Hot Springs weekly star. (Hot Springs, S.D.) 1892-1917, 1897-09-10
OHIO DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM,
Its Assertions and Arguments Con.
siucrcl and Answcreh

naralnouni 10 all others at this fine, we In.
W. attention to the fact that the Constitu-
.ioM names silver and gold together as the
money metals of the United States.
MS 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 n tender in payment of
debts. 1T does not say that silver and
gold shall both he coined liz an unlimited
m;llner or that either one or both shall he
coined ut nll. but specifically gives to Con
grcss the power Ia determine What the
coinage of the United States shall be. both
as 1" l'le metals lisc,! and their relations.
by saving in explicit terms in section s.:
"Ihc Congress shall have power to coin
money and regulate the value thereof"
III does not 'nainc silver AID gold tusrtl-
err MS the platform says. but names gold
ana silver together. pointc,.!y giving the
preference to gold by sayin. in section
lo: \ State shall make anythin. hut
gold and silver coin IL payment for debts"
III anything is To be inferred rs 10 the re-
la'lon which it intended that the two
metals should bear it is clearly that gold
Wls to he preferred. since it is first named
1n the only place where the metals are
mentioned. If the trainers of the platform
wanted to he 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 soldy"
The first coinage law passed by Congress
unuer the Constitution made the silver dol
var tiie money unit and admitted gold tn free
coinage ut 4; ratio based upon the silver dol
lar uiiir.
The first coinage law clearly made gold
a standard by first naming all the gold
coins which, it said. should be of the
value of II given number of units, and said
that the unit should be ''ot the value of
a Spanish millcd dollar us the same is now
current. and to contain 416 grains of
standard silver" 1T the advocates of
silver insist that this act interpreted the
meaning of the constitution and that this
Interpretation must he followed, why do
they ROW insist upon Il standard silver dol
lar with only 1921. grains of silver in
stead of the 416 grains which the act
specifically names? BY their own propo-
sition they demand Il violation of what
they claim is IL constitutional requirement..
This act which they claim is an interprc-
tation of the constitution on this ques-
ton provides that every fifteen pounds
weight of pure silver shall be of equal
value in all payments with one pound
weigh of pure gold" If this is an inter-
probation of the constitution why do these
SUCKERS 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 saying that
every seventeen or eighteen or twenty OF
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 ms money. The fact that this act spc-
officially said that every fifteen pounds
weight of pure silver shall be of equal
value with one pound weight of pure gold'
indicates that gold was intended to bc
the measure of value. for had the trainers
of his 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
Hamilton. who was one of the trainers of
the constitution and whose report to Con-
srcss was the basis of this act. said of
the alleged unit. the Spanish dollar, .that
lN'iN vi WIFI HIS llSNSt uttI stIlN SpIVleu
or standard value = II y while gold
has a fixed price by weight with an rye
to its tineness. This grcater stability of
tile 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 coinage act passed under
the constitution is an exact interpretation
OF the meaning of that instrument, why
have they and their party always insisted
that a protective tariff is Il violation of the
constitution when they know that the
very first act passed under thai constit,l-
ton declared that the tariff duties which
it levied were for the support of govern.
mcnt and the encouragement and protec-
ton of manufacturers
We declare that the act of 1919. dcmonetiz-
ing silver without the knowledge and an.
prevail of the American people. etc.
The act of 1873 did not demonctize 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-
strucd to affect amy act done, right ac-
quircd or penalty incurred under former
acts, but every such right is hereby saw.
ed" thus clearly stating that it did not
0ciuouStIIe lilly ol lue COILS authorized
prior to that date. while every one of the
four hr"dred and fifty million standard
silver d,.lars coined since the passage of
that act is and has constantly been a full
legal tender. and hone Of them is or has
been demonetizcd.
The act of 1873 was not passed "witi,-
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 Mt
intervals until Jan. 1. 1873 NEARLY three
years., the debates and discussions filling
IA pages of the Congressional Record.
which was published daily during the SEES.
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
hers Of the House which passed it were
reelected, many of them continuing to
serve in Congress to the end of their
lives, while several are still members Of
that body. notably William NJ. Stewart
of Nevada, who voted for the bill and