanced
in value and would gain disproport.cn-
ately an unfair advantage over all
other forms Of property. That is the
| testimony of Mr.. Blaine-that the de-
struction of silver money and the es-
| tablshing of gold as the sole unit OF
value would have ruinous effect upon
all forms of property except invest
ments which yield fixed return in
| money
Let me give you another. John G.
Carlisle spoke on this subject in 1878.
He said that the enforcement of the
Bland Act could be entrusted to
| public official who was in sympathy
sympathy with what? lii sympathy
with the struggling masses who FRO
| duced the wealth and paid the taxes of
the country rather than with the idle
| holders Of idle capital, and the amend
ment then under discussion would be
of little Importance, because we would
| coin the maximum instead OF the
minimum provided by law.
Here are three witnesses. The one
| the Secretary of State, another after
| ward Secretary of State; another has
been Secretary of the Treasury. Here
| are three men. No one of them can
now be accused of being a silver
| fanatic, and yet these three men di-
| vide and associate into two classes, and
on one side they put those that Sherman
describes as capitalists out Of debt,
| those that Blaine described as the
holders of fixed investment and those
that Carlisle described as the idle
| holder of idle capital" And on the
other side they put what Carlisle de-
scribed as "the struggling masses, who
| produce the wealth and pay the taxes
of the country" Did he praise them toe
highly?
THE STRUGGLING MASSES.
All, my friends, the struggling
| masses not only produce the wealth
and pay the taxes in time of peace,
but the struggling masses are the only
people who ever saved the nation when
| it needed to go to war. This is the
division which has been made by these
three men. We don't call them dema-
gogues. 1 don't apply to them that
name, because they pointed out this
doctrine. Why should I be called a
| demagogue if I repeat what he says?
On the one side we have the owners
of fixed investments, the owners of
money. On the other side you have
the struggling masses. Owners OF