The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-07-14


terday cease to shock the community and
cast gloom over many homes.
SENATOR TURPIE AND FREE SILVER
Senator Turpie decorated his recent
speech on the tariff bill with something be-
sides carefully elaborated phrases He
tackled on to it, like an ornamental tail to
kite, an argument in favor of the free
coinage of silver at the obsolete ratio of
l6 to l, which, an exposition of the Con-
stitution, was probably the most original
and ornate thing ever seen. With his
usual fondness for phrase-making he gave
this part of his speech the caption. "Ffan-
chse of the MINIS" That of itself is
Turpiean argument for it assumes that
the mints have been deprived of some
franchise to which they are entitled under
pie proceeds to demonstrate, is the right of
the free and unlimited coinage of silver at
10 TO l. The way he demonstrates it is
this: He first quotes the clause of the Con-
stitution which provides that 1.-THE Congress
snail have power to coin money and regu-
late the value thereof" Everybody knows
what that means and nobody doubts or dis
putes 1T. Then he quotes the clause which
says: mo State shall coin money or make
anything but gold and silver coin tender
for the payment of debts" That clause is
plain and easily understood-at least il is
easily understood by any person who does
not speak seven languages in favor of free
silver. Mr.. Turpie then proceeds to say
that three years after the Constitution con-
tanning these clauses was adopted Con-
gress passed a law providing for the free
coinage of gold and silver at fixed ratio
This is indisputable. This" says Mr.
Turpie, meaning this first coinage act of
Congress, was Interpretation contempora-
neous-a necessary, imperative and pri-
mary construction of the organic law. The
law is not changed to this day. 1t will
take the votes of three-fourths of the States
to change it." There you have the demon
stration Because three years after the
Constitution was adopted, Congress passed
a law providing for the free coinage of sill
yer and gold at a fixed ratio based on the
commercial value of the two metals at that
time, and because the provisions in the
Constitution relative to the coinage of
money have not been changed since that
time, therefore no succeeding Congress has
a right to change the ratio fixed by the
Congress of 1892, and the franchise of the
mint" to have silver coined free at 16 to l
exists in perpetuity. The senator concludes:
1t is not said anywhere that Congress
shall coin money; it is not said anywhere
bll1 no KrtlT
70 do both is given in the same words and
this power deVolves the duty upon us to
obey the language and the spirit of both
these grants. Both powers are of binding
obligation, are continuous and perpetual in
their operation, and as long and as con-
Stantly as we levy taxes and collect them
we ought to maintain the free coinage at
the minis of both metals. We have no
more power or right to abandon the free
the free courage of gold. We have no more
constitutional right TO abandon the coin
age Of both metals at the existing ratio as
q lawful tender In all payments tnan we
have to cease the levy and collection OF
taxes for the support of the government
1t is not likely that any learned lawyer
ever evolved a more unique, ornate and
picturesque constitutional argument in ia
vor Of anything than this one of Mr. Tur-
pies in favor of what he calls 1.-The fran
chise of the mint" The doctrine in the
Dartmouth College case, or that of perpet-
ual franchises, is mot in it, compared
with the Turpieau doctrine of the vested
rights of silver to be coined at twice its
market value. OF course, the fallacy of
the argument which Mr.. Turpie very in
geniously and dishonesty covers up with
a mass of words is in trying to make it
appear that in providing for the coinage of
1oa
for the free coinage of both metals, and
that the ratio fixed by the first Congress
was binding ali succeeding ones ire
spective of the relative values of the two
metals. By the same arguments the sched-
ules of the tariff bill passed by the same
Congress that passed the first coinage bill
should have been accepted as a constitu-
tional Interpretation of the powers of Con-
gress on the subject and continued UNI
changed for all time. That was a protec-
tive tariff bill. The preamble said: Where
as. it is necessary for the support of the
government, the discharge Of the debts
of the United States and the encourage
lnent and protection of manufactures that
duties be laid on goods, wares and mer-
chandise imported" The bill was a dis
tinctively protective one. If Mr.. Turpie
really believes that the passage by the first
Congress under the Constitution of free
coinage bill at 16 to l made that policy
perpetually binding he ought to vote for
the Dingley tariff bill. His constitutional
argument for free silver is worthy of the
cause.