The Monitor-register., 1897-05-21
WHAT JACKSON DID.
CRUSHED BANKS IN ORDER TO Re-
STORE GOLD TO CIRCULATION.

CRUSHED BANKS IN ORDER TO RE-
STORE GOLD TO CIRCULATION.
changed Ratio From Fifteen to Sixteen to
One to Bring Gold Back-was One Who
Thought That All Mankind Had a Pred |
Election For GoId-silverites Who Euio-
gize jackson Should Read History.
The silver Democrats have been I'M
usually ~profuse this year in eulogies of
Jefferson and Jackson. They have at
tempted to make it appear to those
with Democratic instincts that it has
been the regular thing for 100 years for
Democratic statesmen to champion sill
yer and cheap money. Jefferson's oppo-
sition to cheap money and reputation
of debts, and his advocacy of a coinage
ratio which should always be kept close
to the natural or market ratio, has been
made clear during the last few months.
The appeals of the silver Democrats
to General jackson are meeting with
the same fate. In a recent speech
ex- Congressman Josiah Patterson of
Tennessee, after calling attention to the
fact that previous to 1875 no American
statesman of any party approved of the
absurd doctrine that government can
maintain bimetallism regardless of nat
ural ratios, spoke at some length upon
Jackson's position on money and cur
rency. Here is what he said:
Nothing within the range of po-
litino1 ahSo1.lify oonll or,,,1 a. -
tacle presented by the followers of Bry-
an when they met on the 9Th of Janua-
ry to eulogi2e jackson, who
ly restored the gold currency.
Have these gentlemen ever paused
long enough in their assault on the pros
perity Of the country to inquire why it
was during Jackson's administration
the ratio was changed from 10 to 16 to
1? If, as they teach the people, we had
the concurrent circulation of gold and
silver from the passage of the act of
1893 down to the suspension of the coin
age of the silver dollar in 1878, why
was this change made? Are they igno-
rant, or do they disguise the fact that
after the act of 1893 gold relatively to
silver was u~ndervalued and went out of
circulation because it was worth q lit
tie more as bullion than as money? Do
they forget or do they suppress the fact
that gold remained out of circulation
for more than 80 years prior to 1884?
Are they uniformed, or do they
conceal the fact that statesmen %illustri-
GUS i'll Democratic annals for many
years prior to the administration of
Jackson advocated the restoration of the
gold currency? Have they never read
history, or do they withhold the truth,
when they ignore the fact that the bank
of the United States selfishly opposed
the restoration because the people would
prefer its bank notes to a currency so
bulky and inconvenient as silver? 1t
was jackson who saw the necessity for
action, and who struck the blow which
crushed the bank and brought hard
money to the pockets of the people. 1t
was Thomas H. Benton, speaking for
the administration of Jackson, who de-
clared in the senate that the only way
to crush the power of the bank was to
restore gold to circulation. Here was
the necessity and the only reason for
the passage of the act of 1884 establish
ing the ratio of 16 to /.
1.-The similarity between the discus
sion which took place in 1884 and the
discussion which took place in 1896 is
striking and instructive. Hard money
Democrats, in supporting the policy of
jackson, advanced the same arguments
which the sound money Democrats ad-
vanced in supporting the policy of
Cleveland. If the hard money Dem
ocrats insisted that the differentiation
of gold by the act Of 1872 forced it out
of circulation, the sound money Dem
ocrats insisted that the proposition in
the Chicago platform to overvalue sill
! yer, if carried into effect, would bring
about the same result.
eff the hard money Democrats recog-
| nized that the act of 1899 had no per-
ceptible influence on the commercial
value Of either gold or silver, and the
only way to restore gold to circulation
was to change the ratio, the sound mon
ey Democrats recognized that the free
mintage of silver at the ratio of 16 to /
| when the market ratio was SO to /
| would result inevitably in silver mono
| metallism. If the hard money DEM
ocrats commended ''that all mankind had
a prediction for gold, the sound mon
| ey Democrats contended that a gold
standard was preferable to a silver
| standard. If the hard money Democrats,
in order to maintain the gold currency
/ when restored, undervalued silver by
making the coinage ratio l6 to 1 when
l &Lo ,oorlof Tofin xroS TX "a fn I tha
sound money Democrats resisted the
| scheme to overvalue silver so as to
| force the retirement of gold. If the hard
/ money Democrats, after the passage of
| the act of 1884, pointed with pride and
| exultation to the prosperity which fol
| lowed the restoration of the gold cur
rency, the sound money Democrats have
never faltered i'll warning their coun-
| trymen of the disaster which would fol-
low it's retirement.
1.-THE truth is the country is indebted
to the hard money Democrats, of whom
| jackson was the chief, for the gold
standard. | could go on and show how
| the act of 1884 had an effect exactly op-
| posite to that of 1792, how under the
| operations of the same infiexible eco
| nomic law gold wen out of circulation
under the one and silver under the 9TH
er, how congress in 1853, OF account of
| the retirement of silver, was forced to
| coin it as subsidiary money in order to
| supply the people with small change,
| and how the silver dollars ceased to
flow from the minis and gold was coin
| ed in great quantities. But this is for
eign to my text.
"My purpose is to show that the adj
vocates of the Chicago platform have
no right to e%onjure with the name of
Andrew Jackson. That platform has no
precedent in the history and traditions
of the Democratic party. 1t promises a
| new dispensation in monetary science
never dreamed of in the philosophy Of
Its great leaders.
Silver Standard q Drawback.
M. Leroy-Beaulieu, the French econ
omist, writing to the Journal des De-